Thursday, 17 April 1986 Madam SPEAKER (Hon. Joan Child) took the chair at 10 a.m., and read prayers. Motion (by Mr Young) agreed to: That the House, at its rising, adjourn until Tuesday 29 April 1986, unless Madam Speaker fixes an alternative day or hour of meeting. Debate resumed from 19 March, on motion by Mr John Brown: That the Bill be now read a second time. Madam SPEAKER —Order! I understand it is the wish of the House to debate the Australian Wine and Brandy Corporation Amendment Bill 1986 concurrently with the Grape Research Levy Bill 1986, the Grape Research Levy Collection Bill 1986, the Wine Grapes Levy Amendment Bill 1986 and the Wine Research Repeal Bill 1986. There being no objection, that course will be followed. Mr HUNT(Gwydir)(10.02) —The Opposition does not oppose the Australian Wine and Brandy Corporation Amendment Bill 1986, the Grape Research Levy Bill 1986, the Grape Research Levy Collection Bill 1986, the Wine Grapes Levy Amendment Bill 1986 and the Wine Research Repeal Bill 1986. But it has some reservations about the Australian Wine and Brandy Corporation and will monitor its operation and review its purpose in government. There has been a very divided response to this legislation from the industry, although the Wine and Brandy Corporation has not requested or suggested that it should be opposed. These five Bills introduce wide-ranging changes to the Australian wine and brandy industry. Not unexpectedly, the changes have been the subject of some controversy within the industry. This controversy arises in the first instance to some extent from the lack of consultation with the industries by the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Kerin) about the changes affecting various farm industries. In most cases, when Bills have come before this House, the Opposition has had the task of explaining to the peak industry bodies what was in the legislation and what it meant to members of those bodies. I suggest to the Minister that he would better serve himself, his Government and the industries that he is here to assist and to administer if he were to enter into meaningful consultations with the representatives of those industries. I know that a Minister's life is a very busy one and I know how difficult it is to make adequate time available to see all the people who wish to see you. But the role of government surely is to introduce laws after consultation with those sections of the community to which those laws apply. That is very important; in fact it is fundamental. We are the government of the people, for the people, by the people. The role of government surely is not to stand astride in some dictatorial sense the various groups in the Australian community. Unless the Minister for Primary Industry recognises that he has a responsibility to legislate and to administer to the benefit of the industries generally, he is really accepting money under false pretences for the job that taxpayers and others are paying him to do. All Ministers have an obligation to work closely with organisations to ensure that the legislation introduced into this Parliament, firstly is in the best interests of the community and, secondly, does not run counter to the needs of the industries. I say that in passing because, as the shadow Minister, I have found that we have had to provide the industries with copies of the legislation. There has not been consultation and therefore there is a reaction to what the Government is trying to do because a degree of ignorance flows from that type of situation. The Minister should not be surprised that his legislation has often met with criticism from farm leaders because they do not know what the Government is doing to them. In almost every facet of the Minister's administration he has run into difficulties with industry groups. Time and time again the Opposition and the Australian Democrats have had to stop the Minister in his tracks in the Senate, forcing him to go back to the grower organisations to negotiate a reasonable result. I will give a couple of examples. Firstly, there was the Wheat Board Bill. The Opposition held it up in the Senate until the Minister went back to the Australian Wheatgrowers Federation to arrange a more acceptable composition and structure of that Board. Secondly, there was the notable Dairy Industry Bill which was introduced into this Parliament last year. It was introduced after there had been an agreement between the State Ministers and the industry on a plan. That was almost concurrent with the Victorian State election campaign. The Premier of Victoria, Mr Cain, wanted to give the impression to everybody that there was no further anxiety or doubt as to what the Federal Government would do and that all would be well after the Saturday election. What happened was that the agreement that was reached on the Thursday before the Victorian State election ultimately became no agreement at all, because a fortnight later-after the election-we were told that there was no such agreement. As a consequence the Democrats and the Opposition held up that legislation to get the Minister to consult the industry. I think the Minister's attitude is far too defensive. It is no good his going into his bunker and assuming that everybody does not trust him. I have heard it said in this Parliament that he is the best Minister for Primary Industry that this nation has ever had. If that is so he ought to go in a confident manner to talk with these industries rather than drop legislation into this place without having consultation. He would earn a better reputation if he were to do that. Few producer or wine maker representatives were aware of the precise contents of these Bills, although many of the issues addressed by them were aired last year in the grape and wine industry inquiry. Mr Cadman —That is a familiar story. Mr HUNT —As the honourable member for Mitchell says, this is a great story. It is an unfortunate story and it is about time the Minister advised industry leaders of the precise contents of the legislation he intends to bring into this Parliament. Surely that is the least the industries can expect. Most of the industry organisations to whom Opposition members have spoken about these Bills had to request copies of the Bills from my office. I do not know what the Minister's office is about, whether it is the Minister or whether it is his Department that is responsible for this. I do not think it is his Department because it never behaved this way before. Whoever is responsible, it is just not good enough. The functions of the Australian Wine and Brandy Corporation will be amended in several ways. The membership will be cut from 14 to eight part time members who will now be appointed by a selection committee. The eight members will comprise a chairperson, a government member and six others drawn from one or more of the fields of wine making, grape growing, marketing, finance, administration or business management. There is no requirement for a minimum number of members to be representing industry growers, although no industry body has expressed concern to me on that point. In this context it is noteworthy that the Minister told Parliament: It is not appropriate that the Board comprise persons to represent various sectors of the industry but rather that they have the skills appropriate to their corporate responsibilities. The selection committee will have a presiding member appointed by the Minister and an unspecified number of nominees from declared wine making organisations. I call upon the Minister to clarify his intentions in his response to the second reading debate. The Minister is not in the House but I think a representative from his office or the Department is present. I would be grateful if in the wrap-up of this debate, that point could be noted. Actually, this is a bit of an outrage; I do not think there is a Department of Primary Industry representative of the Minister in the House. Where is the Minister for Primary Industry? Where is the Australian Labor Party rural task force? The Minister for Arts, Heritage and Environment (Mr Cohen) is here-he is not a bad Minister, either; at least he is in the chamber-and two others. But where is the Minister for Primary Industry? Where are his officers? What is the point of our debating this wretched thing? This is a ruddy outrage! In all the years I have been associated with the Parliament I have never seen such a state of affairs. Yesterday, when we brought into the chamber another issue the Minister walked out. Where is he? He is like Gaddafi-we cannot find him. I think it is an outrage. I repeat-I hope somebody in the Minister's office or Department is listening, because we need to have some answers to these issues: The selection committee will have a presiding member appointed by the Minister and an unspecified number of nominees from declared wine maker organisations. We want to know what the Minister's intentions are because ultimately this Bill has to go through the Senate. Unless there are satisfactory answers, we might have to hang this legislation on a hook. Research functions of the wine and grape industries will be altered, with some powers transferred out of the Corporation into a new research body created under the provisions of last year's Rural Industries Research Act. Specifically, the production element of research transfers or goes from the hands of the Corporation to a new grape and wine industry research council. Marketing research will continue to be the responsibility of the Corporation. Last year's inquiry revealed very strong support among most wine makers for the work carried out by the Australian Wine Research Institute. This Institute has been retained because, to use a well worn adage, if you know you are on a good thing you might as well stick to it. That is the attitude of most producers and it is an attitude that we support. Under these Bills two separate levies will be struck. The first will continue a levy for wine research which is expected to be allocated in large part to the Australian Wine Research Institute and the second will open up new research in viticulture. A separate levy will be struck to fund the Corporation, with revised funding arrangements to ease some of the load on several major wine making companies. I am aware of questions raised by the larger wine makers about the need to continue a wine and brandy corporation. I have been concerned that larger wine makers have not been particularly in favour of its continuance. I will return to that matter. The levies will be struck as follows: The first levy on wine makers is a maximum of $5 per tonne of fresh grape equivalent to fund the activities of the Corporation. The operative rate will be $3. The second levy, also on wine makers, is a maximum of $3 for payment to the Grape and Wine Research Council for wine research. The operative rate will be $1.30. Thirdly, grape growers will pay a new levy of 50c maximum, with an operative rate of 30c, to fund viticulture research. These funds will be allocated to research bodies and individuals through the research councils. I make one specific point on these levies. The levy on wine makers for wine research appears to be the subject of a misprint in the legislation. Honourable members will note that the Minister told the House that this levy would be struck at a maximum of $3 per tonne, but proposed new sub-section 6 (2) in clause 4 of the Wine Grapes Levy Amendment Bill shows a maximum of $2. I do not know whether the Minister intends that the levy will be struck at $3 or $2 per tonne. I presume that it will be at $3 per tonne. I understand that there are to be some amendments to this legislation at some stage. I received some notification about that this morning. I do not know where the Minister is, whether he will come into the chamber to move the amendments or whether somebody else will have to do it. I do not know what he is about. However, I call on the Minister to clarify this point and, if necessary, to move a Committee stage amendment to correct this apparent anomaly. Another significant change in these Bills is the abolition of the existing Wine Research Trust Fund. This abolition is justified in view of the creation of the new research arrangements. I believe that the Minister has acted in good faith by splitting up the $800,000 in the Trust Fund in two ways, with $300,000 being channelled into the new research council and the balance of about $500,000 going directly to the Australian Wine Research Institute. The latter step is positive; it is the correct way to go. The Wine Research Institute clearly has played a valuable role and this allocation will help maintain its research effort. Considering the overall effects of these Bills, I would expect that Commonwealth outlays in 1987 will be in the order of $250,000 more than the current level of funding to the industry. The new levy arrangements will significantly alter the burden on several large scale wine makers. Previously they carried the lion's share of the funding for the Corporation and they have questioned-I accept with some validity-whether they need to continue funding that Corporation when some of their own activities could be seen to overlap those of the Corporation. I hope that the new arrangements, especially the $20,000 ceiling, will help to redistribute that burden so that it will apply more equitably to the industry. Mr Andrew —Wise. Mr HUNT —Is the honourable member happy with that? Mr Andrew —Yes, it is wise. Mr HUNT —I think so. The Opposition believes that the new arrangement should be very carefully monitored. Some reservations have been expressed about the ceiling-that it did not produce sufficient equity between those who would benefit most and the Corporation. As I said earlier, we will monitor the operations closely. Should the large wine makers continue to express dissatisfaction, there will be a clear case for a major review of the levies-unless there are positive results from the efforts of the Corporation. That is the most important thing because there is a surplus of grapes and wine. It is very important to maximise opportunities for further sales here and abroad. Other aspects of the legislation which should be placed on record include, first, the removal of a latent power in the existing Australian Wine and Brandy Corporation Act which has never been used. This is the power of the Corporation to buy or sell on a commercial basis. Secondly, the Corporation will submit annual and five-yearly plans to the Minister and its annual general meeting will be open to questions from the floor. That is a good idea. Thirdly, the new research councils will submit annual and three-, four- or five-yearly plans and will also be accountable to the industry through an annual report and an annual general meeting. The Opposition has elected to give these Bills passage but it is cognisant of a range of concerns put forward by various sections of the wine and grape industries. Some of these concerns were outlined in the report of the inquiry handed down last year. I am especially concerned by the ongoing criticism expressed by the large wine makers that they will continue to shoulder more than what they consider to be a fair share of the levy burden. They appear to prefer the abolition of the Wine and Brandy Corporation but the problem with that is that the smaller growers are not as capable of doing the promotional work as are the larger ones. It could well put the smaller wine growers at a great disadvantage if the Corporation were wiped out. So we have had two quite distinctive responses from the industry on this issue. The Minister would be well advised to sort out those concerns with the wine makers before this ongoing problem festers into a more intense dispute within the industry. I draw to the attention of the House concerns expressed to me by Mr Angoves regarding the decision announced by this Government to abolish the maturation requirements for brandy, whisky and rum. Mr Lloyd —That was a sneaky move. Mr HUNT —Well, it certainly appears to have been, because his company represents what is considered to be the largest distiller of high quality brandy in Australia. Mr Porter —In the Riverland, in my electorate. Mr HUNT —That is tremendous. I can assure honourable members that he is in a good electorate. Once again this Government has ignored the wishes of the industry affected by its decisions. Industry organisations submitted to the Government in 1984 their support for the retention of the maturation requirements. The Australian Wine and Brandy Producers Association, whose members account for 87 per cent of grapes crushed, has continued to support maturation in wood for two years. The Association at its last meeting rejected the proposal to abolish the maturation requirement. Now, out of the blue, the industry made the announcement on 12 March of this year that the compulsory maturation requirements in the Spirits Act 1906 are to be terminated in four years time. The Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce (Senator Button) and the Minister for Primary Industry, in an effort to allay anticipated industry concerns with this announcement, stated that there would be a continuing requirement in State and Territories' food standards legislation for maturation of these spirits. The Ministers have conveniently overlooked the lack of policing power for the States' requirements and the distinct likelihood that the States may well follow the Commonwealth lead in abolishing these requirements. Primary producers have again received a completely worthless assurance from this Labor Government, which is blatantly allowing primary production in this country to slide into difficulties. The Government's stated desire in abolishing the maturation requirements is to remove unnecessary regulation of the business sector, which I suppose can be seen to be a commendable decision, but this should not be at the expense of leaving the producers of a genuine quality product exposed to competition from adulterated products which may well lead to a general downgrading of the quality of fortified spirits. Brandy in particular soaks up a large amount of wine grapes for the two-year maturation period. Mr Andrew —Particularly surpluses. Mr HUNT —Absolutely. The abolition of the maturation requirements may well lead to a savagely reduced demand for grapes to replenish stocks to the point where there could be no intake of grapes to produce spirit for three to four years. This would markedly increase the shock of adjustment in the wine and grape industry, an industry which is already struggling to adjust to severe times. Again this Government has shown a remarkable incapacity to comprehend the full impact of its decisions and it obviously has no regard for the immense hardships it is creating in the bush. Tuesday's rural statement has underscored this fact. I wish to voice concern in this debate over a further matter that has arisen today which will outrage not only the wine and grape growers but all sectors of the farm industries, particularly the wine and grape industry. I refer to the Government's actions in relation to the proposed quarantining of farm losses from income earned off-farm. Senator Walsh said in the other place: As a point of fact it is quite wrong to say that there has been a reversal of the stated intention to abandon the quarantining of farm losses. This is relevant to the industry, because so many people in this industry earn other income off- farm. The Minister for Primary Industry, in his rural statement, and again in the accompanying booklet, stated clearly that the Government would be considering `more closely targeted remedies' but that the Government `. . . . will not proceed with its proposals on quarantining farm losses and related changes in averaging'. Who is right? Senator Walsh has directly challenged the Primary Industry Minister's statement that the decision not to proceed with the quarantining proposal will cost the government $65m in the first year and $45m in subsequent years in revenue forgone. He said that because the decision on quarantining has not been reversed, these figures are therefore incorrect. He then went on to say: Accordingly, the estimated $65m in 1987-88 and $45m in subsequent years to revenue of the modification to quarantine measures will be partly offset by other initiatives. That takes us back to what he said yesterday in the Senate: It is quite wrong to say that there has been a reversal. He said it was quite wrong, and yet people have been led to believe otherwise. I saw headlines in newspapers `Quarantine proposals to be dumped', but apparently they are not going to be dumped at all. This has blown a hole in the credibility of the farm package. Mr Lloyd —Another hole. Mr HUNT —Another hole. Mr Lloyd —It was an unholy document to begin with! Mr HUNT —Really it was an unholy document anyway, as the honourable gentleman says. But this matter must be clarified. It was no good the Minister saying yesterday that he will ask the Treasurer (Mr Keating). Where is the Treasurer? He is overseas. The Minister for Primary Industry is not even here in the chamber. It is no wonder that the farmers are out there today handing out pamphlets and leaflets, and it is no wonder that they are marching up and down giving a burial to this document entitled `Economic and Rural Policy'. This document has no credibility whatsoever. This was supposed to be the most comprehensive statement on primary industry ever made in Australian history since Federation. Senator Walsh has blown a hole right through the centre of it in respect of that quarantining provision, which was a central piece of the whole ruddy package. I said yesterday that I thought that the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) ought to get these two Ministers together and get them to sort out their dispute and to clarify the issue, because it would be an incredible thing- Madam SPEAKER —Order! I remind the honourable gentleman that we are discussing the Australian Wine and Brandy Corporation Amendment Bill. He has strayed off the path a little. Mr HUNT —The grape growers and the wine producers and so on are going to have the wool pulled over their eyes, and one must be worried about the wine producers and the grape growers. They have got to be worried about Senator Walsh, too, I think. I think he is after their blood. I think it is necessary for the Minister to make the issue clear. I refer to one final matter. The Government introduced a 10 per cent sales tax on wines in the 1984 Budget. The report of the inquiry into the grape and wine industries of April 1985 recorded almost unanimous opposition to the principle of a tax on wines. The committee concluded that wine consumption is relatively price elastic in the longer term and that an increase in the price to the consumer of 10 per cent is likely over the longer term to result in wine consumption being at least 10 per cent less. Why does the Government insist on taxing primary producers to the obvious detriment of their livelihood? This is yet another example of the Government's attitude and its total disregard for the interests of the average farmer. Finally, in all seriousness I call on the Minister for Primary Industry to take some interest in this debate and to answer some of the points that the Opposition has raised and also to give some clear indication as to what sort of measures will be brought in this place to replace those dreadful, iniquitous and discriminatory quarantining tax measures which he says have been abandoned but which the Minister for Finance says have only been modified. Madam SPEAKER —Order! I point out to the honourable member for Gwyder-I was reluctant to interrupt him-that he was anticipating debate on another matter listed on the blue sheet for debate later today. I hope that other speakers on this Bill will realise that the matter is already listed. Mr SIMMONS(Calare)(10.30) —I wish to take a few minutes during this debate to comment on the series of Bills before the House, paying specific attention to the Australian Wine and Brandy Corporation Amendment Bill. This Bill revises the membership, the method of operation and the funding of the Australian Wine and Brandy Corporation to make it more cost effective and to provide for more even distribution of funding across levy payers. It also implements other changes consistent with the Government's January 1986 White Paper on the reform of statutory marketing authorities in the Commonwealth. It is important in the context of that paper-a very significant paper as far as the future of primary industry is concerned-to look at the general philosophy behind the reform of statutory marketing authorities. We could probably summarise the Government's approach along these lines: First of all, the purpose of this reform is to streamline the operation of the entire range of statutory marketing authorities. Secondly, on the composition of these organisations, selection is to be based on expertise rather than on specific industry groups. That is a step in the right direction. I know that some people who have previously been representatives on Commonwealth statutory marketing authorities do not always share the Government's view on this matter, but I believe that if people look at the whole question objectively they will agree that membership of those bodies based on a person's expertise and contribution to the organisation in question rather than on his or her membership of any organisation as such is more appropriate. It is a much better criterion for membership. The third important aspect is that the Government's strategy for marketing authorities means that these bodies are more flexible and more commercial in their approach. For far too long there has been some justifiable criticism of statutory marketing authorities because they have not always been flexible and commercial in their approach. I believe that since the Government has introduced a whole range of amendments to a wide range of statutory marketing authorities we have seen a much better approach adopted by those organisations. Finally, I refer to the accountability aspect of statutory marketing authorities. I was pleased to hear the honourable member for Gwydir and Deputy Leader of the National Party of Australia (Mr Hunt) comment on this during his speech a few minutes ago. He made the point that it allows people essentially at the grass roots level to make their contribution at the annual meetings of these organisations. The Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Kerin) in his second reading speech drew attention to this important aspect of the Bill. Part IVA requires the Corporation to convene an annual meeting of representatives of the industry. This annual meeting provides an opportunity for industry representatives to consider the most recent annual report of the Corporation and to hear what the chairperson has to say in respect of the performance of the Corporation during that year. Most importantly in any form of participatory organisation, it allows members of the Corporation to question its performance and leadership during the previous 12 months. Significantly, the Corporation may meet more frequently if it is considered to be appropriate. I believe that that is very important because at times small producers, or small producer organisations, do feel alienated from industry organisations. The mere fact that they have this opportunity to make a contribution should they so desire-whether or not they take up that opportunity is irrelevant-is an important one. I am pleased that the Opposition made specific comment about that. I believe that in the context of the reform of the statutory marketing authorities that has been a welcome step. The Deputy Leader of the National Party also referred to a number of difficulties now being faced by the wine industry. There is great jealousy within the wine industry itself. Often the jealousy is summed up in a simplistic approach depending upon whom one talks to. The small wine makers refer to the PLO-Penfolds, Lindemans and Orlando-because those companies have such a dominant share. Many small wine makers are concerned about the general direction of the industry, particularly the move towards large consumption based on the sale of cask wine. Recently members of parliament, through the primary industry committee, have had an opportunity to hear the views of some of the small wine makers. During this week Mr Murray Tyrrell, one of Australia's great wine makers, made a number of interesting comments on the future direction of the wine industry from his point of view. In the total context of some 200-plus wine makers throughout Australia, Mr Tyrrell would probably not be considered a small wine maker. Nonetheless, compared with organisations such as Penfolds, Lindemans and Orlando, his operation is relatively small because the whole approach to wine makers of people like Mr Tyrrell is directed towards bottle sales. As many people have commented, we in Australia have a long way to go until we reach the stage where people will pay $20 for a bottle of wine. I suggest that the price of wine is to some extent being held down by the tremendous reliance on sales of cask wine. I believe that given time this will change, but it is important to ensure that the small wine makers do not suffer relative to the success of the large wine makers. I believe it is an important industry. One finds in the wine industry a strong correlation between the areas where wine is produced and the great potential for tourism, if that potential has not already been realised. One looks at areas such as the Barossa Valley in South Australia and areas in north-eastern Victoria and central Victoria, near the constituency of my good friend the honourable member for Ballarat (Mr Mildren), where there is a tremendous future for small wine makers. That argument also applies to the Yarra Valley in Victoria. Mr Hollis —Don't forget the Mudgee wine area. Mr SIMMONS —I am reminded by my colleague to mention the Mudgee wine district in New South Wales. I have a particular interest in that because it is within the electorate of Calare. Mr Mildren —They have a very good member to represent them. Mr SIMMONS —I thank my colleague for that comment. Interestingly, when I was talking a few moments ago about tourism, I should have mentioned the fact that one of the oldest wineries in Australia is located at Mudgee. I refer to Craigmoor at Mudgee. A couple of weeks ago, on 4 April, the Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism (Mr John Brown) opened a new complex at Craigmoor. I congratulate the proprietors of that organisation on keeping the best traditions of wine makers in the Mudgee district in a museum, combined with a first-class restaurant, which I suggest will be an added attraction to tourists in the Mudgee district. As I pointed out earlier, there is a strong correlation between the growing of grapes, the production of wine and the future of tourism throughout Australia. Wherever one looks at the great wine making districts-and I say this in a bipartisan way-one realises the great potential for tourism, a potential that has not yet been fully exploited. I believe that as Australian tastes become more sophisticated, as we attract more tourists to Australia because of the great success of the Government's tourism policy, ably assisted by the work of the Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism, this will give international insights into the future of Australian wine. I believe that we have a very good story to tell as far as our wine making is concerned. For too long we have been critics: We are great self-critics in Australia. Too often we are prepared to knock our own resources, particularly our human resources, and some of the great natural resources we have in Australia-and I am talking in terms of climatic factors as well as natural factors and so on. I believe that this is an area where there is a great potential to show the world that we are one of the leading wine producing areas. To return to the legislation specifically, I think it is important to comment briefly on some of the issues associated with it. The consultations with the industry, which were also referred to by the honourable member for Gwydir, were initiated some three years ago. As he indicated in his comments this morning, some of the large wine makers who contribute a significant proportion of the Australian Wine and Brandy Corporation's funds favour its termination, for fairly obvious reasons. Other wine makers who lack some of the resources and the expertise that are held by some of these larger firms strongly support the continuation of the Australian Wine and Brandy Corporation. They are prepared to put their money where their mouths are. I congratulate those small wine makers throughout Australia for the support they have given the Minister in this matter. The Corporation's powers will not be substantially altered. However, there is some change in that it will no longer have power to buy or sell on a commercial basis. Its involvement in technical wine research will be discontinued and there will be explicit provision for cost recovery in relation to some activities and for the charging of fees in others. I have commented briefly before on the composition of the membership of the Corporation. This has been significantly reduced from 14 to 8, in line with the Government's policy decision on the reform of statutory marketing authorities-a move, I believe, in the right direction because a membership of 14 in an organisation must be approaching the stage of a mass meeting. This membership will be selected by a committee consisting of an independent chairperson and industry representatives on the basis of appropriate criteria and not, as I mentioned before, on the basis of particular industry groups. I know that other people wish to make a contribution to this debate. I am very pleased indeed that the Opposition is supportive of these five Bills. I believe that, particularly as far as the Australian Wine and Brandy Corporation Amendment Bill is concerned, it is a step in the right direction. I congratulate once more, as I so often do in my contributions on rural industry matters, the Minister for Primary Industry. Despite the criticisms that are often made of the Minister, particularly by honourable members opposite, I think fair-minded people who have looked at his approach to the reform of statutory marketing authorities can only congratulate him for his efforts in that direction. I commend the Bills to the House. Mr PORTER(Barker)(11.24) —The shadow Minister for Primary Industry, the honourable member for Gwydir (Mr Hunt), has already given some detail regarding the content of this legislation and the Opposition's concerns in relation to it and I certainly do not intend to repeat them. Let me just say at the outset that the wine and grape growing industry has a large representation in South Australia. I have the Riverland, the Coonawarra and the Keppoch-Padthaway areas in my district. Mr Simmons —Very good areas. Mr PORTER —I thank the Labor member for Calare for agreeing that they are very good areas. I heartily agree. My colleague the honourable member for Wakefield (Mr Andrew) represents the Barossa and Clare areas and my colleague the honourable member for Mayo (Mr Downer) represents the Southern Vales. We all share the concern of the grape growers about the problems that they now face. I want to discuss those problems in a moment. Let me briefly summarise the impact of this legislation. The Bills provide for the restructuring of the Australian Wine and Brandy Corporation. They impose new levies that will be used for research and promotion. The levies will be threefold: Firstly, a $3 per tonne levy on wine makers to fund the activities of the new restructured Australian Wine and Brandy Corporation; secondly, a levy of $1.30 per tonne, again on wine makers, for payment to the Grape and Wine Research Council for wine research; thirdly, grape growers will pay 30c a tonne to fund viticulture research and these funds will be allocated to research bodies and individuals through research councils. Despite the hard times that are now being faced by grape growers, there is general support for this legislation because they accept that, firstly, we must maintain our very high standards and continue our research capabilities. They believe that such research is likely to reap rewards and enable them to undertake further developments to enhance the quality of the product and the efficiency of the industry. Secondly, they believe that there is a need for better promotion overseas of our excellent wines. They believe that there are market opportunities overseas and that we can develop those opportunities if we can gain and maintain a share of specific overseas markets. To do that, we will need a higher quality product and we will need to ensure that we are regular suppliers of that product. We need to become not only regular suppliers but also reliable suppliers rather than just trying to flog our product overseas when we have surpluses. Some of the larger wine makers have expressed reservation about this legislation. They say that they are already trying, and some successfully, to develop markets overseas and ask why they should help to fund the smaller wineries get-together to promote Australian wines overseas. I understand the concerns of those larger wine makers. But let me say that I look at this legislation as an investment-seeding money, if one likes-to assist in our gaining market share for Australian wines with a high reputation for quality and reliability. The larger wine makers have called for a sunset clause to be introduced into this legislation. Let me say that in government we would closely monitor the Australian Wine and Brandy Corporation. If after, say, five years it could be shown to have done its job and so stimulated the marketing of our wines that such enterprise can continue without the assistance of the Australian Wine and Brandy Corporation, I believe there would be good cause to discontinue the current arrangements. So, to the larger wine makers I say: `We hear you. We understand what you are saying. But let us see how this proposal works out and we will certainly keep an eye on the success of the Corporation in this new venture'. As I said at the outset, I and my South Australian colleagues in particular are very concerned about the hard pressed wine industry and the problems that grape growers in particular are facing today. In the 1984-85 Budget the Government imposed a new 10 per cent sales tax on the wine industry with expected revenue in that year of $49m and in a full year of $60m. In addition in that Budget the Government imposed a new customs duty on imported wine equivalent to the 10 per cent sales tax. So some $100m has been taken out of the industry without any return. These new taxes and imposts have been imposed at a time when the industry is in real trouble. The difficulties it is facing are the worst that it has ever seen. The industry has problems in that there is either little or no demand for the grapes that it is producing, and in response to what demand there is the sales it can manage are at prices which are often below the prices required to ensure the long term viability of the growers. In addition to the new taxes imposed on the wine and grape growing industry we have the Government's tax package and the fringe benefits tax which will reduce restaurant demand for the industry's product. No wonder the State departments of agriculture have been rushed with applications for assistance under the vine pull scheme. In South Australia I understand that the number of applications is somewhere between 400 and 600. So many people are applying that there will not be enough money to fund the applications; they are far in excess of the funds which the Government has made available. Recently I attended, with my colleague the honourable member for Wakefield and the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Kerin), a seminar in the Riverland at Loxton which discussed the problems confronting the wine and grape growing industry. A call was made at the seminar for the Government to put some of the $100m that it has ripped out of the industry back into the industry. In what I thought was a very constructive proposal it was suggested that assistance ought to be provided for the promotion of Australian wines overseas. This would not be a precedent. This Government recognising-as the previous Government did-the value of, for example, the wool industry, puts money towards assisting the Australian Wool Corporation in the promotion of wool overseas. Why does not the Government, recognise the problems faced by the wine industry, and not acknowledge that this is a worthwhile recommendation, and a request worthy of consideration? It has ripped $100m out of the industry and it should now give it a hand instead of always being on the take. The Government wants to grab money but it is not prepared to invest it. It is delighted to apply more and more taxes but it has totally failed to address this worthwhile proposal. We are getting used to this Government's discrimination against country people. Only on Tuesday the Minister for Primary Industry intimated in his so-called rural package that, because some 40 per cent of farmers own their own farms without any debt, the high interest rates that the Government has imposed on this country are really not a problem for the bush. Not only does that ignore the fate of the 60 per cent of farmers, grape growers, graziers, foresters and grain growers who have their land mortgaged and have to bear the Government's high interest rate policy on borrowings but also the Minister ignores the enormous borrowing farmers now have on capital equipment. These days we need expensive capital equipment to maintain our lead as the most efficient farmers in the world. The Government's failure to address the fundamental problems in the bush and to try to suggest, for example, that interest rates are not a problem just shows that it has no understanding of the situation. Perhaps it is because it is ideologically committed to policies which are against the interests of those who live in rural areas. Quite rightly, people in the bush feel alienated from this Government and that is why they are marching today. Finally-I understand that we are on tight time restrictions-there is another matter of grave concern, particularly in the Riverland districts of South Australia. With modern wine making techniques increasing, demands are being placed on grape growers to deliver particular varieties of grapes to the wineries on particular days and if they do not do so they often lose the sale altogether. Regrettably an added problem, in addition to all the others that the Government has imposed on the grape growing industry by way of taxes and charges, is the new rules which apply for obtaining unemployment benefit. In the Riverland there are in excess of 1,500 people on unemployment benefit and yet grape growers cannot get pickers during this time of high demand for labour over the grape picking season. Many of the grape growers have reported to me that many people sent out by the Commonwealth Employment Service front up for the job, work for an hour or so and then leave. The CES reports to me, as does the Department of Social Security, that those people are not taken off unemployment benefit but remain on unemployment benefit. Quite understandably, the grape growers, who see their year's work shrivelling on the vine or dropping to the ground through lack of available pickers, are deeply concerned that the Government, through its lax work test, allows those on unemployment benefit who are able to work to refuse to undertake that work and remain on the unemployment benefit. The grape growers have raised their concern with me, I have raised it with the Government but the Government appears unwilling to do anything about it. I am not looking for slave labour; I am not suggesting that some of those people on unemployment benefit do not have very good excuses as to why they cannot assist during the grape picking season. But I believe that the majority of those people on unemployment benefit could assist the grape growers in their own area in taking off the crop. They could, during the harvest period, go off unemployment benefit and take this work even though it is only seasonal work. I believe that the Government is failing this country by allowing the slack application of the work test, which means that the grape growers are not getting their grapes harvested, and that whilst there is work people are remaining on unemployment benefit and are not accepting that work. In consideration of the time and the number of honourable members who want to speak on these Bills, let me wind up by saying that the Opposition will not oppose the passing of this legislation. We express grave concern for grape growers throughout Australia who are facing enormous difficulties now. We share their concern that this Government seems to be unwilling to assist and seems willing only to impose more and more taxes and charges on them at a time of unparalleled difficulty. Mr MILDREN(Ballarat)(11.01) —So far in this debate on the Australian Wine and Brandy Corporation Amendment Bill 1986, the Grape Research Levy Bill 1986, the Grape Research Levy Collection Bill 1986, the Wine Grapes Levy Amendment Bill 1986 and the Wine Research Repeal Bill 1986 both representatives of the Opposition have failed to address the contents of these Bills. That does not surprise me because, in all the years the coalition was in government, it did so little to assist primary industry to organise itself to ensure that it had long term prospects of viability. There is no doubt that one of the main disabilities suffered by primary industry research and marketing organisations in the past has been the lack of a long term basis upon which they could plan their futures. This has been recognised by the different sectors of primary industry but unfortunately it was not adequately addressed over time. The Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Kerin), with the support and co-operation of most of the commodity area organisations, has been moving in a systematic way to secure a firm basis, not only for marketing but also for research. The wine and grape industry is no exception in this regard. It has co-operated with the Minister in his efforts to have the Australian Wine Research Institute and the Australian Wine and Brandy Corporation established and organised for this long term haul. In recent days, unfortunately, certain groups within the farm lobby, aided and abetted by the barking dogs of the National Party of Australia, have claimed that the Government has failed to address the fundamental problems facing primary industry. What they claim to be fundamental problems are to them non-political and self-evident. We reject that fundamentally. They believe that if the Government were to remove all protection for Australian industry, including primary industry-honourable members can talk to my potato growers about that if they wish-and deregulate the labour market the wonderful millennium would eventuate. They also claim that a float of the dollar beyond that which we have carried out would also overcome all the fundamental problems. I do not think they understand what the fundamental problems are. One of the primary industries which would be very seriously affected would be the grape industry. At a time when the reputation of Australian wines is growing in international stature, one of the last things wanted is any action by government that would place it in jeopardy. One such move would be the deregulation of the labour market. During the last couple of years of the Fraser Government, 1981 and 1982, the action taken to remove the centralised wage fixing system simply resulted in an outbreak of heavy wage escalation. So the Government is not prepared to jeopardise the industry, and it is no less inclined to jeopardise the prospects of any other industry. As I indicated, the Government is bringing forward these Bills to give the wine and grape industry a firm legislative organisational and marketing base like those in other primary industry commodity areas. Consistent with the Government's determination to consult those who are to be affected by the changes and the new levy arrangements, the Bills before us today contain measures that have been arrived at as a result of exhaustive discussions between the Government and the main organisations within the wine and grape industry. As the Minister has said, opinions about the need for restructuring of the Corporation and for wine research differ but, in the opinion of the Government, this is an Australian industry that must always be seeking opportunities for the improvement of its basic resources, for instance, grape varieties and marketing. Irrespective of the size of the winery, the work of the Corporation is important. For far too long in the past the steps that should have been taken were not taken. This left not only the wine and grape industry ill-equipped to accept the challenges that face industry but also other commodity sectors. It is certainly to the credit of the Minister that he has addressed this matter right across the commodity areas of primary industry. That is one of the fundamental issues which should have been addressed but which were completely overlooked because honourable members opposite do not understand what the fundamental issues are. An aspect of this legislation relating to the Corporation is that it is now more than an opportunity for sounding off about the Government or the industry which sometimes took place. It is now deliberately geared to dealing with the commercial activities of the industry. It puts the industry on a sound professional basis. In particular, the emphasis is on export promotion and its regulation. This becomes increasingly important, especially as there is expected to be a reduction in the production of grapes of 5 per cent in 1986 and a significant decline in the demand for grapes for crushing by about 12 per cent this year. As indicated in the recent Quarterly Review of the Rural Economy, this fall in demand is due mainly to a declining rate in the growth of sales of Australian wine and to very high stock levels. It is quite obvious that these changes to the Corporation are required now. It should also be said that there has been a change in the composition and selection of members of the Corporation. This is very deliberate and is consistent with the changes that have taken place in the composition and selection of membership of the other statutory marketing authorities. Therefore, no longer will the members of the board be representatives of different sectors of the industry, which proved to be inefficient and divisive and it wasted a tremendous amount of people's valuable time in the past. Because of the commercial roles that are the responsibility of the boards, members who will be appointed will have the skills that are appropriate to their corporate responsibilities. Through the Wine and Brandy Corporation Selection Committee the declared wine makers organisations will have a major part to play in selecting personnel to be members of the Corporation. These organisations are: The Australian Wine and Brandy Producers Association, the Wine and Brandy Co-operative Producers Association of Australia and the Australian Winemakers Forum. The Australian Wine and Brandy Corporation Amendment Bill 1986 and the accompanying Bills which today are being debated cognately include provisions for requirements in law that the Corporation shall ensure that it is accountable to the industry and also to the Minister. This is done by requiring formal annual meetings and strict auditing procedures. I submit that it is pleasing that the Government has clearly distinguished for the industry's sake the amount of levy proposed for marketing promotion through the Corporation and that available for research under the organisation to be known as the Grape and Wine Research Council. As the Government is clearly committed to the improvement of the industry, as it is to the improvement of all other primary industry commodity groups, the provision within this package will be welcomed by the industry. I have a number of wine producers within my electorate of Ballarat, including Yellowglen at Smythesdale and Montara at Ararat. Whilst I have to admit that I am not a wine buff, I am assured by the cognoscenti in this domain that these companies produce wines of very superior quality. The Yellowglen methode champenoise wines are highly sought after. They bear witness to the pursuit of excellence and to the optimistic prospects that should pervade the Australian wine industry. Mr Tim Fischer —They are not as good as Sunraysia wines. Mr MILDREN —Where is that? The Government, through its excellent Minister for Primary Industry, is once again demonstrating its determination to assist primary industry in a systematic and business-oriented way. Without this approach, all primary industry would face a long term bleak future. I commend the legislation to the House. Mr ANDREW(Wakefield)(11.11) —I address the Australian Wine and Brandy Corporation Bill and cognate Bills largely to echo the sentiments already expressed by the honourable member for Barker (Mr Porter), who represents some of the wine grape growing areas that prior to the last election were in my constituency. I remind the House that the honourable member for Barker now represents the Riverland area, the honourable member for Mayo (Mr Downer) in South Australia represents the Southern Vales and I have responsibility for the Barossa and Clare valleys. That makes up a large portion of the wine grape growing areas of this nation. The wine industry and the wine grape growing industry ought not to be underestimated by those who listen to this debate. After all, there are 6,000 growers, let alone wine makers and people employed in the wine industry. They grow about 850,000 tonnes of grapes with a value of $218m in 1984-85, making up 34.2 per cent of the total value of the fruit industry. The wine industry faces unprecedented levels of confusion and unpredictability. The confusion arises at the very base of the wine industry-if I may use that term. There is a measure of confusion and unpredictability about where any bunch of grapes is heading, because a dual purpose bunch has a 60 per cent chance of finishing up in a wine bottle, a 38 per cent chance of finishing up on a drying rack and a 2 to 3 per cent chance of finishing up on the fresh fruit market. The grape growers are uncertain because they do not know what market options will be open in the next vintage. The Government has given them the chance to participate in a vine pull scheme but some of them wonder whether they should stay in the industry. They have been given the opportunity to invest in root stocks to increase their production. I was rather amused to hear the honourable member for Ballarat (Mr Mildren) declare that there would be a 5 per cent downturn in production in the next year. I do not know what predictions he has and, given the capacity for growers on acreages that already exist to increase production by at least 20 per cent by the use of root stocks, I would not be as optimistic as he is of a downturn in production over the next 10 years. Wine makers also face uncertainty. There is a great diversity of wine makers. Incredibly, fewer than 12 wine makers crush 60 per cent of the Australian crop, 86 crush 38 per cent and as many as 283 wine makers crush 2.5 per cent. By the way, 119 of that 283 wine makers crush less than 20 tonnes of grapes. There is all sorts of diversity and uncertainty facing wine makers. The wine market is uncertain and diverse also. Confusion reigns in the wine market because of the unpredictability of consumer demand. From 1950 to 1984 the market changed from fortified wines making up 80 percent of the market sales and only 20 per cent being table wine to the situation in which fortified wines made up only 16 per cent of sales and unfortified wines made up 84 per cent-a complete reversal. This market unpredictability makes it increasingly difficult for growers to plant what the market will need in the ensuing decade. Added to that is the confusion in the industry as a result of the downturn in brandy sales. The brandy industry once took up the surplus grapes but the volume of brandy sold had gone from 4.24 million litres in 1972 to 1.55 million litres-a fall of two-thirds-by 1984. That is a fall of two-thirds in a decade, further adding to the confusion and unpredictability of the wine grape industry. The five Bills are designed to relieve some of this unpredictablility and confusion. But there is an element of irony in the fact that this Government should choose to introduce Bills that are supposed to relieve the unpredictability of the wine industry, because much of the problem facing the industry has been fuelled by governments of a philosophic colour similar to that of the present Government. As far back as 1947 the Chifley Government took $1.2m from a $2.2m surplus in an encouragement account for the wine industry that had been collected by excise duty and placed it directly into Consolidated Revenue. While the honourable member for Ballarat has chosen to wax eloquent about what he sees as constructive steps by Australian Labor Party governments, let us make no bones about the fact that when the industry suffered it suffered most at the hands of governments the philosophic colour of those opposite. In 1973, the Whitlam Government removed the section 31A provision that so encouraged the Australian brandy industry because the 31A tax provision allowed a tax deduction for stocks on hand. The Whitlam Government also narrowed the gap between the import duty imposed on imported spirits and the excise charges on Australian brandy. So we saw the demise of the brandy industry. In 1983 this Government promised that it would not impose a tax on the wine industry. That promise has been broken twice; once by imposing a tax on fortified wine and then by imposing a sales tax on wine. The Government also promised that it would maintain the Australian Wine and Brandy Corporation. It is fulfilling that promise in the House today. It promised that it would review what the Whitlam Government had done to section 31A. We have seen no action on that. The honourable member for Calare (Mr Simmons) told us how his Government saw the wine industry as `a very important industry'. He went on to say that wine areas had great potential for tourism. If the litany that I have just given is an indication of the way that this Government treats industries that it regards as very important, heaven help those that it despises. The honourable member for Barker also made the very constructive point that this Government has taken out of the wine industry $100m, and we have seen little indication of how that money will be used to assist growers to make some modifications to adjust for the downturn in the industry. The legislation has the support of the Australian Wine and Brandy Producers Association Inc., but some members have expressed concern about whether the Bills should be structured as they are. They have written to the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Kerin) asking that, if the Corporation is to be funded by a levy on the crush, consideration be given to having a sunset clause to ensure the Corporation's accountability. While the honourable member for Calare has chosen to say that the Bills indicate the enthusiasm of the small wine makers to put their money where their mouths are, I point out that it is the large wine makers who, by reason of the size of their crush, are providing much of the Corporation's funds. As I said earlier, 119 wine makers crush less than 20 tonnes of grapes. They will not be funding the Corporation in any way. It is that inequity which concerns the larger wine makers. They have been very responsible in calling for a sunset clause to be inserted. The Minister has ignored that call. However, he has indicated that he will provide an opportunity at the annual meeting for a greater measure of accountability of the Wine and Brandy Corporation. As the honourable member for Barker pointed out, the Corporation has an essential role to play in the promotion and maintenance of export markets. It is in the funding of the Corporation that there is currently some diversity in the wine industry. There seems to be in the wine industry general approval of the provisions in these Bills for funds for research into both wine making and viticulture. I found that all grape growers have been prepared to support this move and I think that is significant, given that this move will cost grape growers money which they can ill afford because of the downturn the industry is currently experiencing. In view of the time and the number of speakers who wish to address the House on this and rural policy, I simply conclude by referring to the vine pull scheme already alluded to by the honourable member for Barker. I point out that if the vine pull scheme is to work effectively, it will at least temporarily reduce the tonnage available for levies to be charged and to fund the Corporation and research. The Commonwealth has already made available $1.6m, which has been matched by an $800,000 State Government grant in South Australia, making a total of $2.4m available for vine pull in that State. However, as the honourable member for Barker has said, the State Government already has 460 applications to remove 3,000 hectares of grapes in South Australia. Interestingly, 3,000 hectares happens to be a larger area than is currently grown in the Hunter Valley. In other words, it is taking out of South Australia the current production of the Hunter Valley. The South Australian Government believes that such is the demand from grape growers, such is the pressure on them, such is the economic cruelty of the current grape industry, that this vine pull scheme ought to be extended. What it seeks from the Commonwealth Government and as yet has not had is an indication of the preparedness of the Commonwealth Government to allow South Australian grape growers to adjust to the present reality of the grape industry by participating further in the vine pull scheme. I conclude by referring to one other problem that currently faces the wine industry in Australia, and that is the problem of the increasing quantity of imports flowing into this country. We cannot escape the fact that the European Economic Community is currently making available in Australia unprecedented quantities of discounted and subsidised wine out of the EEC wine lake, but what is of particular concern is that the standard and quality of this wine is not being monitored adequately by this Government. That is a concern which I have no doubt the Corporation that is set up under these Bills will want to draw to the Minister's attention. Mr Porter —Some of it could be poisonous. Mr ANDREW —The honourable member for Barker rightly makes the point that some of it could be poisonous. Adulterated wine from Austria and Italy, and in lesser amounts from other EEC countries, can enter Australia and to date this Government has done nothing about it. As an example, on 14 November last year I lodged a question on notice which asked the Minister for Health (Dr Blewett) amongst other things: Will he require all exporters of alcoholic beverages to Australia to establish and pay for an export inspection regime which is acceptable to Australian health standards? What was the answer from the Minister for Health? He said: No . . . My major concern at present is to achieve uniformity of food Acts . . . Regrettably, it is typical of that Minister, as I know the honourable member for Barker will agree, and the Minister for Primary Industry that they are anxious to get the label right but they are not too concerned about the contents. Mr RONALD EDWARDS(Stirling)(11.23) —Honourable members on this side have contributed in their remarks to the Bills before the House today. The honourable member for Calare (Mr Simmons) and the honourable member for Ballarat (Mr Mildren) have made substantial contributions and it is my pleasure to join them in making a contribution from this side. The previous speaker, the honourable member for Wakefield (Mr Andrew), did refer to what I believe is an important issue and that is the coverage and quality of imported wine. That is a matter to which I would like to devote some attention in a moment. These Bills represent a reform of the arrangements prevailing in the Australian wine and grape industries. In Western Australia there are substantial industries. They are located in the Swan Valley and in the Gingin area around Bakers Hill, east of Perth, and of course in what is now becoming the very familiar areas of Margaret River and Franklin River in the south-west of Western Australia. It would be within the knowledge of many people in Australia that these areas are producing high quality wines and are making a major contribution to the development of the Australian wine industry. I should add that it is my personal pleasure to note that, in my view, the father of the Western Australian wine industry, Jack Mann, has played a major part in the establishment of a high quality wine industry in Western Australia. Jack Mann is associated with the name of Houghton. His son, Dorham Mann, is now the chief wine maker for Sandalford. It was pleasing to note-I am sure the Minister for Communications (Mr Duffy), who is at the table, would recognise this-that the wines served at the dinner for Lee Kwan Yew this week were Sandalford wines from Western Australia. This is not a parochial note; it is just to point out that they are good quality wines. It is important to identify that Dorham Mann from Sandalford is associated with that and has inherited the great tradition from his father, Jack Mann. I pay tribute to both those people, as I pay tribute to many other producers in Western Australia. These Bills are about both wine and grapes, and I would like to deal in some detail with those. To put it briefly, this Government has sought, through consultative mechanisms, to bring about a reform of the Australian Wine and Brandy Corporation. In a sense, what we have in these Bills are recommendations for reform that arise from discussions with the industry. Honourable members on this side have devoted attention to that. I point out that these reforms are recommended by the industry; they do not have support right across the industry but they have the support of a large body of industry. There are two aspects that are important to consider and one is the levy for export promotion. Honourable members on this side would hold that that is very important and that what we need in Australia is substantial export promotion for Australian wines. It was with some regret, when the Austrian wine scandal hit the world market, that I read of some confusion amongst overseas consumers of wines between the term `Austrian' and the term `Australian'. In fact, sales of Australian wines in Japan suffered as a consequence. That is a source of great regret to everyone in this House, because we know that there are many reputable Australian producers who are putting high quality wines on the world market, and they suffered because of that adulteration matter. I will deal further with that in just a moment, because I think there is a view of concern about it right across this House. The other area to which I wish to refer is the question of research in the industry. Quite obviously, an industry that is going to be both technologically sophisticated and, in terms of the grape growing and development of wines, up to date requires a substantial research base. Part of this levy is directed towards that research. I am sure that members of this House would hold the view that an adequate research base is important for an industry such as the Australian wine industry. I will devote just a moment to the question of what I call the European experience. We have had two major trends thrust upon the Australian wine consuming public. One trend is what I call the snob trend. That is, there has been substantial argument in Australia that one must consume overseas wines; that they are somehow better than or superior to Australian wines. I reject that totally. The Australian wine industry can stand in world terms with the varieties and qualities it has to offer, and there is no reason why the Australian wine consumer should be conned into believing that imported wines are somehow superior. That is not to rule out that there are specific varieties and specific wines from overseas that are very superior, but it recognises that, from the point of view of the average consumer, the Australian wine industry provides a very wide base of consumer products. Mr Tim Fischer —Even our cask wines are very good, too. Mr RONALD EDWARDS —As the honourable member for Farrer points out, even our cask wines are good. That is a matter to which I want to devote some attention in a moment. Australians should feel very proud of the products the Australian wine industry puts on the market, and there is certainly no reason why they should be seduced into believing that, as part of that cultural cringe, something that is imported is superior. That brings me to the next point, which I believe is of substantial concern to the Australian community, and that is that wines from overseas may not be what one might call wholesome. People would be aware of the recent scandals that affected the Austrian wine industry and the Italian wine industry. At least in Australia we can rest assured that the products we consume are safe for consumption. The same cannot be said for imported products. I now want to take up a point raised by the honourable member for Wakefield. He talked about an export inspection service that, in effect, would give some guarantees on the quality of the products that come into Australia. The Minister for Health (Dr Blewett) said that his pre- ference was to move towards food labelling. I support the Minister for Health in this respect. I think that an adequate and comprehensive food labelling system in Australia, to cover wine also, which gave consumers both a complete description of the contents of the bottle or the cask and some guarantees about chemical analysis and health analysis is a better way to go. Current food labelling requirements and food testing standards are not uniform in Australia. That is a source of regret. One can refer to that in other areas such as the packaging of margarine. It is an absurdity to have separate packaging requirements in Western Australia from the rest of Australia. We need effective food labelling and testing provisions in Australia such that when an Australian consumer purchases wine he or she knows that the contents are what they are claimed to be and that they are safe for health. I believe that that is imperative. This brings me to the next matter, which is the question of a particular control system. As honourable members would recognise, some areas in Australia have introduced an appellation control system to indicate that a wine that bears a particular appellation has come from that region and that the consumer can rest assured that that is the case. At the moment consumers cannot rest assured that the wine that they consume has come from the region it is purported to have come from. In a recent article in the National Times of 14 to 20 March much concern was expressed about the damage to wine from sultanas. The article was written by Philip White and he talked about the tendency to use sultana grapes in crop production instead of using sultanas for dried fruit consumption and said that there is an enormous market imperative that sultanas be used. He stated: Sultana is extremely easy to grow. In a prime rhine riesling vineyard like Orlando's Steingarten, a crop of one tonne to the acre is commonplace. In Clare, in the bigger, more commercial riesling vineyards, four or five tonnes is pretty good. An efficiently managed sultana vineyard will give up to 20 tonnes of grapes per acre. Obviously there is a market imperative for people to use sultanas, except that the conclusion drawn by David Wynn, of Wynn's empire, is that sultanas should be forbidden from inclusion in wine production and because they are a very inferior grape that would be better used for dried fruit consumption. I share that view, and I think that he and Allan Preece, the President of the Australian Wine Grape Growers Council, echo a concern that if we are not constant in the quality of wines that we put on the market we may begin to erode our own market. It is in that area that I have some concerns about some of the bulk wines on the Australian market, that in fact they are inferior products. Not only are they inferior but the real issue is that they are often very high in alcohol content and so one is getting a wine that is not necessarily the best wine in terms of health and of driver safety. I think that that is a real concern, and what we ought to be addressing in this place in relation to the industry is a proper appellation control system to apply and guarantees for the wine consuming public. So far it has been a case of the wine industry being self-regulatory, if you like. I am very pleased that the wine industry has put very superior products on the market, but I believe that issues such as that in relation to sultanas and their influence on the market are serious. I believe that we should be encouraging the wine industry to introduce more appellation control areas. I believe that we should also ensure that our food labelling regulations are uniform across the country and that they can be exercised in respect of wine consumption. As previous speakers have remarked, time is a constraint in this debate, but I would like to sum up by saying that I think there are a number of issues facing the industry. We believe that these Bills address a number of those issues, particularly with respect to export promotion and research. It is good to be able to talk about an Australian industry that performs very well. Certainly, it is an industry which many people can be proud that we have in this country. It is marked by its variety, its high quality and by the personal commitment of many good people. I have referred earlier to Jack Mann at Houghtons and his son Dorham Mann, and there are many other wine makers in Australia who are making a major contribution to our country. We should feel very proud of them. In conclusion, I would say to Australian consumers: Do not be duped; do not feel that you have to buy imported material; not only are you uncertain about the quality but you are also uncertain about the health standards of these products; stay with the Australian product as it is guaranteed to be a good product. I believe that these Bills will go a long way to ensuring the continuity and survival of the industry. Mr HICKS(Riverina-Darling)(11.35) —In this debate on a total package of five Bills, I rise to speak on the Wine Grapes Levy Amendment Bill and the Wine Research Bill. Since its birth in the early 1800s, the Australian wine industry has, both directly and indirectly, made a major contribution to the enhancement of the prosperity of almost all Australian States. In my own electorate of Riverina-Darling, I have the honour of representing 21 wineries and their wine grape grower suppliers located in the Murrumbidgee Irrigation Area. I also represent a winery in Hay known as Ruberto's. Many of these wineries have gained international reputations for their products and the geographical location of the MIA makes it the most central of the 21 grape growing areas of Australia. The wine industry's contribution to the economy is significant. It employs directly over 6,000 persons in Australia, mostly in regional areas and is directly responsible for the creation of thousands of additional jobs in the glass, printing, transport, tourism and hospitality industries. It pays indirect Commonwealth Government taxes and charges in excess of $105m annually and pays out in excess of $74.4m annually in wages and salaries. It contributes significantly to the economic survival of over 21 Australian rural regions and to the Australian economy through earning $18.8m in foreign exchange annually. Wine exports have increased by 69.9 per cent in the five years from 1978-79 to 1983-84 and any policy that could result in a decline in the growth of the domestic market will reduce the ability to maintain international competitiveness and growth of exports. The wine industry also contributes significantly to tourism in Australia as our wineries attract over 163,000 overseas tourists annually to regional Australia. To give an example, the wine industry in the Murrumbidgee Irrigation Area assists local tourism, not only through winery tours and tastings, but through the staging of a biannual, week long vintage festival. It is a festival not to be missed and many visitors return every two years especially for it. The next festival is to be held at Easter in 1987 and on behalf of the organising committee I extend an invitation to all honourable members to attend. Grape growing requires a lead time of some seven years to full production. Once made, wine may take from one to a dozen years to achieve its peak. Therefore, a stable, political environment and carefully developed government policies are vital to the survival of this fragile industry. Growth in the industry has been achieved, particularly since the early 1970s, despite often adverse government intervention, such as the 1973 repeal by the Whitlam Government of section 31A of the Income Tax Assessment Act. One cannot blame certain elements in the industry for being sceptical of this Government's proposals, particularly when one looks at its record. For example, on 20 February 1983 the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) promised in Griffith, in the region which produces 80 per cent of the total wine production of New South Wales and approximately 20 per cent of the Australian total: Labor has pledged not to impose a sales tax or an excise tax on wine. This was not a statement but actually a pledge. Further he said: The taxation disadvantages suffered by the wine makers with respect to the stock holding will be objectively examined on the basis that wine making is a primary production process, not a manufacturing industry. In August 1983, not long after that promise was made, the excise on fortified spirit was introduced. It was $2.50 a litre, which was indexed almost immediately to a massive $2.61 per litre. Fortunately, mainly due to representations from my colleagues the honourable member for Mallee (Mr Peter Fisher), the honourable member for Wakefield (Mr Andrew) and the honourable member for Indi (Mr Ewen Cameron), the Government realised its mistake and almost halved the excise to $1.50. The Government then waited until it had almost destroyed the fortified wine industry before it relented and completely did away with that iniquitous excise. Of course, a number of wine makers then producing fortified wines decided that they would no longer continue with such a product; they would beat the government excise that way. Others, however, who were employing people and wanted that part of the wine industry to survive decided they would continue to produce again, after many representations by the colleagues I have just mentioned. The excise already paid on this wine was refunded to those wineries who had had this tax imposed. This is just one example of the many bungles this Government has made concerning the wine industry. No wonder members of the wine industry are wary of any legislation the Government may put forward in regard to that industry. The Australian Labor Party's policy of imposing an excise on wine until the industry was almost on its knees and then removing it was not a carefully developed Government policy. Then, in 1984, a sales tax of 10 per cent was placed on wine. So much for Labor's promises! The retarding effect of Government action on the sale of wine was catastrophic. Although many wineries absorbed the increase, those that did not experienced a severe drop in sales. It is to be hoped that a tax of this type on the wine industry, which threatened the economic security of the industry, will never occur again, although I think this is wishful thinking with the present burden being placed on all primary producers and small business people by propped up interest rates and Government induced costs. It appears that the size of the grape-wine operation of wine makers is inversely proportional to the level of approval for this package of legislation: The smaller grape-wine producers have expressed a favourable opinion, whereas the larger ones are opposed to it. I have received messages from major Australian wine producers calling for the abolition of the Wine and Brandy Corporation. They describe it as ineffective, irrelevant, a waste of money and a burden on the Australian wine industry. They claim that a group of wine makers responsible for the production of nearly 60 per cent of all Australian wine sold in Australia and 74 per cent of all wine exported support the Australian Wine and Brandy Producers Association's position, which is to have the Australian Wine and Brandy Corporation terminated. All the members are levy payers and their views certainly need to be recognised during this debate. The letters contain many other concerns which I shall briefly outline. These companies believe that the co-ordination of export promotion, intelligence and strategy by the Corporation would be more equitably conducted by individual companies and that the Australian Wine and Brandy Corporation's functions will soon be completely superseded by the Australian Wine Export Promotion Organisation, which plans to work under the user pays system. The larger wineries say that decisions on wine quality for export are best taken by the overseas buyer and specific requirements met under the regulations of the Export Control Act. In the area of public relations, they feel that it is more appropriate for each individual producer or State, regional or industry organisation to comment and promote their product on their own behalf. The Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Kerin) claims that this legislation will make the Australian Wine and Brandy Corporation more accountable. However these companies disagree, stating that the wine industry will have no scrutiny over the organisation that they fund. The fact that information can be kept from those who fund the Corporation is also of concern. The imposition of a levy on the industry is also of concern to the larger companies. The amendments provide for a levy of $5 per tonne for marketing and $3 per tonne for research to be paid to the Corporation with a ceiling of $20,000 for the marketing authority, but there is no ceiling on the research levy. The wine grapes industry in the Murrumbidgee Irrigation Area has a marketing organisation known as the Wine Grape Marketing Board. This Board receives a levy of 25c a tonne from the growers for use in wine grape research at the local State sponsored viticultural research station. As we can see from this, the growers in the MIA are in favour of research. However, they are concerned that the legislation now before the House does not allow them any say in where and how the research funds are to be spent. They believe that there should be some MIA representation on the new authority and there are strong feelings in the area that some of the money levied for research under these Bills should be returned to the local research establishment within the MIA to assist in local research, taking into account local soil and climatic conditions. This past season there has been over-production in most wine grape growing areas, with a subsequent reduction on earnings. This situation has been partly alleviated for those growers in the Sunraysia area who have been able to dry their fruit because of the reasonable prices available on the export market. From all reports, it has been an excellent season for the drying of grapes, and a high quality product has come onto the market from that area. It will also be, because of weather conditions, a vintage year for wine throughout Australia. The importation of wines is exacerbating the problem of low returns already caused by the over-production of wine grapes. After a significant drop in 1982-83, imports increased by 32 per cent in 1983-84 and by another 34 per cent in 1984-85. However, more significantly, in those years imports represented 11.3 and 15.6 per cent of the bottled wine market. As a result of the 1984 Budget, the competitive position of imported wine improved by 10 per cent. Since this change, the rate of growth in wine imports increased from 27.9 per cent in the 12 months to August 1984 to nearly 40 per cent in the 12 months to May 1985. It is important to note that the European Economic Community's wine production and exports are supported through guaranteed minimum prices, export subsidies and protection against imports. That has created a sea of wine waiting to be dumped onto the Australian and other markets. This is of great concern to the wine industry and I call on the Government to monitor this situation so that imports do not have an adverse effect on the Australian wine industry. Of great concern also is this Government's decision to abolish the maturation requirement for brandy, whisky and rum. It was stated in a letter received by me from a distilling company: Maturation is an integral step in the production of brandy, whisky and rum, as inseparable as an oven in the baking of a cake. Without maturation, the oxidation and chemical change in the structure of the congeners does not occur to produce the taste, aroma and characteristic attributed to the respective spirit. The Government decision to abolish maturation in four years time or at any time is retrograde and must be reversed. Another policy change needed is in the area of plant variety rights. Australia is 20 years behind the rest of the world in introducing these rights. I believe that in some areas this is holding back the advancement of our horticultural industries, and this includes the wine grape industry. I believe that Professor Lazenby, Vice-Chancellor of the University of Tasmania, will soon release a report which was requested by the Minister for Primary Industry, and it is my hope and the wish of many in the wine grape industry that he will recommend to the Federal Government that plant variety rights be introduced. I support the five Bills now before the House but I hope that the Minister will take note of the matters I have raised in relation to the total wine industry. Mr CLEELAND(McEwen)(11.47) —The grape growing industry and its association with the wine and brandy industry is an important rural industry within my electorate of McEwen. It is a major employer of labour and adds to the natural tourist facilities within the region. The industry, as the Australian Wine and Brandy Corporation Bill and associated legislation shows, is recognised for its present importance and for its future potential as a major export earning industry for the nation. The reforms proposed are consistent with the Government's policy statement entitled `Reform of Commonwealth Primary Industry Statutory Marketing Authorities', released as a White Paper on 29 January 1986. Marketing of our rural commodities is long overdue. It is this Government that is avoiding the band-aid approach to the rural downturn; it is this Government that is seeking to tackle the difficult task of restructuring the rural industry to face the challenges of the 1990s. It must be said that nowhere is the difference between the approach of the Government and the approach of the Opposition to rural restructuring more evident than in the most comprehensive statement made to this House by the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Kerin) on 15 April 1986. It cannot be stressed too often that one of the most important tasks facing rural Australia, indeed this nation, is to change our approach to marketing internationally our rural products. That marketing represents that kind of challenge has been recognised, only this week, by the President of the National Farmers Federation, Mr Ian McLachlan. It is increasingly being recognised by farming organisations throughout Australia. That Australian commodities are not widely found in retail stores in Asia-the big supermarkets-compared to those of our near neighbour, New Zealand, is, I believe, an indictment of our marketing practices. It is important that we produce to consumer needs and fine-tune our products for specific markets. Quality and standards must be emphasised. Developing new markets and products is a major challenge and offers an important means by which growth can be accelerated. Make no mistake, our competitors are presently out-marketing us. A long time friend of mine has a brother now resident in New Zealand who is employed in marketing New Zealand rural products. In discussions with him it has become clear that we have not, as a nation, presented our products to match consumer needs, whereas New Zealand has. The Chinese gooseberry, cleverly marketed by New Zealand as kiwi fruit, is only one example of how successful innovative and imaginative marketing can be. How is it that we import from New Zealand Chinese gooseberries when we can so adequately produce, and even export, our own product? This Government has worked closely with Australian farmers to improve the way in which the marketing of our commodities is performed by statutory marketing bodies such as the Australian Wheat Board, the Australian Meat and Livestock Corporation, the Australian Wool Corporation and similar agencies. The Australian Wine and Brandy Corporation Amendment Bill is part of this Government's comprehensive approach to this important area. Section 8 of the principal Act as amended by clause 7 of this Bill creates a powerful marketing tool for grape and wine producers of this country. For many years authorities such as this have been neglected by Opposition members who, despite their rhetoric, have not one policy to put to this House at a time when rural producers seek rational and sensible policies. It has taken a Federal Labor Government to tackle this task. I should also point out that the Cain Government in Victoria has involved itself in the wine and grape industry, and I recommend to honourable members that they obtain a copy of the report on the wine industry in Victoria. If they have not read it, and from the comments made by Opposition members today it is obvious that they have not, I suggest they study the report of the inquiry into the grape and wine industries commissioned by this Government. If the Opposition had done its homework it would have discovered that marketing authorities such as the one we are discussing today have been unsure as to when their accountability lay to Parliament and the Government and when to their industries. At the same time, justifiable doubts had been expressed as to whether some authorities had been sufficiently commerical in their approach and whether their performance was being compromised by excessive controls and constraints exercised by government. This Government has grasped the nettle and resolved these difficulties. Some proposals of the White Paper have already been implemented and this Government will be moving as quickly as possible to apply them more generally. The key elements of the reforms are the election of board members according to the balance of farming and commercial skills required; the clearer articulation of the respective responsibilities of the statutory marketing authorities, government, Parliament and the industries; increased operation autonomy and commercial flexibility; and more effective arrangements for authorities to be accountable for their performance to the industry and this Parliament. An important aspect of the reforms is the removal of a range of government controls relating to day to day administrative matters. These have involved Ministers with unnecessary detail, added to administrative costs of both statutory marketing authorities and the Government, and distracted statutory marketing authority boards and management from their business of marketing agricultural produce. In particular, the Government is moving to reduce controls in relation to statutory marketing authority staffing, finance, land, property and purchasing. The Corporation, strengthened by this Bill, will have a role in dealing with commercial activities, essentially associated with export promotion and regulation. As has been made clear more than once, the Government believes that the commercial roles of statutory marketing authorities require an approach to the composition and selection of corporation boards quite different from that which has applied in the past. It is not appropriate that a board comprise persons to represent various sections of the industry, but rather that they have skills appropriate to their corporate responsibilities. The Government believes that this is due mainly to an unco-ordinated approach to export sales, the lack of appropriate marketing infrastructure for most fresh produce, and inadequate quality control, market research and promotion. This has shown that Australia has performed poorly in both traditional and newer markets in recent years. In the developmental phase of these new marketing initiatives there are clearly situations where there would be a reluctance by an individual producer or processor to fund start-up costs because of the significant uncertainties about the outcome. Some of our rural industries are not well organised for co-ordinating funding or promotion. Some are not organised to differentiate their product and quality control. Others have been very slow in adapting new computer technology in the marketing system. The Government will continue to provide strong support to encourage rapid change in the domestic organisation of its rural industries for marketing purposes, as is evidenced by this Bill. To further facilitate that process the Government will set up a special fund of $25m over five years for innovation in agricultural marketing. It will be operated under guidelines to be agreed by the Minister for Trade and the Minister for Primary Industry. Each of these functions has been significantly improved to provide a more cost-effective, modern and efficient service to industry. Austrade will bring together a coherent focus on agriculture in its marketing and promotional activities and export finance. One of the Commission's principal objectives will be to assist the farm sector to retain its markets and to develop new ones. The Export Finance and Insurance Corporation is providing insurance support for Australia's rural exports, with over one-third of its cover being provided for the agricultural sector. The cover provided for wheat and other commodities is especially important in the more difficult markets where the Commonwealth directly supports sales through the national interest provisions of the Australian Trade Commission. Indeed, without this support it would be very difficult to sell rural commodities in many markets today. Given the difficult marketing conditions facing the wheat industry as a result of structural oversupply in the world market and the subsidy practices of other exporting countries, the Government is reviewing the assistance it currently provides through payments of insurance cover for wheat sales. The review must take account of the growing contingent liabilities the Commonwealth has accepted over recent years and deteriorating economic conditions in major credit markets. The Government expects to hold discussions with the Australian Wheat Board in the near future. There are at present some 6,600 grape growers in Australia who in the 1984 season harvested a record 843,000 tonnes of grapes valued at $218m. The Victorian wine industry has a rich and varied history. William Ryrie is credited with establishing the first vineyards in Victoria in about 1840. Within my own electorate, in the Goulburn Valley of Victoria, wine has long been an established industry. There are some excellent vineyards in my electorate. I have had a few discussions with the smaller boutique vineyards particularly, which are anxious to see that this Bill receives the approval of Parliament. I am pleased that it has bipartisan support. Though some of the larger vineyards have expresed concern, in particular the large manufacturers of wine, it is in the overall interests of the industry, particularly the smaller producers of boutique wine, which will benefit mostly from this legislation. Mrs Vivienne Ritchie of the Delatite vineyard, a producer of very fine cold climate white wines, has been most supportive in her comments to me. That is true also of the Flowerdale vineyard and the Seymour vineyard. The two larger vineyards, Chateau Tabilk and Mitchelton, appreciate the need to improve the marketing situation. I understand that this Bill, with its emphasis on marketing control and export assistance, is receiving their support. This country's future lies in increasing our marketing skills and this Bill, which I am pleased to support, will do much towards that. Unless this country improves its wine exports and sales, there is no future for the Australian wine industry. I am pleased that Wyndham Estate Proprietary Ltd in New South Wales has gone far towards introducing Australian wines into the Japanese market, and I am confident that in future years all Australian wine producers and grape growers will benefit from that large initiative. Mr EWEN CAMERON(Indi)(11.58) —I shall speak briefly on these Bills. The Australian Wine and Brandy Corporation Amendment Bill, the Wine Grapes Levy Amendment Bill, the Wine Research Repeal Bill, the Grape Research Levy Bill and the Grape Research Levy Collection Bill are being debated cognately, which will enable me to speak to some aspects of the industry that affect my electorate of Indi. I am particularly proud of the relatively small, in national terms, but very high quality table wine and fortified wine industry which thrives in my electorate. Such famous areas as Rutherglen, Milawa, Oxley and Taminick are within the electorate. Along with the wine makers there are also a number of wine grape growers who sell their grapes to the wine makers. While the standard of table wines in our area has improved quite remarkably in recent years, the fortified wines produced in north-east Victoria, such as port, muscat, liqueur muscat, frontignac and liqueur frontignac, are quite famous throughout Australia and even overseas. These Bills introduce major reforms to the Australian Wine and Brandy Corporation and the levy Bills enable the funding of the Corporation. Two important roles that have been carried out by the Corporation are research and promotion. The wine makers in my electorate range from relatively small family enterprises through to quite large family companies, as well as those wineries operated by large companies which have entered the wine industry as an extension of their other interests. I have received a strong expression of reservation regarding the worth of the Corporation to them and I am sure that they will all welcome the change in structure proposed by the Australian Wine and Brandy Corporation Amendment Bill. They particularly call for a better line of communication between the Corporation and the industry. As membership of the Corporation will be reduced from 14 to eight we will expect a trimmer ship and a marked improvement in relations with industry. Relations between the Corporation and a significantly large section of the wine producers appear to have been very poor indeed. This is a very sad state of affairs. It is absolutely vital that the full potential for exporting high quality Australian wine be achieved as rapidly as possible. There is an enormous potential but the realisation of this is not only expensive but also very time consuming. Export by a large number of Australian wine makers is out of the question at this time. It is absolutely essential for the restructured Australian Wine and Brandy Corporation to investigate the future development of Australian wine exports. I realise that the Corporation is not empowered to fund overseas export drives but it is imperative for it to make recommendations to the Government as to ways and means of achieving this important potential. The future development of Australian high quality wine export will require the expansion of both vineyards and wine making facilities. I believe that it was a retrograde step taken by the Whitlam Government to remove section 31a of the Income Tax Assessment Act in 1973. Section 31a allowed wine makers to value their stock at low values. The costs of making wine in a particular year could then be deducted against artificial closing stock values to give a net tax deduction against profits from sales in that year. When the wine was sold the low stock value was deducted from the sale price and a higher amount of tax was paid. In simple terms, the wine makers received a deferral of tax payments until the time of sale. This gave them increased liquidity, thus enabling greater investment back into their enterprises. I feel that the replacement of section 31a or some similar common-sense proposal would enable and encourage the industry to improve its product and increase its production to meet future export demands, which I am convinced will follow skilled promotion in countries such as Japan and the United States of America. My colleague the honourable member for Wakefield (Mr Andrew) referred to vine pulling in South Australia. I would like to point out that these vines are not of the grape variety required to produce high quality table wines which are required for the export market. I would also like to join other honourable members who have raised the subject of cheap wine imports. These come mainly from countries in the European Economic Community and receive considerable economic assistance from the EEC. I feel that the reintroduction of section 31a would help to assist our wine producers in countering this threat from overseas. The Opposition supports this legislation but it looks forward to a marked improvement in the performance of the Corporation. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. Message from the Governor-General recommending appropriation announced. The Bill. Clause 3- Page 2, line 11, omit ``definition'', substitute ``definitions''. Page 2, before the proposed definition of ``annual operational plan'', substitute the following definition: `` `annual general meeting' means a meeting that the Corporation is required to covene under section 29ub;''. Clause 9, page 5, lines 1-3, omit proposed sub-section 13 (4). Clause 10, page 6, lines 39-41, omit proposed paragraph 20 (4) (d), substitute ``or''. Clause 14, page 9, lines 1 and 2, omit proposed paragraph 29e (2) (a). Clause 15- Page 14, line 6, omit ``MEETING OF REPRESENTATIVES'', substitute ``GENERAL MEETING''. Page 14, lines 8-18, omit proposed section 29u, substitute the following sections: Interpretation ``29u. (1) In this part, unless the contrary intention appears- `eligible winemaker', in relation to a year, means a person on the list of winemakers prepared in that year; `Levy Act' means the Wine Grapes Levy Act 1979; `list of winemakers' means a list of winemakers prepared under section 29ua. ``(2) For the purposes of this Part and of regulations made for the purposes of this Part, where 2 or more person become liable to pay levy imposed under the Levy Act because they are members of a partnership or are trustees of a trust estate, that partnership or trust estate shall be taken to be the person liable to pay that levy. ``(3) Where, under this Part, rights are conferred upon a body corporate, a partnership or a trust estate to participate at an annual general meeting, those rights shall be exercised by a natural person appointed, in writing, for the purpose by the body corporate, the members of the partnership or the trustees of the trust estate, as the case may be. List of Winemaker ``29ua. (1) As soon as practicable after 30 September in each year that begins on or after 1 July 1987, the Department shall prepare and give to the Corporation a list of the person who the Department shall prepare and give to the Corporation a list of the person who the Department, at the time of the preparation of the list, knows became liable to pay levy imposed during the immediate preceding year under the Levy Act. ``(2) The Corporation shall not use a list of winemakers otherwise than for the purposes of this Parliament. Corporation to convene annual general meeting ``29ub. (1) The Corporation shall, within 3 months after the annual report of the Corporation is laid before the House of Parliament or after the list of winemakers is prepared in the year immediately following the year to which the annual report relates, whichever occurs last, or within such longer period as is approved by the Minister, but not earlier than 42 days after the preparation of that list, cause an annual general meeting of the industry to be convened at a time and place determined by the Corporation. ``(2) The Corporation shall, not later than 42 days before the intended day of an annual general meeting in a year, send to each eligible winemeker for that year- (a) a notice of the day, time and place of the meeting; and (b) a copy of the most recent annual report of the Corporation.''. Page 14, lines 20 and 21 omit ``meeting of the representatives of the industry'', substitute ``general meeting''. Page 14, line 21, omit ``representatives of the industry'', substitute ``eligible winemakers''. Page 14, line 27, omit ``and''. Page 14, after proposed paragraph 29v (v), insert the following word and paragraph: ``and (d) to debate, and vote upon, any motion relating to a matter within the responsibilities of the Corporation.''. Page 14, line 33, omit ``meeting of representatives of the industry'', substitute ``general meeting''. Page 14, lines 36 and 37, omit proposed paragraph 29w (1) (b), substitute the following paragraphs: ``(b) eligible winemakers for the year in which the meeting is held; (c) person invited by the Corporation to attend the meeting; and'' Page 15, line 1, insert ``general'' after ``annual''. Page 15, line 4, omit ``meetig of representatives'', substitute ``general meeting''. Page 15, after proposed section 29w, insert the following sections: Voting at annual meetings ``29x. (1) An eligible winemaker for a year is entitled to vote upon any matter to be determined at the annual general meeting in that year and, for the purpose of so voting, to cast such number of votes as is calculated in accordance with a method determined by the regulations, being a method that has regard to the amount of the levy referred to in sub-paragraph 6 (1) (a) (i) or 6 (1) (b) (i) of the Levy Act. ``(2) Regulations may provide for a procedure relating to voting at annual general meetings which will ensure that the amount referred to in sub-section (1) for which a person became liable remains confidential. Minister to be notified of resolutions ``29y. The Corporation shall, when making a recommendation referred to in sub-section 9 (2) of the Levy Act, notify the Minister of any resolution relating to the recommendation passed or defeated at the most recent annual general meeting, of the number of votes cast for the resolution and of the number of votes cast against the resolution.''. Clause 26, page 24, line 18, omit ``and (b);'', substitute ``and (b) and substituting the following paragraph: (a) making provision with respect to annual general meetings including, in particular, provisions in respect of- (i) the giving of notice of motions to be moved at such meetings; (ii) the moving of motions at such meetings by the Corporation; (iii) the procedure at such meetings; (iv) the appointment by persos entitled to attend such meetings of other person to be their proxies at such meetings; and (v) the means of determining whether or not motions voted upon at such meetings have been passed;';''. Clause 30, page 26, lines 8 and 9, omit paragraphs (c) and (d), substitute the following word and paragraph: ``and (c) after `sub-section 13 (5)' in sub-section 29e (1).''. When I introduced this package of five Bills it was proposed that a reformed Australian Wine and Brandy Corporation would be accountable to industry through, together with other measures, annual meetings with the executives of declared wine makers organisations. To avoid a situation where industry leaders were account- able to themselves it was proposed that the presiding and deputy presiding officers of these industry organisations would not be eligible to serve on the Corporation while they held such office. An associated issue is that provision was made that changes to the levy would be made taking into account the views of declared wine makers organisations. Subsequent to the introduction of this legis- lation industry expressed strong concern that disqualifying the leaders of wine makers organisations from appointment to the Australian Wine and Brandy Corporation could preclude particularly suitable persons having relevant knowledge and experience. In order to address this concern I informed the industry that I would be prepared to make an amendment to the Australian Wine and Brandy Corporation Amendment Bill so that the Corporation would account to industry-that is, to the industry at large by way of annual general meetings rather than at meetings confined to executive members of industry organisations. In this way the conflict of interest situation is overcome and senior office holders of industry organisations are not precluded from serving on the Corporation. This initiative is consistent with the Government's policy statement on the reform of primary industry statutory marketing authorities and it has been welcomed by the industry. The amendments provide for levy paying wine makers to be eligible to participate in debates and to vote on matters falling within the responsibilities of the Corporation at annual general meetings convened by the Corporation. They also provide for a method of determining voting rights that will have regard to the amount of levy imposed. This means that those providing the funding of the Corporation will have an appropriate say in its operation. Procedures for the convening and conduct of annual general meetings will be prescribed by regulation following further consultations with the industry. The amendments provide for the Corporation to convene its first annual general meeting not later than during the year commencing 1 July 1987. The amendments proposed to the Wine Grapes Levy Amendment Bill will enable levy payers to express their views on the rates of levy for funding the Corporation at annual general meetings. Proposals will be put by the Corporation for consideration at an annual general meeting and, when making a recommendation in regard to levies, the meeting's views will be reported by the Corporation and will be taken into account. Prior to the first annual general meeting the Corporation will be required to consult declared wine makers organisations on any proposed levy changes and their views will be taken into account. As I have mentioned, the changes made are to accommodate fundamental industry concerns but they remain fully consistent with the Government's approach to statutory marketing authorities. Mr ANDREW(Wakefield)(12.09) —I must rise on behalf of the Opposition to express the very real concerns we have, not about the amendments but about the timing of their coming into this place. As I said in my speech at the second reading stage, the wine grape industry in particular seems to be characterised by uncertainty. But there is no more uncertainty than there currently appears to be in the Government about how it will deal with legislative matters, particularly those legislative matters that affect rural industry. Yesterday we saw the uncertainty in the way in which the rural package was dealt with by the Government and the uncertainty that existed between the other place and this place over that package. Today these amendments appeared in the office of the Deputy Leader of the National Party (Mr Hunt), who is the Opposition spokesman on primary industry, when he was addressing the House. It was left to an officer of the Department to contact the office of the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Kerin) to advise that the amendments would be coming forward. But the amendments did not appear in the shadow Minister's office until after the debate had begun and while the shadow Minister was addressing this House. We may well ask: Were these amendments ready for debate last night? The debate was scheduled on the blue sheet for consideration yesterday. If the program on the blue sheet had gone forward, it is fair to suppose that the debate could have occurred without these amendments being brought forward. If they were ready last night, why did they take so long to reach the office of the honourable member for Gwydir? If they were not ready last night, how on earth could we have anticipated the amendments being dealt with during the consideration of this legislation? Unfortunately, this is not the first time that this sort of fiasco has occurred. Earlier this year the first advice that the honourable member for Gwydir received of similar last minute amendments by the Minister was when the Minister rose to make his final comments in the debate. I am afraid that, on behalf of the Deputy Leader of the National Party, I must place the Minister on notice that he simply cannot expect automatic endorsement of amendments like this, without reasonable warning being offered to the Opposition parties. Of course, the amendments received the endorsement of the Opposition because they endeavour to make the Corporation, through its annual meeting, even more accountable to the industry. We are pleased to note that as a result of these amendments the annual meeting will be increasingly accountable to levy payers and not just to declared wine maker organisations. As I have said, the Opposition is prepared to accept these amendments today; but, should further disputes arise within the industry, further action could be taken by our parties in the other place. Such action seems unlikely on the preliminary reading of these amendments, as they seem to satisfy the requests of industry representatives. But there really has been little opportunity for the Opposition to consider constructively the implications of these amendments. Mr KERIN(Werriwa-Minister for Primary Industry)(12.12) —I will reply to the comments of the honourable member for Wakefield (Mr Andrew) in general terms. These amendments went through the legislation committee of Cabinet this morning and there was no opportunity to get them to members of the Opposition sooner. I took the action that I did in this regard because I thought it was sensible to be flexible, particularly when it met an industry request and particularly when it was in accord with the Government's overall approach to statutory marketing authorities. Of course, the timing on the blue sheet today is different from that on yesterday's blue sheet. That is just straight forward. I will reply to just a couple of things that were mentioned and pick up the questions from Government members and members of Opposition in debate. The honourable member for Gwydir (Mr Hunt) raised the issue of the membership of the selection committee for selecting Australian Wine and Brandy Corporation members. I said in my second reading speech that the Chairman, government representative and members will be selected from nominations put forward by the three national organisations. The exact number of members who will be on the selection committee will be decided in consultation with those three organisations mentioned in my second reading speech. I cannot go beyond what I have already said. Again, this is consistent with paragraph 3.28 of my January White Paper on statutory marketing authorities. The honourable member for Gwydir also mentioned an error on page 2 of the second reading speech on the Wine Grapes Levy Amendment Bill. The Bill states a $2 maximum and in my second reading speech I said $3. That was a typographical error in the second reading speech. The maximum rate is $2, as in the Bill. The honourable member for Gwydir also referred to decisions to terminate compulsory maturation requirements for brandy, whisky and rum. This has nothing to do with these Bills, but it is appropriate to raise it here. This is an area of responsibility of the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce, Senator Button. The Government looked at this closely. There is no justification for retention of the compulsory maturation requirements. We believe that industries should look after themselves in this respect. There is a four-year moratorium to protect any recent investment. Of course, this is consistent with the Government's moves on deregulation, which the Opposition seems to think is an absolutely marvellous thing. Rather than it being an ideological perspective, this Government looks at these matters on a case by case basis. There were quite a few other questions. The honourable member for Wakefield also raised the issue of vine pull in South Australia and the need for more money. I will not go into detail on that, except to advice him, as I know he is closely interested in this industry, that we are having meetings tomorrow to see whether we can get additional funds across for more vine pull in South Australia as quickly as possible. Really, we need some decision within a fortnight. We will do as much as we can and as quickly as we can. As I said, there will be a meeting tomorrow. Mr CONNOLLY(Bradfield)(12.15) —I just make a brief observation that the Opposition is not happy that the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Kerin) at such a late hour tabled no less than three pages of quite complex amendments to the Wine Grapes Levy Amendment Bill. There is a standing requirement in the House that amendments should be circulated in time for people to be able to absorb them. This is a rule which has been applied by both the Opposition and the Government. This is a most unsatisfactory situation. Despite the fact that the legislation committee of Cabinet passed these amendments only this morning, there has obviously been sufficient time to have the amendments printed and distributed in the House. But, for some reason that I do not believe the Minister adequately explained, there was not sufficient time for the shadow Minister for Primary Industry, the honourable member for Gwydir (Mr Hunt), or for other members of the Opposition involved in this legislation, to study the amendments in detail. Amendments agreed to. Bill, as amended, agreed to. Bill reported with amendments; report-by leave-adopted. Bill (on motion by Mr Kerin)-by leave-read a third time. Consideration resumed from 19 March, on motion by Mr John Brown: That the Bill be now read a second time. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith. Bill (on motion by Mr Kerin) read a third time. Consideration resumed from 19 March, on motion by Mr John Brown: That the Bill be now read a second time. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. Message from the Governor-General recommending appropriation announced. Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith. Bill (on motion by Mr Kerin) read a third time. Consideration resumed from 19 March, on motion by Mr John Brown: That the Bill be now read a second time. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. The Bill. Mr KERIN(Werriwa-Minister for Primary Industry)(12.20) —by leave-I move: (1) Clause 2, page 1, line 11, omit ``Sub-section 3 (2) and section 7'', insert ``Sub-sections 3 (2) and 7 (1) and (3)''. (2) Clause 2, page 1, at the end of the clause add the following sub-clause: ``(4) Sub-section 7 (2) shall come into operation on 30 September 1987.''. (3) Clause 3, page 2, line 7, omit ``definition'' (last occurring), insert ``definitions''. (4) Clause 3, page 2, lines 8 and 9, omit the proposed definition of ``declared winemakers' organisation'', insert the following definitions: `` ` ``Corporation Act'' means the Australian Wine and Brandy Corporation Act 1980; ``declared winemakers' organisation'' has the same meaning as in the Corporation Act;' ''. (5) Clause 7, page 3, lines 14 to 22, omit the clause, insert the following clause: Regulations ``7. (1) Section 9 of the Principal Act is amended by omitting sub-sections (2) and (3) and substituting the following sub-sections: `(2) Subject to sub-section (3), the Corporation may make recommendations to the Minister in relation to regulations to be made for the purposes of the definition of ``marketing amount'' in sub-section 6 (2) or for the purposes of section 6a. `(3) The Corporation shall not make a recommendation under sub-section (2) unless- (a) the Corporation has given declared winemakers' organisations an opportunity to consult with the Corporation regarding the recommendation; and (b) the recommendation of the Corporation is accompanied by particulars in writing of the views on the recommendation expressed by declared winemakers' organisations during those consultations. `(4) The power of the Governor-General to make regulations for the purposes of the definition of ``marketing amount'' in sub-section 6 (2) or for the purposes of section 6a shall be exercised only on advice of the Executive Council, being advice that has taken into consideration- (a) any relevant recommendation made by the Corporation under sub-section (2); and (b) any relevant particulars given to the Minister in accordance with paragraph (3) (b). `(5) A declared winemakers' organisation may make recommendations to the Minister with respect to regulations to be made for the purposes of the definition of ``research amount'' in sub-section 6 (2). `(6) The power of the Governor-General to make regulations for the purposes of the definition of ``research amount'' in sub-section 6 (2) shall be exercised only on advice of the Executive Council, being advice that has taken into consideration any relevant recommendation made by a declared winemakers' organisation under sub-section (5).'. ``(2) Section 9 of the Principal Act is amended- (a) by omitting sub-section (3) and substituting the following sub-section: `(3) The Corporation shall not make a recommendation under sub-section (2) unless a motion to endorse the recommendation has been considered at an annual general meeting within the meaning of the Corporation Act.'; and (b) by omitting paragraph 4 (b) and substituting the following paragraph: `(b) any relevant matters of which the Minister has been notified under section 29y of the Corporation Act.'. ``(3) After the commencement of sub-section (1) and before 1 July 1986, the Principal Act as amended by that sub-section has effect as if `of this Act as proposed to be amended by section 4 of the Wine Grapes Levy Amendment Act 1986' were inserted- (a) after `sub-section 6 (2)' in sub-sections 9 (2), (4), (5) and (6); and (b) after `section 6a' in sub-sections 9 (2) and (4).''. Consistent with the Government's general policy on statutory marketing authorities, as I have already explained to the Committee, an annual general meeting can be held. These amendments will enable levy payers to express at annual general meetings their views on rates of levy for funding the Australian Wine and Brandy Corporation. It is just a simple matter to incorporate that into the Wine Grapes Levy Amendment Bill. Amendments agreed to. Bill, as amended, agreed to. Bill reported with amendments; report-by leave-adopted. Bill (on motion by Mr Kerin)-by leave-read a third time. Consideration resumed from 19 March, on motion by Mr John Brown: That the Bill be now read a second time. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. Message from the Governor-General recommending appropriation announced. Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith. Bill (on motion by Mr Kerin) read a third time. Debate resumed from 15 April, on the following paper presented by Mr Kerin: Economic and Rural Policy-Ministerial Statement, 15 April 1986 and on motion by Mr Young: That the House take note of the papers. Mr CUNNINGHAM(McMillan)(12.23) —In the past, Australian governments have responded to successive rural recessions with measures of a largely ad hoc character. 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 for increasing opinion poll ratings in rural areas. They have not seriously addressed the problems. They have quickly disappeared as the crisis has passed. This Government's approach is different. We have analysed very carefully the nature of the current rural problems. We have not restricted ourselves to farm policy. We have also looked at economic and industry policies and at policies directed towards rural and provincial Australia. This policy statement represents the outcome of that analysis. We have found cases where our policies can be strengthened; we have found some cases where our policies should be changed. However, the broad thrust of our policies has emerged intact. As a result of this review our economic and rural policies have been strengthened. We will now move on to focus our efforts in the areas of highest priority. The Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Kerin), working with other Ministers where appropriate, will carry the responsibility for ensuring that implementation of these policies proceeds quickly and the Government as a whole is committed to that process. In its review of economic and rural policies the Government has identified many areas where little progress can be achieved by government action alone. We are looking for a full commitment from rural groups generally and farm organisations in particular. We are a little disappointed at the negative approach that has been shown in the last 24 to 48 hours. We have suggested machinery to facilitate the process of our developing specific courses of action in these areas. Important areas that fall into this category are referred to in the Minister's statement as a whole and are identified in paragraph 16 in relation to the proposed rural and allied industries council, in paragraph 13 particularly in relation to bilateral trade policy and in paragraph 9 in relation to rural regulation. Although falling world farm prices have been the principal factor, there is no simple explan- ation for the depressed situation of the overall rural economy. Some industries are substantially worse off than others. Some regions have felt more of the pressure than others. In some cases, rural communities have been affected by changes not directly related to the problems of farm industries. Incomes in agriculture are depressed because of a combination of increasing costs and reduced returns. Both sides of that equation must be addressed. In looking at each side it is important to differentiate longer term problems and more immediate difficulties. Until recently farm costs had been rising strongly for well over a decade. This reflected high levels of domestic inflation. Inflation was also high on a world basis. Higher costs in Australia were, to a significant degree, offset by rising international commodity prices. However, there have been some changes in the last few years. In 1982-83 input costs to the farming sector were at 11 per cent. Under the Hawke Government the figure was reduced to 8 per cent in 1985-86. The Bureau of Agricultural Economics has forecast that for next year that very important input cost figure will be down to 3 per cent, a major achievement by any standard. Other factors have contributed to the growth of farm costs over the long term. These include the longer term growth in spending by successive Australian governments and the long established practice of protecting Australian domestic industries by means of quotas and tariffs. The Government has reversed the trend of high domestic inflation in Australia. We have arrested the disproportionate growth of government spending in the Australian economy. These are two measures that have been called for by farm leaders for many, many years, and this Government is delivering on those measures. We have also arrested the growth of tariff and quota protection, another measure which has been called for for a long time by people from the rural sector, not just farming but other areas as well. We have begun to reverse that process with a new approach to industry policy. The recent short term increase in rural costs brought about by high interest rates has been a temporary phenomenon. Tight monetary policy was necessary in order to sustain the benefits for the Australian economy from the currency depreciation. However, interest rates are now on a downward trend. It is on the return side of the farm income equation that we face the most serious problems. Farm returns have been affected by domestic policies, including tariffs and taxes, as well as by world market returns. Until this Government came to office returns were also affected adversely by management of the Australian dollar. Because previous conservative governments did not have a more direct means of combating inflation, they resorted to maintaining the dollar at artificially high levels. This was accompanied by periods of very tight monetary or fiscal policy. This Government has changed that. It is something else that the rural industries' organisations had been calling for and this Government delivered, but the conservatives refused to deliver. In conjunction with the prices and incomes accord, fiscal and monetary policies are being applied in order to achieve sustainable growth and declining inflation over the medium term. Farm incomes will not return to prosperous levels until returns from world markets recover. That is a fact of life. This is a matter which is largely beyond Australia's control. However, returns from world markets can be improved by stronger and more determined marketing efforts, notwithstanding the fact that the general level of prices is depressed and the markets have been corrupted by the policy actions of others, particularly the European Economic Community. Returns from international markets would also improve, in the medium term, by improved rates of economic growth in the world economy and, particularly, by a spreading of the recovery to the developing countries. Farmers would be the principal beneficiaries of progress in seriously addressing the world trading system for agricultural products. The Government has set out a comprehensive range of initiatives in the policy statement to address agricultural marketing, the problems of world trade and our bilateral trading strategy. Initiatives relating to the world economy also have been covered. These international initiatives are being pursued right now at the highest level by the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke), the Foreign Minister (Mr Hayden), the Minister for Trade (Mr Dawkins), the Minister for Primary Industry and the Treasurer (Mr Keating). The marketing initiatives are comprehensive. They include additional expenditure of around $35m over the next five years, in addition to wool promotion, currently running at over $30m a year, and $7m allocated for meat marketing over the next five years. Improvements in marketing efficiency are needed. In relation to farm returns, it should be noted that the Government has in place a wide range of programs to underwrite minimum commodity prices. These schemes are outlined in section 11 of the Minister's statement. The wheat industry, in particular, could receive significant assistance under arrangements existing in that industry if markets continue to deteriorate. This was not mentioned over the last 24 hours by the leaders of farm organisations and is something that they should be putting across to the constituencies. Some members of the rural community have argued that wages should have taken a greater burden of the adjustment that the Australian economy is going through. Some facts on this matter need to be spelt out. We have achieved the necessary moderation in wages growth. Real unit labour costs have fallen by around 7 per cent since 1982-83 and now approximate the levels of the 1960s and early 1970s. The wage earner of this country is carrying his share of adjustment of the Australian economy and should be given credit for it rather than being lampooned by farm organisations. We have secured a path-breaking agreement with the Australian Council of Trade Unions, under which we are proposing a 2 per cent discounting of the wage indexation increase to be awarded following the April national wage case. This agreement is directly related to the depreciation of the Australian dollar. Rural producers have benefited from the general reduction in labour costs. There are also opportunities under the national wage case principles and the agreement between the Government and the ACTU on productivity-related superannuation for the rural sector to present a properly documented case for deferral, given the current difficulties the sector faces. The bottom line in relation to macro-economic and incomes policy is that farm inflation, which was rising at 11.5 per cent when we came to office, is at around 8 per cent this year under the influence of temporarily higher general inflation necessarily associated with the depreciation. As I said previously, it is forecast to fall to as low as 3 per cent in 1986-87-a major achievement of this Government. The net benefit of the depreciation to the rural sector is estimated at $1 billion on a full year basis. The policies of this Government are now placing $1 billion over and above what would have been received under the previous Government's policies into the pockets of exporters from Australia. The Government is looking at a 3 per cent cost structure for next year. This benefit, unfortunately, has been offset by further reductions in international commodity prices. The Government has examined the cost of farm inputs on a comprehensive basis. As a result of policies already in place farm fuel costs will be reduced by over $300m, bounties are being paid on farm tractors and grain harvesters at a cost, including tariff revenue forgone, of over $20m, fertiliser subsidies and bounties are being paid at a cost of around $65m a year and, as noted above, real unit labour costs have fallen and interest rates have begun to retreat from their recent very high levels. New measures in this statement include: The extension of bounty payments to certain tillage equipment, at a cost of around $39m in 1986-87, the extension of assistance to fertilisers, at a continuing estimated cost of around $65m and an undertaking to reduce the costs of agricultural and veterinary chemicals by reducing tariffs or paying bounties, after consideration of a forthcoming Industries Assistance Commission report and the immediate removal of the 2 per cent revenue duty on imported agricultural chemicals. It is estimated that the recommendations of this report will be in place in the near future. We can expect the benefits of that to be flowing towards the end of this financial year. The final new measure the statement includes is an extra $220m in loans at subsidised interest rates to help in the process of rural adjustment, at a direct budgetary cost of $22m-a 50 per cent reduction in interest costs for the farmers most in need who apply for loans and who can justify their position. That should be spelt out loudly and clearly to the farming sector. It would put a little more confidence back into rural Australia and there would be a little less of the doom and gloom we have had in the last 48 hours from people who say they represent the farming community of Australia. Farmers are not whingers, but I have doubts about some of the leadership around the country, including the National Party. The additional funding for rural adjustment is part of a substantial program aimed at adjusting, preserving and enhancing the rural capital and resource base of rural Australia. These programs will bring long term benefits to the sector. Additional employment-creating initiatives are being considered under the community employment program to help further reduce rural and provincial unemployment. That has been a major program which some of my colleagues will deal with in later speeches today. Other aspects of the Government's broader policies in country areas the Government has announced in the statement include initiatives in relation to rural housing, rural education, regional development and the delivery of income security assistance and rural health services. The Government commends the policy statement as a whole to the Australian community, and to rural people in particular, for detailed study. The document will be widely circulated within days Australia-wide. We believe that when the rural sector and people in country and provincial towns get to study it and read it, they will understand that some of the statements that have been made on their behalf in the last 48 hours have very little fact behind them. We believe that the statement will be the central focus of rural policy for some years to come. We are confident that our further determined efforts to implement the programs set out in the statement will eventually help to restore rural prosperity, although we do not deny that the problems we face in world markets are serious. However, as our approach has been to address the domestic implications comprehensively, the policies we are adopting should lay the foundations for a continuing long term contribution to Australian economic growth by our rural community. In conclusion, I quote from one of the editorials in today's newspapers. I refer to the Melbourne Age. It is headed `The Kerin plan under attack'. I would like the people of Australia to listen to the quotation carefully. The editorial states: An Age poll this week showed there is considerable sympathy for farmers within cities. The farmers ought to build on that support and instead of bleating at the comprehensive Kerin plan, and seeking to portray it as a shonky palm-off, they should welcome the many positive elements it contains. They ought also to give short shrift to any of their representatives who try to blame everything (except the weather) on Canberra. Such behaviour erodes public respect for farmers, and must make politicians wonder whether it is worth while doing anything at all to help such ingrates. That is not the position we on this side of the chamber take. We seriously believe that we need to help the rural sector but we also believe that many spokespersons who supposedly speak on behalf of farmers have let the farmers down and are not really saying the sort of things the farming community wants. Farmers are not whingers, but I am afraid that I cannot say the same of their representatives in this chamber or some of the leadership that has spoken in the last 48 hours. Mr SINCLAIR(New England-Leader of the National Party of Australia)(12.39) —Sadly, today we are debating a statement which is long on gloss and short on fact. Last night in this chamber the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard) moved a motion, which I seconded, for the suspension of Standing Orders to call on the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Kerin) to explain to the chamber the absolute confusion as to just what the contents of this gloss are all about, particularly with respect to two key elements. The first element is whether there is to be a negating of the quarantining of farm loss provisions and the second is as to whether the cost of that negating which, in the glossy publication is put at $65m and $45, is accurate. We all know that the Minister for Finance (Senator Walsh) disagrees with the interpretation placed on the package by both the Minister for Primary Industry and the Acting Treasurer (Mr Hurford). What is more important is that since then there has been another release from the office of the Minister for Finance in which the Minister has stood by his assertion that the quarantining of farm loss remains and that the figures are wrong. That situation is totally unacceptable, apart from all the other traumas about the adequacy of the package and the fundamental concern in the rural community that something be done positively to redress the imbalance in rural incomes caused largely by the charges, taxes and imposts of this Labor Government. We are concerned that the Acting Prime Minister (Mr Lionel Bowen) has no choice but to intervene to advise the farmers and the people of Australia just what the rural package means. The only key provision in terms of value and benefit to the rural community is in the elimination of that one element of the tax package. We are told by the Minister for Finance that it has not been abolished, and it is up to the Acting Prime Minister to resolve what is a fundamental dispute between his senior Ministers. In a climate where that is not resolved the rest of the package does not matter. Within the rural community and the community at large many people are concerned about what is happening and where we are going. For that reason, and because we on this side of the House see this rural package as not removing the fundamental cost burden the Government has imposed on the rural community, some firm action is necessary. We need to remember two things: First, this Labor Government over two Budgets has added to the cost burden of the rural community by about $442m. This package, whatever the Government says about $200m, in fact reduces that burden by only $108m. In other words, only one-third of what the Government has taken away is it now proposing to give back. Much of what it said it would give back is by way of tax forgone, taxes that have not yet been imposed, and taxes that will make many in the rural community so much worse off. Let the Australian people understand that the reason why they and the farmers will suffer and the reason Australia will continue to have an adverse balance of payments is that this Government has not been able to get its act right. For that reason, I move: That all words after `That' be omitted with a view to substituting the following words: this House (1) condemns the Government for (a) the confusion created by the contradictory statements by the Minister for Finance on the announcement of changes to the quarantining of farm losses; (b) the uncertainty as to the value of the rural package following the contradiction by the Minister for Finance of the revenue estimated to be forgone on the quarantining of farm loss tax provision as presented by the Acting Treasurer and the Minister for Primary Industry; (c) doing nothing to change the new capital gains tax and the fringe benefits tax on employers, which will have a serious adverse impact on primary producers and other small businesses; (d) persisting with the 3 per cent productivity pay increase as it affects the rural sector and ignoring the implications of the CPI-based accord on industries with falling incomes; (e) its inadequate response to the problems of the rural sector in its failure to address adequately Government charges and tax problems within its responsibility; (f) its inadequate response to the nation's increasingly serious adverse balance of payments and overseas indebtedness problems by denying the rural sector a prospect of renewed profitability and adequate contributions to export returns; and (g) allowing the Minister for Primary Industry to mislead the farmers of Australia by claiming the value of the package is $200 million, when in fact it is only $108 million; (2) calls on the Deputy Prime Minister to resolve the outstanding difference between the Minister for Primary Industry and the Acting Treasurer and Minister for Finance on the contents of the package; and (3) calls on the Government to redress the serious problems of the rural sector by a comprehensive reassessment of Government-imposed taxes and charges on the rural sector. Because under the procedures we have to move to other matters, I seek leave to continue my remarks later. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Ruddock) —Order! It being 12.45 p.m., the debate is interrupted in accordance with sessional order 106a. The debate may be resumed at a later hour, when the right honourable member will have leave to continue his remarks. Mr BEDDALL(Rankin)(12.45) —I move: That this House praises the Government for the progress it is making in implementing fisheries management regimes for Australia's major fisheries thereby correcting years of neglect and returning them to profitability. Mr Deputy Speaker, It is with pleasure that I move this motion today. In this I will be supported by my able colleagues, the honourable member for Leichhardt (Mr Gayler), the honourable member for Grey (Mr O'Neil) and the honourable member for Capricornia (Mr Wright), all people who have a very great interest in this debate. The Government has undertaken a major restructuring of all of Australia's primary industries, and the fisheries industry is no exception. The Hawke Government is committed to making sure that the primary industry sector is turned away from the dangers of simple solutions to the cost-price squeeze, the dangers of restrictive marketing arrangements and the dangers of quick-fix solutions, which only look to continuing government interference. The Government has reversed years of neglect by the Liberal and National parties, who spoke for years of how they were best able to solve the problems of primary industries. They bungled the economy, they bungled trade policy, they bungled primary industry, and in Queensland they are bungling the whole fabric of government propriety. The Liberal and National parties gave us parity world oil pricing, an overvalued dollar and the highest deficit in Australian history. They increased our international debt from $21 billion to $39 billion. It is against this background of total incompetence left to us by the previous Government that the Hawke Government set about trying to restore profitability to one of our great industries, the Australian fishing industry. Over recent years, the Government has developed a policy whereby government-industry task forces and management advisory committees have been established to oversight development of management regimes for our major fisheries. The Government has increased substantially the Commonwealth funds available to fisheries research and a fisheries section has been established in the Bureau of Agricultural Economics to provide economic advice in support of management. In addition, industry representatives have been included on management committees and task forces set up by the Australian Fisheries Council to advise on the management of the major fisheries. As a result of these initiatives, comprehensive fisheries management plans have been developed or are under consideration for all of our major fisheries. The Government is also moving to implement the off-shore constitutional settlement as it relates to fisheries. This would further assist in the introduction of improved management arrangements for our fishery industries. Mr Deputy Speaker, as in any great industry, there is a need for the effective marketing and promotion of fishing industry products. The marketing and promotion of fish has traditionally been left to the industry and State authorities. In early 1985, the Australian Seafoods Promotion Council was established. In the absence of industry support, the Federal Government considers that it should not seek to expand the Commonwealth's role in this area. With respect to exporting arrangements, the Federal Government has established the Inspection Policy Council as the forum for all interests at the national level and, to assist this body in matters relating to the fishing industry, the Fish Inspection Technical Advisory Committee was established in May 1985. Perhaps the most contentious issue for Australian fishermen is the presence of foreign vessels which are trawling off-shore. All of us have seen on television or in newspapers the arrest of foreign fishermen and the confiscation of fishing vessels. The Government's policy on foreign fishing has been clearly identified, with the domestic industry being given preference in the development of Australian fishing resources. Foreign participation in the Australian fishing zone is continuously monitored to ensure that Australian interests are safeguarded. Conditions of entry and payments are under continuous review and are negotiated annually. As with all primary industries, there is a need for government to ensure that there is adequate financial assistance. While the rural adjustment scheme has not yet been fully extended to the fishing industry, provision is available for individual fisheries to be assisted where conditions as laid out by the Industries Assistance Commission have been met. In 1984 the Government announced that it would guarantee a loan of $5m to commence an industry-funded lay-back scheme for the northern prawn industry. Legislation giving effect to this guarantee was passed by the Senate on 11 October 1985. I am sure this is a matter that the member for Leichhardt will be very keen to talk about later in this debate. In June 1985, the expenditure over three years of a further $9m was approved by the Government to assist in the restructuring of the prawn industries in northern Australia. An amount of $3m was allocated in the 1985-86 Budget for this purpose. The Hawke Government has recognised that the Australian fishing industry has the potential to be an industry not only of great significance to this country, but also one that will be a source of high protein food for our near neighbours. The Senate Standing Committee on Trade and Industry in 1979 brought down its report on the Australian fishing industry. The Government has addressed all the major issues in this report with the exception of one, and my colleagues who are to follow me in this debate will obviously expand on some of the areas more fully. The Government's attitude to the fishing industry is typical of its approach to all primary industry, and, in the words of the famous television advertisement, it can be truly classified as the quiet achiever. This clearly indicates the difference in Government between the Australian Labor Party and the coalition National-Liberal parties. The Senate Standing Committee report wallowed like a beached whale until the change of government in 1983. I am pleased that the successful implementation of its recommendations has brought about a fundamental change to the Australian fishing industry. It took until November 1982 for the previous Government to even respond to the report and when it did so the response was typical of the Fraser-Howard Government's inadequate grasp of the issues facing so many of Australia's vital rural industries at that time. The only recommendations the Senate Committee report that have not been addressed to date are those relating to the establishment of statutory authorities. My understanding is that negotiations are still continuing on these matters and will be reported upon shortly. In a debate such as this, I think it is also important to address an issue which was raised by another Senate Committee, that is, the Senate Standing Committee on Animal Welfare. That report recommended the banning of keeping in oceanariums such marine mammals as dolphins, a view to which I do not subscribe. However, there is a very serious problem facing the dolphin population that inhabits the waters of the Australian coast. That is the accidental taking of dolphins by gill netters. While this does not breach the Whale Protection Act of 1980 or the Fisheries Act of 1952, it is a problem that should be addressed. I know that the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Kerin) has approached his State colleagues to obtain their views on a number of proposals to address this problem. Effective fish management can only be undertaken with the co-operation of the State and Federal Governments and it is hoped that this can be achieved without the usual grandstanding from State Ministers. It may seem strange for a member of this House who represents a totally landlocked electorate to be moving such a motion. However, I think there is a gross underestimation by the Australian population at large of the vital nature of our fishing industry. It is also important to point out that changes have taken place in our attitude to the fishing industry. In my own Federal Division of Rankin, near the town of Aratula, there is a very large freshwater crayfish farm and many rural producers are now looking to crayfish and yabbies as a new form of cash crop, not only for domestic consumption but also for the export market. Such utilisation represents only a relatively small part of the farm property and it is now feasible for additional farmers to diversify into a totally new and exciting industry. I have also been approached by a group of citizens in the town of Warwick, which is part of my Federal Division who are keen to introduce 100,000 yellow belly fingerlings to the new Leslie dam to provide not only recreational activity but also the opportunity for inland Australians to catch and consume fish. This group is led by Alderman Les Meiklejohn of the Warwick City Council. I congratulate Alderman Meiklejohn and his group on their initiative. The only criterion by which the success of this Government's policies can be measured is the performance of the Opposition parties when in government. Take, for example, the Bjelke- Petersen National Party Government in Queensland and examine its performance with the rural adjustment and reconstruction scheme. From its own budget figures, as of 30 June 1985, the Queensland National Party Government had accumulated $38.824m in the rural adjustment fund and the rural reconstruction fund. These funds were set up to protect primary producers who were in financial difficulties. On its own budget estimates, the Queensland Government plans to receive $29m. In reality, it will dip into its massive accumulation to the extent of only $2.76m. The Queensland National Party Government will provide only $2.76m at a time when rural groups are saying that there is a crisis in rural industry, two million dollars at a time when the sugar industry is falling apart, two million dollars at a time when drought is sweeping throughout much of Queensland, two million dollars at a time when the grain industry is facing a severe price squeeze, two million dollars at a time when dairy farmers in my electorate around Warwick still cannot get decent market access for milk, two million dollars at a time when the small crop farmers in the Fassifern area face downturns from Edgells. Of that sum how much would be allocated to the fishing industries? It is important that rural reconstruction funds be made available to those parts of Australian industry that need them and I hope that the fishing industry can get access to the money locked up in the Queensland National Party Government's treasury. The only thing that the National Party in Queensland has done for primary producers is make a very comfortable living out of them. A heck of a lot of them represent these rural seats by living in the suburbs of Brisbane. Against that miserable form the Hawke Government has performed remarkably well. The Government has moved to develop effective management arrangements for fisheries and has more sympathy for rural industries than the National Party ever could produce. At present all the major fisheries for which the Commonwealth has responsibility are either being managed or are subject to the development of management arrangements. The industry has been consulted on all aspects of these developments and all management advisory committees have a significant industry involvement. A review is presently under way to re-examine the Fishing Industry Research Committee and a set of national priorities for fishing research has been developed. The Government has clearly indicated that preference will be given to the domestic industry in the development of Australian fisheries resources and assistance has been provided to restructure significant components of the industry. I always find it quite amazing that a country as large as Australia, with such a large coastline and such abundant fishing resources, has to import much of its fish from overseas. I think it is a classic example of Australian industry, and in particular some sections of the rural industry, not looking forward to what can be achieved by the export of Australian fish. A very significant proportion of our near neighbours rely on fish as a staple diet. Anybody who has had the pleasure of going to Japan and eating their excellent sushi will soon realise the very great importance that the Japanese market places on fresh fish. I think this is something we should be not only investigating but pursuing with great vigor. I find it quite extraordinary that Japanese fishing fleets come to Australia, catch Australian fish and take it back to the Japanese market when the Australian fishing industry could readily meet that market. If we are going to redress our balance of payments position we must expand our fishing industry. It is one that has great potential. I noticed only a few days ago another example of how our industry is being subverted by forces from outside this country. When you go to the local supermarket you can find such a thing as English whiting on the shelves, when there is nothing finer than the great Australian whiting, which I think is one of the best fish that the world has ever seen. Overall, Mr Deputy Speaker, the Government has developed significant initiatives in the Australian fishing industry. All have been designed to allow the industry to develop to meet future challenges. Many of the people in this House have a much more intimate knowledge of the fishing industry and honourable members on this side certainly do. I know that the honourable member for Leichhardt has a great interest in the northern prawn industry. Again, that is one of the great fisheries industries. The honourable member for Grey, has a very significant interest in a different part of our fishing industry and I am sure that he will address its problems and the assistance that has been given to it. Also, my colleague and close friend from Queensland, the honourable member for Capricornia, represents a very fine and picturesque part of that State and does so extremely well. Mr Deputy Speaker, in praising these members I do so for a purpose beyond that of extending my time. I wish to allow those members who represent areas with significant fishing industries adequate time to speak in this debate. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Ruddock) —Is the motion seconded? Mr O'NEIL(Grey)(12.59) —Mr Deputy Speaker, I have pleasure in seconding the motion. I am pleased to have the opportunity to commend the Government for the progress it has made in implementing fishing management regimes for Australia's major fisheries. As the city of Port Lincoln, which sends out the country's largest tuna fleet, is in my electorate of Grey, I feel I have some authority to speak on the fishing industry. Some 7,500 tonnes of tuna and 600 tonnes of prawns are shipped for export from Port Lincoln. Tuna and prawns form the backbone of the industry but abalone, lobster and other delicacies also are processed at Port Lincoln for export. A managed, well developed plan is vital for the industry because a few years ago scientists recorded that if we did not make some drastic changes and watch the industry, we certainly would not be having any further tuna. As a matter of fact, there were grave dangers of tuna being fished out. As a consequence, Australia's southern bluefin tuna fishery had its formal management plan introduced under this Government on 1 December 1985. The plan in effect ratified the quota system introduced in the fishery in 1984 following extensive consultation between the Government, fishermen's representatives and State fishing agencies. The introduction of the formal plan by the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Kerin) was the first under new powers inserted in the Commonwealth's Fisheries Act of 1952 during the autumn 1985 sittings of Parliament. Management plans for other major fisheries were being prepared by the Australian Fisheries Service. Under the plan the Minister for Primary Industry would set a total allowable catch (TAC) for Australian boats each season, commencing 1 October, and the catch would be further divided into 5,347 individual units of fishing capacity. This plan, by any stretch of the imagination, is a correct one in planned control of the industry. Fishermen who held units under the interim management arrangements now have the units registered and allocated under the formal plan. For the 1985-86 season, the TAC of southern bluefin tuna is 14,500 tonnes live weight. Each unit of fishing capacity therefore represents 2.71 tonnes of catch quota. While the plan provides for an annual determination of the TAC, the number of units of fishing capacity in the fishery will remain constant until further notice. If scientists of the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation believe that there are more adequate stocks obvioiusly that quota will be lifted. The plan also provides for exemption from unit requirments for boats that were eligible to catch up to 1 tonne, or in some cases up to five tonnes, of SBT in a season incidental to methods other than the pole and line or purse seine. However, all boats taking SBT are required to report their catches to fisheries authorities within 24 hours of disposing of them. Under the Fisheries Licenses Levy Act 1984 a levy of $41.15 per unit is payable by the registered unit holder. Permanent transfers of units of leases of quota are not approved unless the levy on the units concerned has been paid. The full amount of the levy must be paid by the end of this month. The levy represents the industry's contribution to the cost of managing the SBT. Fishery and other people who have not paid the levy by the end of this month, that is 30 April, will be required to show cause why the registration of their units should not be cancelled. Mr Deputy Speaker, the transition from the existing interim arrangements to full implementation of the formal plan has gone relatively smoothly and I congratulate the Minister upon his personal supervision of this. It is a credit to him. The tuna fishermen, like any other primary producer, have had their problems over the years. However, the godsend of the industry has been the sashimi market. Sashimi is the raw fish delicacy that is sought eagerly by the Japanese for eating. While tuna supplied to canneries can fetch around $700 to $800 a tonne in the market-place in Tokyo, top quality tuna for sashimi can bring anything from $16,000 to $20,000 a tonne, even more. It is, however the exception rather than the rule. New South Wales fishermen can have their catch on the Tokyo market within 36 hours by putting it in ice crates and flying it directly from Sydney to Japan. But from South Australia, without access to direct flights, they have to freeze their fish at sea. It is normally shipped to Japan. Because of the high costs of buying onboard freezing equipment, a $1m investment, most fishermen choose to transfer their fish to sashimi processors at sea. Dino Lukin of Port Lincoln has been a pioneer in the sashimi area. He began supplying the Japanese market several years ago and has established a sashimi cold store in Port Lincoln. While mentioning Port Lincoln I must say that I support the Port Lincoln fishermen's right to go long-line fishing in New South Wales waters. Apart from the obvious entitlement, after purchasing New South Wales quotas, Port Lincoln fishermen have proven to be responsible and objective in ensuring the long term viability of the industry. I commend the South Australian Tuna Boat Owners Association and thank them for the rapport that I have been fortunate enough to strike up with them. As I have stated previously, extensive and harmonious discussions have taken place between the Commonwealth, the States and the industry to protect other resources from over exploitation. The Government has commenced to implement the off-shore constitutional settlement to rationalise fisheries jurisdiction between the States and Commonwealth and reduce the duplication of licensing and other administrative arrangements. We will continue this approach and introduce new plans as and when necessary. To help reduce the excess fishing effort in the northern prawn fisheries the Government agreed last year to provide a $9m grant over three years. The first annual allocation has been applied to buying out fishing access rights in northern Australia. This, combined with improved economic circumstances and the overall beneficial effects of the total management plan, has resulted in a significant improvement in these fisheries. The Government will therefore extend the application of voluntary adjustment programs to other fisheries as appropriate. Such extension will, however, be conditional upon the existence of an effective management plan for the relevant fishery and a willingness by its fishermen to make a significant contribution to the cost. The Government has agreed also, in principle, to employing the balance of $6m to help fund fisheries adjustment over the next two financial years. I think these are very constructive moves and I applaud the Hawke Government for taking those initiatives. However, one of the major impediments to the success of any industry which relies on the delivery of a fresh product to the market is the lack of an adequate communication and delivery system. We should all be aware of how successful and necessary a very adequate communication system is. In the past we have seen the success of electronic marketing schemes in other industries. At the moment beef, lamb and wool, to name a few, are being successfully marketed through electronic systems. The progression to such a system in the marketing of fish is but another step in the industry's development. The Government fully supports such a move. One of the most viable systems that this Government is supporting is Viatel gateway electronic marketing. It has a few unique features. Not only does it propose to extend the present marketing arrangements by allowing the producers direct access to the consumers or wholesalers, it also proposes extending the operation into the international arena. In the first instance the producer is offered a method which could directly reduce operating costs. We all support this. We realise just how necessary it is. In addition, it has the potential to deliver a fresh product directly onto the market, which would improve the quality and thereby stimulate the demand for the product, also expand the size of the market for the individual. Within the present market the consumers have often complained about the uncertainty of seafood quality. Their purchase of seafood products as opposed to direct substitutes, for example red meats or chicken, is often determined by their familiarity with the product and their experience of the quality of the seafood that they previously used. Traditionally Australian consumers have chosen to purchase imported frozen fish products rather than the fresh domestic product. It would appear that this choice has been directly related to the uncertain quality of the local product. Any method which reduces this uncertainty has the potential to increase the sale of Australian products. However, there is a downside risk. If the quality of the product under direct sale is poor, the sale of imported products will continue to rise. It is therefore important for Australian producers to realise that the use of any system which enhances the potential to improve sales cannot be a substitute for a quality product. This is particularly the case with export sales, where traditionally Australia's reputation for the production of high quality crustaceans and molluscs is extremely high. Only limited export markets for fin fish are currently being exploited but all indications suggest that these markets could expand, particularly in South East Asia, the Middle East and the United States. One can see that the Government is taking some very positive moves to assist the industry and I think that our record speaks for itself. I certainly hope that speakers on the other side of the House will, in a bipartisan manner, applaud the Government for the initiatives that it has taken. It is a great privilege to second this very important motion. Mr IAN ROBINSON(Page)(1.12) —Mr Deputy Speaker, we have listened with interest to the proposition of the honourable member for Rankin (Mr Beddall), seconded by the honourable member for Grey (Mr O'Neil). I must say at the outset that one could believe that the Government and certainly the members who have just spoken-in particular the honourable member for Rankin-had just discovered the fishing industry. Mr Gayler —Ah! Mr IAN ROBINSON —The honourable member obviously wants to get on the band- wagon. Let me say that the honourable member for Grey has made a contribution of worth. As was disclosed by the content of his contribution, he at least knows something about the industry. But the honourable member for Rankin attempted to turn it into a spurious political proposition. Mr Wright —And you are not doing that? Mr IAN ROBINSON —I invite the honour- able member to look at the terms of the motion. Mr Wright —How many speeches did you make on it in the past two years? Mr IAN ROBINSON —Go to Hansard. The honourable member has a lot to learn in this House. It is a most deceptive approach to most matters. The previous Government has, to its credit, a long record of encouragement and development of one of the major primary industries of this country. In something over two decades the previous Government encouraged the development of the fishing industry to the point where its production rose to the high level of $400m each year. Of that about 75 per cent was exported. There has certainly been a great need gradually to bring the whole fishing industry under a better regime. This certainly would not have been possible if it had not been for the negotiation of international agreements which did take considerable time, effort and ingenuity on the part of the previous Government. Nor would there have been a fishing industry of the magnitude which we have today if it had not been for the support given in a number of other directions. Let us think of the subsidy for boat building. What has the present Government done about that? It has let it slip away; it has let it go; it has abandoned any help for the industry in that respect. Let us look at the cost escalation in the past three years under the present Government. No industry has been hit harder by that cost escalation than has the fishing industry. One of the major reasons, of course, is the fact that that industry is one of the most fuel intensive in Australia. Fortunately some reduction in fuel costs has emerged in the last few weeks. The decision to grant some concessions for the off-road use of diesel fuel has assisted the fishing industry. I applaud the action taken. It just happened that it took too long. The industry was in dire trouble but it took two years of negotiation before there was any recognition at all. So there are pros and cons in this whole issue of where the industry stands and what the present Government has done. I applaud the Government for making available special adjustment assistance for the fishing industry, but let us just bring this whole matter right up to date. In the economic and rural policy statement delivered by the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Kerin) on Tuesday there was one sentence, one tiny obscure sentence, in respect of the fishing industry. It was: 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 substantial yield basis. Successful adjustment assistance has already been provided in respect of the northern prawn fisheries. I am sure that the honourable member for the Northern Territory (Mr Everingham) will give us some very interesting information about that shortly. The statement then contains this one sentence: We have decided to extend this assistance to all fisheries that are subject to effective management arrangements. There was no detail, no indication as to whether it would mean an increase in the total of $9m already allocated, no indication as to what further assistance this very vital and important industry was to be accorded. Of course fishing, as a consequence of the actions of the previous Government, has been accorded status as an industry within the ambit of primary industry. Concessions that previously were available exclusively to other industries under the heading `primary industry' were not available to the fishing industry. But the previous Government altered that situation in respect of taxation and many other aspects that have been helpful to the fishing industry. Not one word about that was stated by the mover of the proposition today. To turn to other important aspects, we know that the industry has had massive problems. Those have been very largely redressed by its own internal management ability, its recognition that it must be a participant. Let us look at the terms of the legislation of May last year when the Government introduced a Bill to make possible arrangements for the better management of the industry. What do we find? We find management plans for the industry that are acceptable to the industry and are accorded support on this side of the House, but let us remember one significant thing about that aspect. A levy is part and parcel of that legislation-a levy on the fishing industry to produce the funds for the purpose of these management arrangements. The levy proceeds to fund the administration of management are to be the entire source of financing for that work. There is to be no direct financial input by the Government so far as fisheries management is concerned. If this Government had any sympathy at all for the industry at this time it could find some contribution that it could make towards that aspect of the very important work that is necessary in the current situation. But no, it comes in here mouthing words about what it has done in the short space of less than a year since the introduction of this legislation, without presenting any proposition to update or further augment the proposals except by saying under some obscure wording that there will be further assistance for adjustment purposes. Let it come out into the open and say what that assistance is. I find on the north coast of New South Wales, largely in my own electorate, the electorate of the honourable member for Cowper (Mr Nehl) and the electorate for the honourable member for Richmond, (Mr Blunt), that there are fishermen who are facing real difficulties. Many do not get any benefit from the adjustment proposition at all. Simply because of the historic nature of their operations, the introduction of the new arrangements excludes them from certain fishing that they were able to undertake in the past, puts them into a very difficult situation and limits their income. But they still have the opportunity to carry on fishing within certain confines. They are under extreme pressure and I see nothing in the proposition before the House today that will assist those participants, those traditional fishermen who have been in the industry for a lifetime in some instances, who have no alternate occupational opportunity and are entirely dependent on their income from the fishing industry. So there is much more to it than is found in the words that we listened to from the honourable member for Rankin. There is certainly a lot in what was put forward by the honourable member for Grey and I just want to say that on this side of the House we have adopted a by-partisan approach, we have had a recognition of the importance of the industry and in particular those very loyal people within it who have had fishing as their life's occupation, who have a family approach in many instances and who want to do the best they can in the interest of the maintenance of the fish catch, in the interest of conservation where that is necessary and in the interest of producing the highest standard products possible. But all of this did not come about in nine months. The establishment of the co-operatives on the east coast of Australia, the safe anchorages, the development of all of the facilities that have changed the industry from one of a haphazard risky operation to one with a degree of sophistication came from support given by previous governments in office in this parliament, from support given by State governments who had the interests of the fishing industry at heart. It is from that base that the present approaches are possible. There are issues, of significance and these of course will be thrashed out between the industry and those who talk to them. I can assure Government supporters that there are very sympathetic members on this side of the House who do keep in touch with the fishing industry, who do talk to fishermen about their problems and who have a particular interest in trying to ensure that viability for the individual fisherman is ultimately obtained, and that in a way that will be to the satisfaction of not only the fishermen themselves but also those who have an involvement in the commercial operation. That is a pretty extensive operation. It is one that involves export marketing and the very important element of ensuring that we supply on the world market, by way of a standard, the kind of product that the market wants. It is not the Government that is achieving that, it is the industry. The industry is doing it very well. In my own electorate I have been very impressed by work that has been done to establish prawn farming. It is an expensive operation. As one who undertook early work said recently in an Australian Broadcasting Corporation program: `Do not touch it unless you have access to at least $1m, to get under way, to establish proper facilities and to be able to withstand what is necessary to really get that kind of enterprise off the ground.' We are talking today of a very sophisticated enterprise. Prawn farming has a great future. I am sure that on the Clarence River of New South Wales we will see an extension of prawn farming to the benefit of all sections of the fishing industry in the not too distant future. But of course, as I have said, the problem confronting all sections of the industry is cost escalation. To balance out the difficulties that were acknowledged in this House during the debate on the legislation in May last, in which there was support by the Opposition, we recognise the need for more support in terms of adjustment assistance. Where did the scheme for adjustment assistance originate? It certainly did not come from the rather confused Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Kerin). It came from precedents set by the previous Government, by a former Minister for Primary Industry Mr Anthony, who introduced the proposition first for the dairying industry and then for the fruit industry. As a result of that kind of assistance it was apparent that it could also help the fishing industry. That is being done, but done with agony for some who do not relish the idea of leaving. It is not a proposition under which people should be forced out if they do not want to go out, but if there is a desire on the part of any participant in the industry, whether or not in any of the fishing areas around the Australian coastline, according to the statement we now have where there is a management regime there should be an entitlement to assistance under the adjustment scheme. Let us hope that that one sentence in this week's statement really means what it says: That there will be further assistance for the fishing industry to enable it to restructure in a way that will be to the benefit of all who are part and parcel of that important industry. I just conclude by saying that it is all very well for the suggestion to be made that we should be bipartisan in the matter of this very important industry. I certainly do not want to be political about it but it is vital that we, no matter which side of the House we are on, put forward facts that are important when there is debate on this very vital issue. Of course, straws can be split. I have no doubt that in the rest of this debate we will find straw splitting as to what has been said, as to what benefits and as to what issues are involved, but let us get down to the fundamentals. The fisherman who is out on the end of the wharf, who has just come in from his attempted catch or whatever, is not interested in that sort of thing. He wants to see what are the real consequences of his physical and management effort. That can only be achieved in terms of viability. The viability of the industry is the vital matter. Mr GAYLER(Leichhardt)(1.27) —Might I in a bipartisan manner indicate to the previous speaker, the honourable member for Page (Mr Ian Robinson), that if one thing was accurate in his speech-and I am not saying there was no more than one-it was his reference to the key role that the fishing industry itself has played in the setting up of management plans. In fact, it is well-acknowledged, both at governmental level and within the industry, that the industry itself has outlined initiatives to the Government and that this Hawke Labor Government has acted on them. I have no difficulty at all in supporting the motion of the honourable member for Rankin (Mr Beddall) because, as a result of the foresight of our Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Kerin), this Government does deserve the praise not only of this House but also of the fishing industry for the progress that has been made in implementing fisheries management throughout this nation. When this Government came to office the fishing industry was in a state of total disarray, brought about by decades of neglect, I repeat neglect, by successive coalition governments. In fact, what management plans were in place when we came to power? There were none. There had been no forward planning within the industry. We had an industry which was overcapitalised to such an extent that fisheries around Australia were being overexploited and the economic efficiency of the industry was almost non-existent. Fishing is one of Australia's major primary industries-I suppose that is another point on which I agree with the previous speaker-and a significant export earner in terms of value of production to the fisherman. In the 1984-85 financial year the industry grossed $524m. Prawn fisheries accounted for $164m of this, rock lobsters $172m and fin-fish $102m. The balance was made up by the oyster, abalone and other branches of the industry. Presently some 10,000 boats are involved in the Australian fishing industry. Some 25,000 Australian are directly employed within the industry. Mr Everingham —You had better hurry or we will run out of time. Mr GAYLER —We will look after the honourable member for the Northern Territory. He is concerned about his time but I am certain that he can add a positive note to the discussion today. The fishing industry is a significant one and has been so for many years. It is difficult to comprehend the logic of previous governments in ignoring its welfare by not putting into place during their terms of office management policies. However, this neglect has at least in part been remedied by the actions of this Government. I refer specifically to the management plans for the southern bluefin tuna industry, together with the amendments to that plan; to the recent introduction and formalisation of the plan of management for the northern prawn fisheries; and to the agreement reached between the Commonwealth, Queensland and Papua New Guinea Governments in relation to the Torres Strait fishery. Of course, to say that management is necessary to ensure that through proper conservation and other measures the living resources of the Australian Fishing Zone will not be endangered by overexploitation, and that optimal utilisation of the living resources of the Australian Fishing Zone will be attained, is to state the obvious. These two objectives provide the framework within which government has been able to develop both short and long term fishery management programs. In establishing such a framework a mechanism was required which addressed the fundamental problem associated with the common property nature of the resource. The allocation of access rights to individuals is seen as providing such a mechanism. Industry-government management advisory committees have developed comprehensive objectives for individual fisheries where management initiatives have been agreed upon. At present fisheries which have management advisory committees operating include the southern bluefin tuna, the south eastern trawl, the northern prawn fishery, the east coast trawl and the Torres Strait. I will later refer more specifically to the northern prawn fishery, the east coast trawl fishery and the Torres Strait fishery. Management requirements for other fisheries are being assessed by a government-industry task force for the southern shark and Bass Strait scallop fisheries. There is, Mr Deputy Speaker, one important factor which underscores the present co- operation between industry and government in relation to the formulation and implementation of fishing management. That is the initiative taken by the industry, to which I have referred. It is that initiative which has set the basis for the management plans already put in place and those that are under consideration. It has not been a situation of the Commonwealth and State governments imposing their views upon the industry, and in this regard I particularly commend the Federal Minister for Primary Industry, Mr Kerin. Apart from the consultative process played by this government in putting into place the various management plans, the Government has also seen as necessary the provision of financial assistance for such plans. Such financial assistance is necessary for structural adjustment to be made to the fishing industry, particularly in view of the finding of the Industries Assistance Commission in its report of 29 July 1983 on the harvesting and processing of fish, crustacea and molluscs. In that report the Commission concluded that the rural adjustment scheme, or some similar permanent scheme should not, I repeat not, be extended to the fishing industry but adjustment assistance could be considered on a fishery by fishery basis. This has, of course, been the process followed by the present Government. May I now turn to the financial assistance afforded three fisheries which border my electorate of Leichhardt. I refer firstly to the Torres Strait fishery and bring to the attention of the House the appropriation of well in excess of $1m in the 1985-86 Budget for the further development of that fishery, which will ensure its long term development and viability. During the next three years the Federal Government will inject $2.7m into the development and management of the fishery by agreement between the Queensland and Commonwealth Governments, and further costs will be shared by those two governments. Recurrent costs will be met on an equal basis by both State and Federal Governments. They will also share the replacement of capital items in future years. I am aware that the industry views with satisfaction the arrangements entered into by the two governments in relation to the Torres Strait fishery and applauds the co-operation between the two governments, which is a clear indication of what can be achieved for an industry, whatever it may be, when realistic and reasonable discussions take place. May I now turn very briefly to the assistance given to other fisheries that, as I say, border my electorate. The east coast trawl fishery is, of course, substantial. There are some 1,200 boats involved. Once again, there is an indication in this particular fishery of overcapitalisation, of overexploitation of the resource, and in that regard in the last Budget the Federal Government saw fit to make a grant of $2m for a buy-back scheme. Under that scheme, details of which have already been circulated to those who have licences, negotiations are taking place and, as I understand it, some 165 fishermen have shown an interest in selling their Commonwealth fishing rights in that particular fishery. Of course, those negotiations are still to be concluded and it is important that the Queensland Government play its role in the reallocation of rights within that particular fishery because any compensation which is met by the Commonwealth Government in relation to Commonwealth fishing rights also compensates for Queensland fishing rights. Anyone who enters into a final agreement with the Commonwealth Government to sell his Commonwealth rights will automatically have his Queensland and State rights invalidated. So one would trust that the bipartisan approach which has existed between the Queensland and Commonwealth Governments in their negotiations to date would continue, because it is important that for the reasons that I have outlined, urgent action be taken to remedy the overcapitalisation in this particular fishery. I refer finally to the northern prawn fishery. On 1 March of this year the management plan for the northern prawn fishery was formalised and, as the honourable member for Page indicated, some $9m of Federal funding has been set aside, representing an expenditure of $3m in the next three financial years for the restructuring of that particular industry. Of course levies this year will exceed $1m, of which just over one-third will go to meeting the cost of management of that particular fishery and the balance, some $700,000, will be allocated to the improvement of the buy-back arrangement in the voluntary adjustment scheme for that fishery. This Government has, since its election to office, from the very outset, shown a genuine interest in the management and development of Australian fisheries, management that will ensure their continued economic efficiency and long term viability. What is more important, however, is that not only has this Government shown that genuine interest but it has committed itself, particularly financially in the terms that I have referred to, so that future generations within the industry will continue to reap the harvests of good, realistic and, more importantly, planned management of the industry. Mr EVERINGHAM(Northern Territory)(1.38) —Mr Deputy Speaker, the honourable member for Grey (Mr O'Neil) who, I thought, rather like the honourable member for Page (Mr Ian Robinson) made a constructive contribution to this debate, called for a bipartisan approach. Unfortunately, by that time the tone of the debate had been set by the honourable member for Rankin (Mr Beddall) who proposed the motion. Of course, the motion is a very curious one. It is one of self-praise and self-congratulation, apparently proposed by supporters of a government that feels very insecure, at least in relation to its record in the fishing industry. There is every reason why it should feel insecure because when this motion was put on notice, 22 February 1985, the fishing industry was in very dire straits. It is curious, too, to note that the honourable member for Rankin's electorate does not touch the sea at any point. It is very fishy, I think, that this particular motion was brought forward today. Last year, if I can quote from the Hobart Mercury of 25 July, this was being said about the industry by the National Fishing Industry Council at a conference in Adelaide: Fuel taxes and the pressure of licensing fees were killing Australia's commercial fishing industry, the National Fishing Industry Council said yesterday. So the Government certainly needed this sort of motion put forward to prop up its confidence and to try to cover its maladministration of the industry since it came to office. The honourable member for Rankin, who started this debate in a highly political tone and congratulated the various honourable members on his side of the House in what I thought was a pretty toadying sort of fashion, certainly did not refer to the Australian fishing industry report that was commissioned by the Fraser Government in the Senate in 1979 and was only produced in the Senate in November 1982. Of course, the Fraser Government was toppled in March 1983. So I think it is very important to note that the Fraser Government was certainly moving to develop a comprehensive strategy to take to the Australian fishing industry. The fishing industry has been very patchy over the past several years, but at long last it is picking up and, if I may say so, that is no great thanks to this particular Government. If I might just quote from a media release that was put out by, I think, the Bureau of Agricultural Economics at the time of the National Agricultural Outlook Conference in January of this year: Higher prices and economic growth in our major markets will boost Australia's shellfish industry this year, according to the Bureau of Agricultural Economics. Forecast growth in the US and Japanese economies would increase demand for Australian fisheries products. The expected further weakening of the Australian dollar against the yen was also likely to benefit Australia's fishing industry. Consequently, the prices of all shellfish were expected to rise, and the value of output of prawns, lobsters, abalone and oysters should increase, ahead of the rate of inflation. A note of caution was also sounded about the rapidly increasing world production of prawns by aquacultural techniques. The development was already putting pressure on prawn prices and was likely to pose considerable marketing problems for the Australian prawn trawling industry in coming years. So, it is more by good luck than good management, I am afraid, that the Australian fishing industry is in general terms at present having a reasonable time of it. If I might just try to take an overview, the abalone fishery is a small fishery but an important one in particular areas of southern Australia. Indeed it is especially important to Tasmania and to my colleague, the honourable member for Lyons (Mr Burr) who I understand has an abalone fishery off part of his electorate. I am told that so good is that fishery that licences which were issued four, five or six years ago for about $100 are now selling for in the order of $550,000. That certainly is an industry that is on the crest of a wave. With scallops though, again a southern seas fishery, there are problems. There is a considerably greater catching effort than is warranted by the size of the catch and scallop fishermen in the seat of Gippsland are experiencing grave economic difficulties. The Victorian Government, in whose bailiwick this lies, seems to be doing very little to address what is a problem of considerable concern to a very great number of people in the area. Closer to home the small, I suppose you could say exotic, barramundi fishery of the Northern Territory has always been relatively prosperous. The Northern Territory Government several years ago pioneered in Australia the introduction of a closed season in the barramundi fishery for four months of each year to allow breeding to take place unimpeded. The barramundi fishery has always been prosperous, indeed so prosperous that several years ago-I heard some figures relating to the production of barramundi and its sale in the Melbourne markets-barramundi worth about $1.5m were caught in the Northern Territory and perhaps a litle more was caught in Queensland. Yet $11m worth of barramundi alone was being sold in the Melbourne fish markets. It is certainly a fish that is in considerable demand. The prawn fishery right around the Australian coast assumes particular economic significance but perhaps nowhere more than in the northern prawn fishery, of which we have heard several speakers talk already. There, the massive overexertion of catching effort in years gone by has caused in the past several years real crisis. That is why I would like to say that the self-congratulatory motion that has been brought before us really takes absolutely no account of the determined action of both the northern fishing industry and the Northern Territory Government which forced the Commonwealth- Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) — Order! It being 1.45 p.m., in accordance with standing order 109, as amended for this session, the debate on the motion is interrupted. Motion (by Mr John Brown) agreed to: That the time for the discussion of Notice No. 1, General Business, be extended until 2 p.m. Mr EVERINGHAM —The determined actions of the northern fishing and the Northern Territory Government forced the Commonwealth to take action on a plan of management for the northern prawn fishery which, of course, consists of areas contributed by the Northern Territory, Queensland and the Commonwealth. Also, effort is contributed by Western Australia, Queensland and the Northern Territory. The question that should be asked is why it took so long for a new plan of management to be introduced. The problems of the northern prawn fishery have been before the Commonwealth for years. Reform was started under the Fraser Government but everything was delayed by the arrival of this Government, which now seeks to claim the credit. It has taken until the beginning of this season for a rational plan of management to be put in place, despite a long and exhausting campaign by the Northern Territory prawn fishing industry and the Northern Territory Government properly to control the resource. The cause of the long-awaited Commonwealth action was without doubt the rebellion of the Northern Territory after years of watching the gulf resource endangered by over-exploitation from vessels based in Western Australia and Queensland. The fact is that more vessels were entering the gulf each year but the size of the catch was remaining the same, meaning both that the resource was in severe danger of overexploitation and that profits for individual trawlers were sinking dramatically. Some of the trawlers were sinking too and some were catching fire. Faced with that situation the Territory rebelled, threatening to close waters to Western Australian and Queensland vessels. Only the threat of that action motivated the Commonwealth into activity. The concern of the Western Australian and Queensland fishing industries finally achieved what the Territory had been unable to do through a common sense argument. In fact, the Commonwealth waited until the situation had become desperate for northern fishermen before it took action, waited until the lack of profitability had threatened to close down the entire prawn fishery. Credit is due to the industry through the advisory council and the Northern Prawn Management Advisory Committee. We might also ask what the Commonwealth is doing to assist Australian fishermen replace overseas operators. The main problem for fishermen is always, and constantly, the difficulty they have in obtaining finance. We know how the banks view applications for loans from fishermen. The Commonwealth should move to assist its own national fishermen in that regard. Now that there is a sensible plan of management there are threatening storm clouds just over the horizon, contained within a draft discussion paper from the Industries Assistance Commission on its reference on fuel excises. That draft report will be greeted by the fishing industry and not just that industry-with fear and loathing. It recommends three moves which will spell disaster for the industry just as it thought that it had received some relief on fuel pricing. The draft discussion paper suggests the scrapping of the fuel freight subsidy, the scrapping of the rebate on excises or fuel and the imposition of a 20 per cent fuel tax across the board. Imagine the effect of that on the fishing, rural and mining industries. It is estimated that if implemented it would cost the northern prawn fishery an additional $5m. This Government's appalling record on fuel pricing is already well recognised, and fuel pricing decisions by it make the difference between having a continued northern prawn fishery on the closure of that industry. It is estimated that the 250 to 270 vessels in the northern prawn fishery use about 80 million litres of fuel a year, representing about 40 per cent of their total operating costs. Having regard to the past record of uncertainty on fuel pricing, such as the decision in the last Budget to cut funds from the fuel freight subsidy scheme from $4.4m to $400,000, it will be no wonder if the industry feels a rising sense of panic in view of the IAC discussion paper. The total Northern Territory fishery has a value, in terms of fish and prawn landings in the Territory alone-much of its catch is landed elsewhere-which totalled $27m in the last calendar year. Prawn landings increased by a factor of 1.5 to 3,246 tonnes. Their value increased by a factor of 1.7 to $23m. Pelagic landings, being of mackerel and shark largely, increased by a factor of 3.3 to 1,249 tonnes. Their value increased by a factor of 2.51 to $1m. Mud crab landings increased by a factor of 3.6 to 100 tonnes. Imagine 100 tonnes of kicking, biting mud crabs! Their value increased by a factor of 3.6 to $560,000. At 642 tonnes, barramundi landings were 22 tonnes down on those for 1984. The total value of the barramundi fishery, at $2.2m, was up slightly on that for 1984. In terms of aquaculture I think that the Northern Territory distinctly takes the lead over the rest of Australia. Pearl production continues to be an important component of Northern Territory fisheries production. It is worth many hundreds of thousands of dollars a year. With 26 hectares of ponds now available for development trials, prawn aquaculture potential also continues to improve. The Northern Territory Government is doing its best to provide facilities for fishermen by the construction of a major facility in Darwin Harbour at Frances Bay. This is anticipated to cost in the order of $6.5m. It amounts to the establishment of a mooring basin safe from cyclonic conditions, controlled by a tidal lock and capable of accommodating 100 vessels such as prawn trawlers and others of similar size operating in northern waters. The facility will incorporate secure moorings, a vertical face service wharf and an adjoining hardstand area. The goal is to develop Frances Bay as the focus of the vessel service and maintenance component of the industry. Another facet of industry development which must not be ignored is the progressive replacement of foreign fishing arrangements with Australian operations. The Northern Territory can see no justification for extending beyond its present term the Taiwanese bilateral arrangement for the gill netting of pelagic fish in northern waters. We are determined to see that arrangements involving foreign fishing interests, including joint ventures in northern waters are honoured and that the parties concerned give effect to the terms and fishing industry development intentions of the agreements that they have entered into. I suggest that we are only on the threshold of an era of growth in the Northern Territory's and Australia's fishing industry. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr WRIGHT(Capricornia)(1.53) —Mr Deputy Speaker, the honourable member for the Northern Territory (Mr Everingham) during his contribution questioned why there had been a delay in the implementation of management plans. I think that he really answered it for himself when he pointed out that the Fraser Government investigated the issue but did nothing about it. It has been the Labor Government that has implemented these plans and that is the reason for this motion. I join other members of the Government, the honourable member for Rankin (Mr Beddall), the honourable member for Leichhardt (Mr Gayler) and the honourable member for Grey (Mr O'Neil), in congratulating the Hawke Labor Government on the initiatives that it has taken to promote, develop and assist generally the Australian fishing industry. I do so because the areas that I represent in central Queensland have benefited, as has Queensland as a whole and also Australia. It has been accepted for a long period the fisheries have been overcapitalised. There has also been concern that some have been overfished from a biological point of view. I suppose that on a world scale we have been pretty much protected. Our commercial fisheries are relatively profitable and most of our resources are not subject to biological threat. But the challenge is to maintain that position and I believe that the Hawke Labor Government has taken up that challenge. We have an advantage in our isolation. We are a long way from the principal fishing nations and we are also lucky, I suppose, that only in recent times and decades have our fisheries been developed, but there are signs of trouble. This is why the Hawke Labor Government has introduced its management plans. It has responded by introducing a most embracing and comprehensive management plan to protect our fisheries. This is probably the most comprehensive plan that we have seen in the history of the industry. It has introduced an individual catch quota system to protect the southern bluefin tuna resource. Management plans have been implemented on a limited entry basis for the east coast trawland south-eastern trawl and the Bass Strait scallop fisheries. There is also a management plan for the northern prawn fisheries that has been extensively revised to contain and reduce catching capacity. The Federal Government is going to provide $9m to assist the implementation of adjustment programs for our important northern prawn fisheries. All these things are in sharp contrast to what happened in the previous years of the Fraser Government. The Government is determined, as is the industry generally, to avoid over exploitation and to improve the returns of fishermen. I recently visited Thailand and saw there what can happen when overexploitation takes place. There is a lesson for every Australian in that. A massive effort is being undertaken by the Thailand Government to try to rectify the problem but I suspect it might be too late. The Australian Government deserves commendation for its willingness to work with our northern neighbours to promote the fishing industry. The joint Thailand-Australian fishing venture is going to be of great benefit to us and will certainly expand the fishing returns to this nation. But we have to be continually vigilant to monitor our fisheries against invasion and illegal exploitation by foreign vessels. I would remind this House that the Taiwanese seem to have an open or free ocean policy. The best thing we can do when we catch them is to impound their boats and make sure that they do not go back to them. The Australian Government has been willing to implement these fishery management plans but also has put its money where its mouth is. An expenditure of $22,000 has been approved to fund a dropline survey in north Queensland. The objective is to assess the commercial viability of droplining off Townsville. The project is investigating the use of droplining as an adjunct to the prawn fisheries for small vessels. As well, approval has been given for the spending of $37,500 from the Fishery Development Trust Fund to continue the assessment of the potential for long line sashimi tuna fishing in the southern parts of Queensland. The Government has been willing to listen to the fishermen and to the industry. I am very pleased that my speech on May 8, 1985 has been heeded. I then asked that limitations be placed on the size of boats, to 20 metres. That has been done. I hope, Madam Speaker, that finally we will do something about limiting engine power to 450 horsepower. Also, I hope that something will be done about placing limitations on net and mesh sizes because this has to be part of an overall management plan. It is necessary to control the exploitation of the central Queensland scallop grounds, which is very, very important to the central Queensland economy. The Government deserves credit for its efforts to improve the viability of the industry. Part of the $9m that is being made available is being allocated to buy back licences and thus reduce the number of fishermen in the industry. Those entering it are required to buy two licences when they do so. While I am most pleased with what is happening in the fishing industry generally, and though I appreciate that the Federal Government has no control over or direct involvement in this aspect, I want to raise the need to undertake a much more accelerated program in the development of freshwater fisheries. I went to China back in 1976 and was somewhat amazed at the extent of that country's freshwater fisheries. I believe it is an area that we ought to develop, that we ought to research and consider very carefully. I have written to the Queensland Minister for Primary Industries, also our own Federal Minister, asking that this matter be pursued. Local authorities could be involved greatly in developing such an enterprise. It could significantly assist the struggling rural sector. It is an area of fishing that I do not think has been properly considered. Whilst the Federal Government has made money available in the research area, and I appreciate that such a proposal is costly to initiate, I do not believe we can forgo the opportunity presented, the advantages for the rural economy or the tourist advantages that are involved. It would require a national plan. I congratulate the Government on its efforts in the total fishing industry of Australia but I believe there are these other aspects to be considered also. I am hoping that when we do have the off-shore constitutional settlement with the States there will be greater co-operation between the States and the Federal Government. The Federal Government is playing a very important initiating role and I would like to see it play a more activating role in promoting freshwater fisheries. Mr BURR(Lyons)(1.59) —I point out to the House, in the brief time that is available to me, that the most extensive report ever brought down on the fishing industry was that tabled by the Senate Standing Committee on Trade and Commerce which, after a three-year inquiry, tabled its report in November 1982. It was the most extensive inquiry ever made into the fishing industry, yet it took this Government three and a half years to respond to it. I repeat, it was the most extensive inquiry ever made yet it took three and half years for this Government to respond to the recommendations made. In fact, that was quite contrary to what Senator Button had said about the treatment of reports brought down by standing committees. He had said that the Government would respond within three months of reports being tabled, yet it took this Government three and a half years to respond to that most extensive inquiry on this most important industry. I think that that inaction by this Government indicates its concern for the fishing industry and the potential that the industry might have for Australia. We have heard from the honourable member for Rankin (Mr Beddall)- Madam SPEAKER —Order! It is now 2 p.m. In accordance with standing order 104 as amended for this session, the time allotted for precedence to General Business has expired. The honourable member for Lyons will have leave to continue his speech when the debate is resumed. The resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day under general business for the next sitting. Mr PEACOCK —I refer the Acting Prime Minister to reports in today's Sydney Morning Herald in which the Minister for Foreign Affairs is reported to have stated that highly classified intelligence material had convinced him beyond any contestable doubt that Libya is exporting terrorism and was responsible for the most recent incidents in Europe. I also refer him to the Prime Minister's statement of 15 April in which he said: I have been privy to apparently compelling evidence of a direct line of command between Libya and the Berlin nightclub bombing. I ask the Acting Prime Minister, in light of Libyan sponsored terrorist actions against Americans, whether the United States military response against terrorist targets in Libya, was justified under international law. Mr LIONEL BOWEN —It is acknowledged that in the statement made to this House, and I think in a Press statement at the time, it was clearly indicated by the Prime Minister and the Minister for Foreign Affairs that they had some knowledge of the intelligence to which the honourable gentleman refers. It is also classified material, The honourable gentleman would also be aware that the USA itself is not prepared to make that material available. Mr Peacock —I did not ask that. Mr LIONEL BOWEN —I know that, but I want to make the point, because I thought that the honourable gentleman was anxious to talk about justification. That is the issue. In international law there is the question of whether what one would call proportionate force was used and whether under article 51 of the United Nations there is a legitimate exercise of counter attack. I think that what we have to look at in this case is not what may have happened in the past week, because the world is certainly divided on the issue, even though that is not the position in the United States-I acknowledge that, because our own citizens have been involved. The world deplores terrorism and will take every step, as it must, to try to prevent it from happening. The issue of course is that, when other citizens lose their lives, their appropriate country is prone to take such action as it feels is justified. I think what we are about at the present time is to support our own Prime Minister in his initiative in the US where, at the present time, he is having discussions with appropriate representatives of that Government. The initiative of the Australian representative in the Security Council is to reaffirm our view that action should now be taken to come to a solution in this matter, to join a sustained international co-operative effort against international terrorism. I think honourable members will find that that is receiving a fair amount of support, which I think the world would applaud. There is no future in meeting violence with violence; I think everybody would agree with that. We can look at it from the point of the future rather than what has happened in the past. I think that the United States is very anxious to ensure that we get peace and stability in the world. The only way that we can do that is by an international co-operative effort, and, if I may so, I hope that the initiative announced by our Prime Minister when in the US receives world support. Mr TICKNER —I address my question to the Minister for Health. I remind the Minister of his answer to my question last week concerning the serious allegations of corporate malpractice by the Ciba-Geigy fertiliser and chemical company. Is the Minister in a position to provide further information to the House concerning the serious allegations against that company and can he also comment on the need for uniform laws in this country to control hazardous and dangerous pesticides? Dr BLEWETT —In response to the question from the honourable member for Hughes, I believe that the issues raised in that article were so serious and the allegations were of such importance that a detailed answer should be given to the House. I have received information from my Department on the role of the National Health and Medical Research Council in the Australian system for clearance of chemicals and let me say at the outset that the National Health and Medical Research Council would seem to have done everything within its jurisdiction to provide sound, factual advice to the States through the Australian Agricultural Council. The article to which the honourable member referred raised a number of questions in relation to specific compounds. The first of these related to a claim that Ciba-Geigy notified the National Health and Medical Research Council of an independent study which indicated reproductive problems in relation to the compound nuvacron. Ciba-Geigy did not raise this matter with the National Health and Medical Research Council. However, National Health and Medical Research Council did receive independent information which caused it to recommend that the group of solvents involved-Glycol ethers, also used in ridomil-be considered poisons in their own right. Nuvacron is considered a very dangerous poison, and is classified under the most restrictive Schedule for pesticides-that is, Schedule 7-and is so labelled. Additional warnings about possible birth defects on labels of such compounds have not, I am informed, in the past, been acceptable to the States. Ciba-Geigy gave an undertaking to the Australian agricultural Council's Technical Committee on Veterinary Drugs to reformulate tifatol after information had been received in 1979 on the carcinogenic properties of its solvent, dutrex oil. That undertaking has never been honoured by Ciba-Geigy, and I find this inaction by one of the world's largest chemical companies totally reprehensible. Additionally, followup was not carried out by the TCVD, the States or National Health and Medical Research Council. I am most concerned about this inaction by National Health and Medical Research Council and have asked that the system be tightened to ensure that such an event cannot recur. Following concern expressed in northern New South Wales about the fungicide tilt, studies were commissioned through New South Wales State authorities. National Health and Medical Research Council has no information presently before it which would cause it to reconsider the present classification from a poison Schedule 5. However, should any information come before National Health and Medical Research Council Committees, I have every confidence that the Committee will deal with the matter expeditiously. There is an additional matter raised in the article, to which I now refer-and this is the finding by the United States Environmental Agency that Industrial Bio-test Laboratories had conducted studies improperly, and in cases fraudulently. This scandal, first reported in 1977, has led to a review of pesticides known to be supported in some degree by IBT data. The approach taken by National Health and Medical Research Council is essentially the same as that taken in Canada and in the United States. Priority action is accorded to those chemicals meeting one of the following criteria: Where significant data gaps had been created by the presence of invalid pivotal studies that is long term reproduction or teratology studies, particularly where such studies were used to support maximum residue limits for the chemical in foodstuffs in Australia; and where disclosure of adverse toxicity had occurred overseas. One hundred and ninety-four chemicals were identified as utilising IBT data and of these, 149 are in use in Australia and subject to NHMRC recommendations. Of these 149, 88 have met the NHMRC criteria for priority action; 47 chemicals have been fully reviewed and almost half this number have been heavily restricted due to adverse findings or to the inability of manufacturers to provide support data; 20 are either currently under evaluation or are the subject of further information searches; and in other cases replacement studies are underway. I have requested that high priority be given to those studies. As honourable members can appreciate, information-gathering in the realm of effects, especially long-term effects of chemicals is not an instant process; follow up studies can take up to four years to complete. Finally, Madam Speaker, there is a need to build on Australia's record of achievement in this area. Whilst I am sensitive to the needs of the Federation, I believe there is now sufficient common ground among the States to go a step further on our regulatory processes. I intend consulting initially with my Federal ministerial colleague to seriously examine the possibility of establishing a set of uniform pesticide laws for Australia. I will take this matter up with them at the earliest opportunity. Mr HOWARD —Will the Minister for Foreign Affairs instruct the Australian delegation to the United Nations to specifically oppose any motion in the United Nations or the Security Council condemning the United States over its actions against Libya? Mr HAYDEN —The Leader of the Opposition may rest assured that the delegation to the United Nations, which will act under my instructions, will respond to any proposals in a balanced, intelligent and responsible way. The Leader of the Opposition is interjecting. He can make his judgment after the event and not before. Ms FATIN —My question is directed to the Minister for Defence. In the light of the Minister's announcement to develop HMAS Stirling as a major base for Australia's submarines, can the Minister inform the House whether a decision has been reached on the best location for the proposed new submarine school for training the crews of our submarines? Mr BEAZLEY —The honourable member is quite right. In December last year I announced that the Government would develop HMAS Stirling at Garden Island as a major base for Australia's submarines. I also stated that it was the Government's intention that elements of the existing submarine force would be based at HMAS Stirling. The Navy is planning to home port at least one Oberon submarine at HMAS Stirling late next year. Some of the new submarines, of course, will also be based at HMAS Stirling. The existing Oberon submarine training school is located at HMAS Platypus in Sydney. The Navy has been planning to build a new submarine school to train crews properly for the new submarines when they are introduced during the 1990s. I am pleased to announce that the Navy intends to locate the new submarine training school with a squadron of new submarines at HMAS Stirling. It is expected that a decision on the actual size and capability of the submarine school will be taken by the Government following completion of project definition studies for the new submarines. The two prime contractors, Kockums AB of Sweden and Howaldtswerke-Deutsche Werft of the Federal Republic of Germany, are developing proposals for the submarine training school as part of their overall proposals for supplying new submarines and associated support requirements of the Commonwealth. Mr HUNT —Will the Minister for Primary Industry now explain precisely what modifications are to be made to the quarantining of farm losses for tax purposes and what other tax measures are to be introduced, and the estimated revenue from these actions? Does the Minister now agree that his estimate of the farm loss quarantine tax revenue to be forgone will not be $65m in 1987-88 and $45m in subsequent years, and that Senator Walsh was proper and truthful in making this clear? Mr KERIN —Madam Speaker, quite a few funny things have happened since I announced the tax package. For instance, today we have- Opposition members interjecting- Mr KERIN —It started off with Mr McLachlan and Mr Robb going to the lockup and spending all their time trying to poison the minds of journalists, as if they had read the report. Today we have farmer protests out in the bush, and of course they have not read the statement. There were 30 demonstrators in Mackay, 25 in Townsville, and in Cairns the protest was cancelled. The Cattlemen's Union of Australia declared the protest in Townsville a flop, and apparently there was 300 demonstrators in Brisbane. Another funny thing happened, because when I was being interviewed on Radio Mackay yesterday the interviewer said that he knew that I did not have crystal balls. I was very reassured by that as well! May I just address the issue and nail this once and for all. I have here the Cabinet documents-the recommendation on the quarantining of farm losses. The recommendation was: The quarantining proposal and improved averaging provisions announced in September 1985 tax package not to proceed. Full year Budget effect estimated by Treasury nil in 1986-87, but revenue loss estimated at around $65m in 1987-88 and $45m thereafter. That was the Cabinet proposal and the Cabinet's decision was, (g): Not to proceed with the quarantining measure which limited the immediate write-off against income from other sources of losses from primary production businesses and the associated improved averaging provisions in 19 September 1985 statement on Tax Reform. So, there was the Cabinet decision. In my speech to the House the other day I said: 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 much more closely targeted remedies. Then in the statement that I tabled in the House when I was giving my speech the following appears: The Government has decided not to proceed with the quarantining with its catch-all character but will approach the problem of abuse in the primary production area with more closely targeted remedies. Then the Acting Treasurer said in his Press release: The Government has decided not to proceed with the quarantining with its catch-all character but will instead face the problem of tax sheltering in the primary production area with more closely targeted remedies. So there are all the quotes. That is the fact, that is the truth. There is complete consistency in everything that I have said in the documents, and if honourable members opposite cannot read I really do not know what to do about it. I have not used the word `reversal'; I am saying: `We will not proceed'. That appears in the Cabinet decision, the Cabinet recommendation, the speech, the statement and the statement of the Acting Treasurer. The Treasurer will not proceed when he brings down his tax measures in legislative form in this Parliament the week after next. There it is. There is no clash between Senator Walsh and myself. All Senator Walsh is doing is using different words-words I would not use-by way of anticipation of what might transpire with respect to the Treasurer's review. I regret any impression that we are in any way going to proceed with quarantining, because we simply are not. I have utter contempt for the Opposition, whose members obviously cannot read and are desperate for an issue. I re-emphasise the point: We will not be proceeding with the taxation quarantining provision. Mr Hunt —Will the Minister table the documents to demonstrate his point, particularly the Cabinet decision? Mr Kerin —They are Cabinet documents; don't be silly. Madam SPEAKER —They are confidential papers. I call the honourable member for Canberra. Mr Sinclair —On a point of order, Madam Speaker: There are certain prerequisite questions which you are called upon to put to the Minister for Primary Industry. Madam SPEAKER —I ascertained that it was a confidential document. Is the document from which the Minister was reading a confidential document? Mr Kerin —They are confidential Cabinet documents. Mrs KELLY —Can the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations inform the House of the success of the current deregistration processes in the building industry, especially in the Australian Capital Territory? Mr WILLIS —The House would be aware that last week the legislation to deregister the Builders Labourers Federation and to take other consequential action was passed by the Parliament. That legislation became effective this week with the deregistration coming into effect on Monday and the regulations provided for under the consequential provisions legislation being issued on Tuesday night and reallocating work coverage to other unions. Since then-that is, yesterday and today-there have been quite dramatic developments in the building industry. In Victoria, New South Wales and the Australian Capital Territory, the three areas in Australia where work reallocation has occurred, there has been a very substantial movement of Builders Labourers Federation members to other unions. In the case of the Australian Capital Territory, which the honourable member for Canberra asked about in particular, the BLF has been deserted by up to 1,000 members already, and I am informed that up to 95 per cent of the members on the new Parliament House site have signed up with other unions. Given that this was regarded as being virtually a test site, I believe that it is a dramatic illustration of the effectiveness of the Government's action and of the willingness of builders' labourers, once they had a choice, to go to another union which could more properly represent their interests. In New South Wales about 1,000 members of the BLF joined other unions yesterday. Today honourable members may have seen in the Press an advertisement from the New South Wales Trades and Labour Council, endorsed by all major building unions, which calls upon builders' labourers to join other unions. We expect that there will be much more action in New South Wales today, but I have no direct information about that. In Victoria there has been a response rate of approximately 70 per cent on sites where BLF members have been approached to join other unions. Given that these sites have been substantially in Melbourne's central business district, which is the BLF's stronghold, this is a substantial result indeed. On some sites in that area that were particularly regarded as strongholds, builders' labourers have come over virtually 100 per cent to other unions. This demonstrates that the Government's action has been very successful. Of course, this action was never intended to affect adversely in any way the interests of individual builders' labourers but rather to give them an opportunity to go to another union which can properly represent their interests and not be tied to a union which, in the words of the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission, had led them from one disaster to another. Builders' labourers are now taking advantage of that opportunity and I believe that in the next few days we will see a further substantial movement of builders' labourers to other unions. All this demonstrates that the Government's action is very much what Builders' Labourers Federation members wanted. Mr N.A. Brown —My question is directed to the Minister for Trade. Is it a fact that the Minister or a member of his staff approached the office of the Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism today with the request that Dr Emanuel Klein withdraw his application for the position of Senior Trade Commissioner in Milan? Did this request produce a frenzy in the office of the Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism, with shouts of `Dawkins has messed the whole thing up'? What response did the Minister receive to his representations and how can he justify this and his repeated intrusions into the proper selection process for Public Service positions? Mr DAWKINS —Following yesterday's Question Time, when I was asked by the honourable member for Dawson to confirm whether or not Mr Emanuel Klein was one of the two final applicants under consideration for the posting to Milan, I ascertained that Mr Klein was still under consideration. I made these inquiries because of the quite untrue allegation that I had attempted to arrange Mr Klein's appointment. In fact, apart from suggesting to Mr Klein that he consider this position when it was advertised, and apart from requiring that the selection process be fair, open, and involve the participation of the private sector, I have not been involved in the selection process. However, the allegation that I had attempted to arrange Mr Klein's appointment drew into question my integrity, the reputation of Mr Klein, the independence of the Public Service Board and officers of the Australian Trade Commission, and the standing of the Trade Commissioner Service. I therefore asked a member of my staff to convey this to Mr Klein and to ask him to consider whether in all the circumstances it would be best for him to withdraw his application. The member of my staff was subsequently advised that he intended to do so. Mr GRIFFITHS —Is the Minister for Aviation aware of allegations concerning a staff member of a senior Opposition front bencher demanding from a Trans-Australia Airlines flight attendant an upgrading from economy to first class by purporting to be a member of the Australian Parliament? If not, will the Minister investigate these allegations? Further, in the likely event that the allegations are proved correct, will the Minister seek from the Deputy Leader of the Liberal Party reimbursement of the difference between a Canberra-Melbourne economy fare and the first class fare? Further, can the Minister inform the House whether purporting to be a member of Parliament in such circumstances may constitute an offence at law? Mr PETER MORRIS —I am not aware of the allegations to which the honourable member for Maribyrnong has referred. I would think that transactions of that nature would be ones for the commercial judgment, in the context of normal commercial operations, of Trans-Australia Airlines. As to whether or not reimbursement is necessary if the allegations the honourable member has referred to are correct, that question and the question of whether an offence under law has been committed would be matters for the Special Minister of State, whose department I understand would pick up the responsibility for payment. As the matter has been raised by the honourable member I will undertake to make investigations and report back to him directly. Mr SPENDER —What does the Minister for Trade mean when he says that he instructed Mr Walton to `withdraw' the minutes of the Genoa meeting? Precisely what did he say to Mr Walton? Have the minutes in fact been withdrawn as the record of that meeting and, if so, what minutes have been put in their place? Will the Minister table the original and the replacement minutes? Mr DAWKINS —I have, of course, answered this question. It was one of a series of questions the Opposition first of all placed on notice and then took off notice. Nevertheless, I have answered the question in very great detail. I stand by what I said in my answers. I asked that the minutes be withdrawn because of remarks contained in them which were particularly uncomplimentary of some of the people who participated in the meeting and because they did not, from my point of view, address the central question which I wanted to address at that meeting. The central purpose of the meeting was to discuss the opportunities that existed for expanding Australia's trade with Italy, which neither the minutes nor, I suppose, the contents of the meeting addressed. I am perfectly happy to table the only version of the meeting, which is the minutes I sought to have withdrawn. Mr Tuckey —So they still exist? Mr DAWKINS —Of course they still exist because I did not ask for them to be destroyed; I asked for them to be withdrawn from the people to whom they had been distributed. Of course they still exist, and I am perfectly happy to table a copy of the minutes of the meeting of 14 and 15 October. As well, just for the record, I also table the minutes of the meeting held on 22 October-the meeting that I chaired. Mr MOUNTFORD —Will the Minister for Housing and Construction advise the House whether the 135,000 housing commencements outlined in the Government's housing package will be achieved in 1986-87? Mr WEST —Yes, I do expect the 135,000 starts in 1986-87 to be achieved, as a result of the lending of a base total of approximately $10.6 billion. This will comprise $6 billion from the savings banks, as outlined in the package; approximately $1.5 billion from the trading banks, which the banks say should be achievable, and approximately $3.1 billion from building societies. We can add to those lending figures, activity by other minor lenders and also the total expenditure which results from our generous funding of public housing. The Indicative Planning Council for the Housing Industry forecasts have already shown that we expect 137,000 commencements this financial year with a base funding of about $9.8 billion from savings banks, trading banks and building societies. To be added to that is public housing starts and funds from other lenders. If we expect those funds for 1985-86 to produce 137,000 starts, it is reasonable to expect 135,000 starts with 1986-87 funding. This will avoid the threatened trough expected only weeks ago. It is a highly desirable result when compared with the abysmal figures achieved by the former Government in its last year of office. I conclude by drawing attention to the quite generous funding arrangements which are included in the package but which have not received much publicity-that is, funding of public housing as envisaged for 1986-87. We have said, in advance of the Premiers Conference, that we will grant to the States the same funding in real terms as in 1985-86. This should be in the vicinity of $700m. In addition, we will allow them to borrow at 4 1/2 per cent up to 60 per cent of their Loan Council funding ceiling. If the States take up this concessional financing at 4 1/2 per cent an additional $700m should be available, and if they concentrate on new starts instead of acquiring existing buildings with the extra money, they should be able to kick up the record 17,500 starts from public housing funding in 1985-86 by up to 4,000. The result of all these figures leads me to believe that we will get the 135,000 starts in 1986-87 envisaged in the housing package. Mr BRAITHWAITE —I refer the Minister for Trade to answers 4, 5 and 6 to questions asked by me as set out in Hansard on 15 April at page 2319, and also to the article in today's Australian by Mr Kelly in which he quoted the Minister as telling the Western Mail-and I have a copy of the article- . . . what I said was that the report he produced . . . was so inadequate he might as well destroy it'. Did the Minister actually say that to the Western Mail? Mr DAWKINS —It is a long time since I spoke to the Western Mail. In fact, at the time I think I was in Zurich or somewhere else and I was caught on the phone by the journalist from the Western Mail, who essentially was asking me whether there had been a dispute between me and one of my trade officials over the question of estimates for tourists. I indicated that there had never been a dispute between me and him on the question of tourism estimates. Where that arose has amazed me ever since the allegation was made. Apparently there was at the meeting some questioning of estimates which were made by one of the participants at the meeting, but it certainly was not me. I have never ever endorsed any particular level of projected tourists coming to Australia or any part of Australia in the context of the America's Cup. In any event projections are simply that-just projections. What I have said is that the minutes were so inadequate, so unsatisfactory that they should be withdrawn, and as far as I know they were withdrawn. Mr GAYLER —I ask the Minister for Primary Industry whether he is aware of assertions being made, and if so whether he can comment on them, by a member of the Queensland Government as to the intention of the Export Inspection Service of the Minister's Department to destroy lobster product emanating from the Torres Strait. If so, is he aware of the dire consequences that it would have on the fishing industry in the Torres Strait? Mr KERIN —I thank the honourable gentleman for his question, and I realise the very close interest he takes in the welfare of the people of the Torres Strait. I can categorically inform honourable members that there is no such intention as is being spread dishonourably by some members of the Queensland Parliament, the National Party. In fact, it is contrary to the modus operandi of the Export Inspection Service of my Department, which is held in high esteem both domestically and internationally. The rumours the honourable member referred to have been promulgated in a shameful attempt to discredit not only the Export Inspection Service but also members of the Torres Strait island community. The facts of the situation are that cartons of spiny rock lobster tails are being held in bond pending further examination. There is no question of the product being destroyed prior to further testing which will commence early next week. Further, I am informed that all relevant parties will be appraised of testing procedures and will be given the opportunity to be present at the time of testing. The legitimate concerns of the Export Inspection Service centre on the question of whether or not the product is suitable for human consumption and whether or not all the product is eligible to be exported. I have been and will continue to be fully briefed on the topic as will my colleague the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs. Whilst appreciating the sensitivity of the issue, it is absolutely essential that human health and/or export markets are not jeopardised. I am confident that the normal operations of the Export Inspection Service will allow neither of these problems to eventuate and that the Service is fully appreciative of the importance of this export industry to the Torres Strait Islanders. Mr ALDRED —My question is directed to the Special Minister of State. The Minister will be aware of a report signed by the Commissioner of the Australian Federal Police, Major-General Grey, and the Permanent Secretary of the Department of the Special Minister of State, Mr McGarr, exhaustively detailing fraud against the Commonwealth to the staggering total of $4 billion. As the Minister well knows, it is a quite separate document from the Review of Australian Federal Police Resources conducted in 1985. I ask the Minister why he has taken no real action on this report, which he has had since the beginning of this year, when such action would help resolve the Government's enormous financial problems. More specifically, why has he not given the Australian Federal Police adequate resources to take action in relation to the Report, and when will he end the cover-up of this monumental embarrassment to his Government? Finally, when will he table the report? Mr YOUNG —I ask that the honourable member listen today, because the last time he asked this question he ended up by getting kicked out of the House. I will tell him in detail today because, when I concluded the question on the last occasion, he was not here to hear it. Mr Carlton —Just get on with your job as a Minister-and stop acting like a clown. Mr YOUNG —Have you finished? You are the shadow Treasurer, are you? Do you write your own lines? Madam SPEAKER —Order! The Special Minister of State will answer the question. Mr YOUNG —They were interjecting, Madam Speaker. You will have to give me some protection. Madam SPEAKER —The Minister does not need it. He could just answer the question. Mr YOUNG —I did initiate a review of police resources in the first place in 1985. Mr Aldred —You have already told us that-back in February. Mr YOUNG —Let me start again. I initiated a review of Federal Police resources in 1985. The House will know that in the period after we came to government I recommended to the Government that the priorities for the Australian Federal Police should be changed. They had been substantially based on responsibility for community policing up until we came into government and for the first period of our Government. This meant that the No. 1 priority was policing in the Australian Capital Territory. Under the priorities which I set down in this Parliament last year after the review, drug trafficking was to be the major priority. Whilst we did not take away the importance of common policing duties in the Australian Capital Territory, nevertheless, we believed that the people of Australia expected that the Australian Federal Police had a major responsibility to stop drug trafficking in Australia and we made that the number one priority. I then asked my Department and the Commissioner of Police, Major-General Gray, to look at the resources required to meet the demands of these priorities being set by the Government. In the first case, the report told me very urgently that we were short of about 100 people in the drugs area and that, to meet the demands of the various drug squads-- Mr Aldred —Madam Speaker, I take a point of order. I draw your attention to standing order 145, which states that an answer shall be relevant to the question. None of what the Minister has had to say relates to the $4 billion fraud report of January. The answer is totally irrelevant to the question. Madam SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member for Bruce will resume his seat. The Minister is answering the question. Mr YOUNG —Even for a Liberal he is thick. It so happens that, during 1984-85, we had the unfortunate circumstance of the attacks that were made on the judges in the Family Court of Australia, and it required an immediate decision by the Commissioner of Police to shift a number of policemen-72 in total-away from their normal duties outside Canberra to the guarding services for the judges in the Family Court. That brought about a decline in the number of people available in the drugs area. I had discussions with the Attorney-General and with the Minister for Local Government and Administrative Services, and within a few weeks we set in place the opportunity for Protective Services, or a private guarding service, to take over that so that those members of the police force could return to their policing duties. That happened at the end of last year. Mr Aldred —You know perfectly well that those are different personnel from the personnel that I am talking about. Madam SPEAKER —Order! I warn the honourable member for Bruce. If he continues to interject I will deal with him. Mr YOUNG —Those people were returned to where they should have been-their drug squads-and the strength of the drug squads was brought back to what it should have been. Let me deal with the remaining section in the report which deals with fraud. In March 1983 this Government, like every other government before it, inherited a situation in which there was major fraud in the Commonwealth; there always has been. I suspect- Mr Aldred —Four million dollars worth? Mr YOUNG —Yes. If the honourable member looks at the report on what we inherited from his Government he will find that that was the situation when we came to office. The honour- able member seems to think that what is contained in this report which I have had prepared by my Department is all new. I remind the honourable member that the $3 billion mentioned as far as- Mr Aldred —Four billion dollars. Madam SPEAKER —Order! I give the honourable member for Bruce one more chance to stop interjecting. Mr YOUNG —The report took as its lead the White Paper on taxation presented at the Tax Summit. The Australian Taxation Office estimation was that there was $3 billion worth of fraud just in the taxation area, in money that was not being paid to the Commonwealth, and there was something like $300m worth of fraud in the social security area. The Taxation Office took a guess at what might be the extent of fraud in the Customs area, taking 5 per cent of total Customs receipts. That is how it reached the figure of $4 billion. I asked the law enforcement area of my Department and the Australian Federal Police to bring that to me on the basis of what was needed in the AFP. I did not invite the participation of the other departments that may be involved and may want to have some input into a definitive piece on fraud in the Commonwealth. I think they deserve that sort of opportunity before any full or comprehensive report on fraud in the Commonwealth is delivered and made public. If I made the report public at the moment other departments could quite legitimately say: `You are making remarks about what might be occurring in our Department without our having the opportunity to make some comment on it'. The other thing I say about fraud in the Commonwealth, because it has become part of the general debate, is that people opposite, particularly I think the shadow Minister for Community Services, seem to think that fraud in the Commonwealth all revolves around payments the Government has made, around people who are getting the unemployment benefit and should not be getting it or something. From the estimates made by the Taxation Office which were produced at the Tax Summit, over 90 per cent of frauding in the Commonwealth is to do with payments to the Commonwealth-people not paying the correct amount of tax. The other thing we had to sort out was getting greater co-operation from departments in determining when and where the Australian Federal Police should be called in on their investigations. Most of the major spending departments have their own investigators. For some time we have been keen to get greater co-operation between those investigators and the Australian Federal Police in determining the stage at which the police should be brought into those investigations. All major social security fraud is investigated by the Australian Federal Police. Not all major social security fraud has to be judged by the amount of money involved. It does not have to be, say, $100,000 or $200,000. As the police will point out, there may be a pattern of fraud in the Commonwealth. One week's payment of the unemployment benefit may have some evidence about it that would lead them to believe that it is part of the pattern of a person who is claiming under 30 or 40 different names in various areas. So one payment could indicate a major fraud in the Commonwealth. This Government takes very seriously the matter raised by the honourable member, but it will require-I have set this in place-talks between officers of my Department and all the other departments involved to see whether we cannot get a conclusive insight into fraud in the Commonwealth. When all the people concerned have been able to have their say about what they think should happen and the police have had an opportunity of looking at it, I will have absolutely no opposition at all to making that report public and open to discussion in this House. Dr BLEWETT(Bonython-Minister for Health) —Madam Speaker, I seek your indulgence to add briefly to an answer I gave yesterday concerning the Health Insurance Commission. Madam SPEAKER —Please proceed. Dr BLEWETT —I wish to add briefly to the answer I gave at Question Time yesterday concerning a former Health Commission employee. I am advised by the Health Insurance Commission that, although its employees do not come under the Public Service Act, it does apply the Public Service Board guidelines on official conduct of Commonwealth public servants based on the recommendations of the Bowen Committee, of Inquiry concerning Public Duty and Private Interest. The guidelines, as they relate to acceptance of business appointments on retirement or resignation, primarily refer to offices in the Senior Executive Service, although they also cover other staff in positions designated as sensitive. The former employee referred to in my answer yesterday was a class 5 equivalent and was not, I am told, occupying a position which the HIC had designated as sensitive. When she raised the matter of her future employment with the HIC, the authority did not consider it was appropriate to refer the matter to the Minister. However, now that the matter has come to my attention, and in view of the concern raised about it, I have directed the Health Insurance Commission to review and report back to me on its classification of positions designated as being sensitive. I simply add that the Bowen Committee itself expected that the number of positions designated as sensitive within any one government body would be `relatively small'. The Committee observed: Junior officers should not be subject to regulation simply because of personal acquaintance or friendship with, or obligations to, prospective employers or because they have knowledge of the subject matter of the business of the department or other body or because of skills acquired while in public service. The Clerk-Notice has been received from the honourable member for O'Connor (Mr Tuckey) that, at the next sitting, he will move: This House censures the Minister for Trade for his demonstrable and continued gross incompetence in that: 1. he has persistently abused his responsibilities and the propriety of his office as a Minister; 2. he failed to declare a conflict of interest when he sat on the Cabinet sub-committee into the BHP transfer; 3. he interfered with public documents, namely the conclusions and recommendations of the first meeting of the America's Cup support and co-ordination committee held in Genoa on 14 and 15 October 1985; 4. he sought to interfere in the normal selection process of a Senior Trade Commissioner for Milan; and 5. he sought to advance the Senior Private Secretary to the Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism for that post for reasons other than his professional suitability. Mr Young-The Government will grant leave for the moving of the censure motion. Motion of Censure Mr TUCKEY(O'Connor)(2.50) —by leave-I move: That this House censures the Minister for Trade for his demonstrable and continued gross incompetence in that: 1. he has persistently abused his responsibilities and the propriety of his office as a Minister; 2. he failed to declare a conflict of interest when he sat on the Cabinet sub-committee into the BHP transfer; 3. he interfered with public documents, namely the conclusions and recommendations of the first meeting of the America's Cup support and co-ordination committee held in Genoa on 14 and 15 October 1985; 4. he sought to interfere in the normal selection process of a Senior Trade Commissioner for Milan; and 5. he sought to advance the Senior Private Secretary to the Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism for that post for reasons other than his professional suitability. That is the log of the deceit of the Minister for Trade (Mr Dawkins)-a Minister who has the simple principle: Anything is permissible provided you do not get caught; if you do get caught, tough it out; make the truth the first casualty; resort to the fine print of any document that might save you; and, particularly, do not do as I do, do as I say. The evidence is legion. The charges are numerous; the principal charge is incompetence. The Australian people are entitled to expect above all that their parliamentary leaders have the competence to lead our nation through tough and difficult times and through national calamity. Who amongst this Minister's colleagues could trust this leadership aspirant after his bumbling performance and patent misjudgment demonstrated in this Parliament in recent times? How many of those colleagues, many of whom do not have the sort of voting margin that the Minister has in his very comfortable seat of Fremantle, must now be looking at their margins of 2 per cent and 3 per cent and realising what this man is doing to their chances? Who would buy a used car from this man? As I have said, the log of the Dawkins deceit is long and of great concept. Let us look, firstly, at the rules this man set for others when he was in opposition. At page 1900 of Hansard of 12 October 1982, in talking about Mr John Reid, he said: We now see the Prime Minister like a cornered rat digging in behind tax dodgers and tax dodging. He also said: What we want to know from the Prime Minister is simply this: were any of those six companies, of which Mr Reid was the director, involved in any kind of tax dodging against which this Government has already acted? That was when he came into this House with the very minimum of evidence; not as we did today, with a question which even the Minister did not want to confirm. He came in with that standard of evidence, unlike the evidence that has been tabled against him. He was prepared to pillory, to cast the maximum of aspersion, on the character of a person. That person was not someone in this House who would have been in a position to have done something about it, but a person from outside this House. We saw delivered by this Minister to Denis Horgan and to many others similar treatment which was quite scurrilous and unnecessary. It was this Minister who, in his Australia Day address, called tax dodgers in general the false patriots of the new Right. He came in here and attacked the then Government for what he said was the harassment of a particular person on a matter of export market development grants. That man has since been convicted. The list goes on and on and there are probably more. There was the time when his then Leader, the present Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr Hayden), accused Doug Anthony of involvement with the Central Intelligence Agency, which accusation was found to be quite scurrilous and untrue. He sets high standards for others and does not worry too much about the proof. Let us now look at the log of Dawkins deceit. It starts in this place with the deceit surrounding Coomel Pty Ltd, a company of which the Minister was a director and a company which-I will say this clearly and in words that even he can understand-evaded $70,000 in taxation. There is a great difference between evasion and avoidance. Avoidance is when one tells the Commissioner of Taxation about one's affairs and then tells him why he cannot have the money. Evasion is when one does not tell the Commissioner. Let us get this clear: That company evaded $70,000 worth of tax through mechanisms to which he contributed. He sat around the table and said: `Do not let a word of this get out, fellows; I am a member of parliament and do not want to be known to be involved in this'. That same company avoided-I have pointed out the difference-$1m worth of probate by using every device in the book to avoid the payment of it. It even went as far as to try to write off $72,000 of the Minister's father's assets by a device that had already been thrown out by the Commissioner. There is clear evidence of that on the probate return, which is a public document. In the process of deflating the assets of that company, a company that had $1.6m worth of assets that were put around behind the probate scene, $53,000 worth of shares were sold to the Minister's mother and he was the signatory to the statement of solvency. He was the one who knew about that transfer. We all know why; I make a point of that. Furthermore, included in those Coomel shares sold to his mother were 600 shares in Metro Industries Ltd, a company known to all as being associated with bottom of the harbour activities. But Coomel was not charged recoupment tax due principally to the artificial transfer of the shares in a public company on New Year's Day as the lowest possible price that year. This is what this man, this great critic of the tax dodgers of the world, has been up to. He misled the House by denying any knowledge of these things when I brought them to the attention of the House. But, of course, he then got himself caught as usual because we produced documents that drew direct attention to his knowledge of them. I refer to letters; when the Minister saw them, he went bolting out of the House to ring his accountants. They were letters which he received and which stated: `I spoke with Jeremy today and the following facts were considered'. The letters included the full details of the deal that he said he knew nothing about. He was caught because we on this side of the House do not deal in fiction in matters as serious as that. We deliver the facts. If honourable members opposite want to deny that, they should consider the matters of the last few days. We do not engage in this sort of scurrilous business. What is more, on 10 October 1984 the then Leader of the Opposition, the honourable member for Kooyong (Mr Peacock), wrote to the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) and said: `It is time we had more evidence of what the Minister has told us in this regard'. That letter remains unans- wered. It is a case of the Prime Minister and the Minister for Trade trying to tough it out again. If they can tough out this one, there is obviously something wrong with this Government's system. The Coomel dilemma went on and on. We know the double standards that have been applied and the tax dodging that has been proved. If any Government members have any doubts about this, they can call round to my office some time and I will go through it with them, chapter and verse. Next we had the bottom of the sandpit scheme that I raised here, through which the Minister managed to sell off sand from his property that he had inherited from his late father through the machinations of that company with no probate paid. He went to the final stage of using a device so that the income he accrued from that was not taxable. These are the sorts of things that this Minister did. He has now had that property sub-divided into three, in somewhat doubtful circumstances, and improved his profit on the sale by $70,000. Then there is the Bell Group Ltd and Broken Hill Proprietary Co. Ltd deceit. Prime Minister Hawke set up a secret parliamentary committee in place of a public inquiry demanded by Caucus and senior Australian Labor Party personnel. The Minister was not included, so he requested to be included. At the time that he made the request, and later when he questioned his fellow ministerial committee members whether they had a conflict of interest, he failed to declare the simple fact that his mother owned 30,000 Bell Group shares and that he had every expectation of inheriting from the proceeds of that parcel at some time, hopefully in the distant future. The value of those shares at the time was $235,000. It has since gone higher. In fact, the success of the Bell bid could have quadrupled the value of those shares. When he was questioned in the House, he refused to answer whether those were the circumstances. Again, he tried to be devious and to avoid the question. He then misled the Press by denying any knowledge of his mother's holdings. I have just drawn to the attention of honourable members that it was the Minister, as a signatory to Coomel, who saw shares of great value-I do not say these exact shares-transferring to his mother, shares in a public company, but he did not have the decency to ask his mother or check. I suggest that his current position-model No. 5, I think it might be-that he had some vague knowledge is also patently untrue. He misled his colleagues, he misled his Cabinet colleagues and he misled the Caucus by doing these things. He further misled the Press by denying knowledge of his mother's shares, yet he participated in them. When the heat went on a bit more he realised that on this side of the Parliament we deal in facts, not fiction, and that he had better readjust that story in case the Opposition nailed him to the wall, as it did with the other letter that he rushed out of the Parliament to photocopy. He said to the Press that he had a vague recollection. That was the situation. He was prepared in his own selfish interests to mislead members of the Press on a matter as important as this. I am talking about his misleading his colleagues more than anything else, misleading the people whose political judgment says: `We must have an inquiry into this matter'. He said: `Trust me. We have looked at the secret information we cannot tell you a thing about and we advise you that there should be no inquiry. The trade practices legislation which is now in the House should be expedited with the greatest possible speed. Let us get it through; Let us get Mum's shares to quadruple in value'. It is patently ridiculous for this Minister to suggest that he did not know and that he did not stand to benefit. Even if he did not stand to benefit there was an obligation on him privately to tell his colleagues, to give them the chance of privately judging the situation. As I think David McNicoll said today, the Minister had better go out of the classroom. That is probably a pretty good way of putting it. This is just another step in the Dawkins deceit. The Minister was working against a Prime Minister who said that Ministers have to make a declaration at meeting of the Cabinet or its committees of any matter that may give rise to a conflict of interest. The public, the electors of this country, are entitled to have confidence in the integrity of their elected representatives. They are entitled to know that Ministers of the Government will perform their duties without fear or favour, to be reassured that a Minister's private interests, whatever they may be, do not conflict with his or her public duties in holding the high office of a Minister of the Federal Government. On the evidence presented today, how does this Minister stand against that test? He fails on every count. The next step is the Dawkins deceit with his own Trade Commissioner, Mr Tom Walton, in Milan. The Commissioner told the Minister the truth. He shocked the messenger. The Minister had asked the Commissioner to get information and the Commissioner provided it. It was not to the Minister's liking because it was-expletive deleted-political dynamite. What did the Minister do then? The Commissioner told the Minister and the evidence of that is in a statutory declaration of the Commissioner alleging that the Minister for Trade, Mr Dawkins, ordered him to destroy documents that were political dynamite, a claim the Minister has denied in Parliament. What does that mean? The fact that this Minister denies something in Parliament does not mean anything. The Minister then demonstrated that he did not know his own Act. He tried to sack the man, but the Act he had brought into this Parliament no longer allowed him to do so. The Government was embarrassed and the time of the Federal Court was wasted. As we know, the Minister moved to replace this man with a croney, Mr Emanuel Klein, a political appointee to the Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism (Mr John Brown). Today we find that the Minister has rethought that position. He now no longer thinks that that was smart. He has been caught again, and he is running around saying to this fellow: `For goodness sake, save me. Throw away your ambitions'. It does not matter to this ambitious man, this man who would be Prime Minister, who gets hurt on the way. What about all those people he attacked most scurrilously during his time in Opposition? He would step across their dead bodies and not worry about the fact that these people might be innocent or cannot defend themselves. Yet all the time he was practising the same sort of tax avoidance and evasion methods that they were. We know that when he was thinking of sacking Mr Tom Walton he had received a letter from no less a person than the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr Lionel Bowen) saying what a great job the same Commissioner was doing in Milan. That letter is part of the record and has been referred to in today's Press. The Minister turned around and misled the Parliament because it was only yesterday that he told us he did not do any of these things. Today he is not really sure. Yesterday he told us that he had no knowledge of the applicants, but today he told us: `It is a bit like mum's shares. I think I might have suggested he should apply'. Yesterday the Minister was positive that that was not the situation, and so it goes on and on. The Minister has misled the House on three occasions and we just cannot have that sort of situation continuing. The misleading of his colleagues goes even further. I am wondering whether the Special Minister of State (Mr Young) realises that he has misled the House on advice provided to him by the Minister. In the House of Represent- atives' Hansard of 11 February 1986 the Minister answered a question from the honourable member for Richmond (Mr Blunt). He told us about the appointment of Mr Peter Steedman, who was appointed to do something for youth. From my knowledge of Mr Steedman, the only thing he could teach youth is how to swear. We all know how expert he is at that. This crony, this failure in this place, was put on the staff at a cost of a mere $46,019. On 11 February the Special Minister was advised that that was still the position. In fact, as of 1 October 1985 the Minister for Trade had discontinued Mr Steedman's appointment as a level 3 officer; he is now a level 2 officer and has been re-employed by the Minister at $53,241 a year, plus the normal travel expenses because he resides in Melbourne. Honourable members can work out what he is getting on top of that salary. The point is that the Minister again misled his colleagues by telling him that the salary was still $46,019 per annum when some four or five months earlier he had restructured that appointment and lifted the salary to $53,241. Who was this done for? It was done for a man who is now supposed to be helping with Priority One: Young Australia. We know that that is a failure too and that taxpayers' money could be better spent. We know why Peter Steedman is on the Minister's staff. The Minister has him on ice until he can find him another seat. He failed in Scullin; nevertheless, the Minister will keep him around at taxpayers' expense, like all his other cronies. We know how the system works. I am sure that the Special Minister of State will see it as reasonable to get on his feet and tell us how he did not mislead the House on this matter. Quite clearly the Minister has misled the House in answer to a question on notice. What are the charges against the Minister for Trade? They are clear and they have been listed. He has persistently abused his responsibilities and the propriety of his office. His responsibilities and propriety demand that he give evidence of conflict of interest in the matters I have described. The propriety of his office demands that if he wants to criticise tax dodgers, he should not be a tax dodger. Let me repeat the figures: Some $1m was avoided and $70,000 evaded, and this Minister participated in every bit of it. When he tried to prove to us that he had not, we produced the written evidence. He failed to declare his conflict of interest, which would have brought down any Minister, as honourable members know, certainly on the standards the Prime Minister set and then suddenly decided had to be changed. We saw the Minister force his Prime Minister to come in here and completely lower his standards-demonstrate double, triple, quadruple standards-by trying to hide behind the fine print of a declaration. The Prime Minister said: `We meant only spouses and children. No one needs to worry about parents, even if they are likely to leave you millions'. The Minister for Trade, as he has admitted, interfered with public documents. I trust the witness much more than I trust this Minister because of his record of deceit. Consistently and continuously he has come into this place with that sort of arrangement. He sought to interfere with the normal selection process of the Senior Trade Commissioner in Milan, and is now trying to turn that backwards. That is the latest development, the Thursday situation. He sought to advance a senior private secretary for the Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism. I bet that he cannot explain that, either. It is a disgrace. It is disgusting. I say to his colleagues that it is them he is letting down. If they want to tolerate him, good luck to them, but this side of the chamber certainly will not. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) -Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Before I call the Minister for Trade, I advise the House of what Pettifer's House of Representatives Practice has to say about want of confidence motions. About want of confidence motions in the Government Pettifer states: Perhaps the most crucial motions considered by the House of Representatives are those which express a want of confidence in, or the censure of, a Government. Similarly, a want of confidence motion in a Minister, such as this motion, is a most important matter. For that reason the Minister will be heard in silence and without interjection. Is the motion seconded? Mr Braithwaite —I second the motion and reserve my right to speak. Mr DAWKINS(Fremantle-Minister for Trade)(3.11) —Needless to say, of course, the Government rejects this motion. I suppose that the importance which the Opposition attaches to this mish-mashed motion is represented by the person it got to move it. I do not know why anybody would take seriously the judgments of this man, whose reputation has been so traduced over his years in public office that anything he touches is reduced in importance and, as a result, deserving of the contempt of this House and the people of Australia. Let me say that the honourable member for O'Connor (Mr Tuckey) spent a great deal of time going over a great deal of ancient history, again alleging the complete untruth that I was involved in some taxation irregularities. He knows that to be untrue. It is untrue, and I take this opportunity again formally to deny it. No one has declared more about his personal pecuniary interests than I have. Not only did I reveal what was necessary under the rules established by the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke), but I declared to him the full and elaborate details of all the matters which the honourable member for O'Connor has mentioned in relation to the events which he first referred to back in, I think, 1983. Mr Porter —After we raised them. Mr DAWKINS —No, it was not after that. I provided that information to the Prime Minister quite voluntarily. It was subsequently released publicly. So, there are no secrets about those matters to which the honourable member for O'Connor has once again referred. He seems to have a prurient interest in my affairs. It is a prurient interest which I suppose he will want to pursue over the years. The more and more he becomes preoccupied by it, the more and more people will realise that he is quite deranged in the fascination he has for my affairs. The important thing to recognise is that, whilst the honourable member for O'Connor seeks once again to refer to the property and assets my mother owns-what interest that is to him or anyone else I simply do not know-and whilst he wants me to inquire and remain informed of what assets my mother might have, he and his Opposition colleagues are petrified by the prospect of having to reveal their personal circumstances in a month or so's time. The real reason why Opposition members seek to make so much of the alleged conflict of interest I had, in relation to something which I did not own at all and therefore could not have had a conflict of interest over, is that they want to disparage the whole process of registration of members' interests. They do not want to pursue that particular area. Whenever they get the opportunity, they will rescind the requirements that members of this House register their pecuniary interests. I have always been in favour of the registration of members' interests and continue to be committed to it. I remain, however, utterly opposed to any suggestion that I should be required to reveal or that anyone else should reveal, the circumstances of my mother or anyone else with whom I am associated as a relative or whatever. I do not think anyone else should, either. The problem with honourable members opposite is that they are trying to establish for me standards which they will not embrace themselves. Let me get on to the other issues which have been raised and which essentially go to the question of the removal of the Senior Trade Commissioner in Milan. I have been scrupulous in the way in which this matter has been handled. I have been subjected to selective leaking by members of the Opposition after having provided them with the opportunity to review confidential, personal papers of officers of the Department. They then chose selectively to release certain parts of those papers, to give a totally distorted view. As well as that, the legal representatives of Mr Walton have been making quite outrageous claims about me, either in their own right or on behalf of Mr Walton. Throughout this matter I have been very careful not to embroil the personal reputation of Mr Walton in this matter. I have, of course, brought into question his performance as a trade commissioner. I would have thought that one of my essential obligations as Minister for Trade is to ensure that Australia is represented at the highest level by its officers overseas. Therefore, when I had the opportunity to see and to review Mr Walton's performance, I asked the Department to undertake an overall review of the situation in Italy. The Department concluded what I concluded, which is that Mr Walton did not have the capacity to follow through the initiatives my predecessor and I had taken in relation to promoting trade with Italy. This was not a view I came to myself, without advice. It was a view which was then held by the Department and which had been held by the Department for some time. The other point I want to make about this matter is that the only possible qualified support there was for Mr Walton's performance was on the basis that, if properly directed and monitored, Mr Walton could follow up the Minister's initiatives on manufacturers in a worthwhile way. Why should a senior trade commissioner, paid well in excess of $60,000, need proper direction and monitoring in order to do what was unarguably his job, that is, to promote Australia's trade interests overseas? I was told that the only qualified support for Mr Walton was that he could, possibly, do the job if he was supervised and monitored in a proper kind of way. I wanted my senior trade commissioners to be able to work on their own, without constant monitoring and supervision. That is why I decided, on the advice of the Department, to withdraw Mr Walton from Milan, so that we could then undertake a search for someone who was better able to follow up the important initiatives which I had taken in Rome. Let me make another point about Mr Walton. From the moment Mr Walton arrived in Milan-indeed, before he even left-he was arguing for an extension of his normal three-year term. He said that after his term finished he would have only a year to go and that, after all, this was his `retirement' post-he described Milan as his retirement post-and, therefore, would it not be convenient for him to have an extension of time that would see him through to his actual retirement? I did not want in Milan anyone who saw his term or an extension of that term as being a prelude to or preparation for retirement. I wanted someone there who could be vigorous and energetic in pursuing our interests, so the Department of Trade turned down the suggestion that he should have an extension. I applaud it for doing so. It was partly on that basis that I decided to withdraw Mr Walton after he had an opportunity to consider the complaints about him. One of the complaints was that he spent only 30 per cent of his time on trade matters. Let me read from another document which the Opposition has seen. It said on a review of Mr Walton's activities that 30 per cent of his time was spent on trade, 10 per cent on administration and 60 per cent on the formal duties as Consul-General. That was not the kind of person who needed to be in the most senior position-putting in 30 per cent of his time on the important trade initiatives. Rather, he chose to undertake the ceremonial functions which are associated with the simple formal title of Consul-General. The other point which has come to light more recently is the dispute between Mr Walton and me about what happened at a meeting in Rome. Firstly, I have already tabled the minutes which I instructed Mr Walton to withdraw. He had circulated these minutes to the participants at the meeting that I had convened apparently as a kind of useful working document for the meeting to address. In fact, these minutes are single-mindedly addressed to tourism and the question of likely tourists coming to Australia, which was not an issue with which I was fundamentally concerned. Not that that is not important but I was fundamentally concerned with how we could maximise and take advantage of the opportunities presented as a result of the America's Cup being held in Australia and Italy having sponsored two of the syndicates to contest it. This was providing for Australia a great degree of exposure in Italy. I wanted to see how we could take advantage of this publicity to expand our trade interests. Nowhere in the minutes of the discussion of the meeting is there a mention of trade and investment issues. Throughout the minutes are disparaging comments about certain Commonwealth agencies not doing enough to encourage tourism. They go on with what is a particularly idiotic statement when we are trying to encourage media interest in these matters. In reporting this meeting, Mr Walton says: Journalists are notoriously lazy and material which is ready to print is more likely to be published. That seems to be a fairly crass thing to say publicly about the representatives of the Press whom we are trying to encourage to publicise us. Then there is the question of who is right, Mr Walton or me. In an answer to a question I referred to an impropriety in which Mr Walton was involved. I have not sought to disclose the circumstances of that impropriety, but it was very serious. Had I known about it earlier his post would not have been renewed in any event. The Secretary to the Department at the time that Mr Walton was reprimanded said that, had he been aware of this impropriety, he certainly would not have promoted Mr Walton as he did. I am happy to show the Opposition the paper relating to this reprimand. It can judge whether it is a serious matter. It draws into question whether Mr Walton's account of what happened in Rome at that time should be believed. Let me now deal with the matter of Mr Klein. As I said today, I suggested at the time that the position was advertised that he might be interested. I happen to think that Mr Klein is a man of splendid capacity and would have been able to undertake these duties. Had I decided to appoint him prior to 6 January, I could have done so without reference to the Board of Austrade, or to anyone at all. I then had the power to appoint him without reference to anybody. But I chose to ensure that there was an open and fair selection process, one which involved the private sector. I am disappointed that the way in which this matter has been handled by the Opposition over the last few weeks has meant that it would have been impossible to sustain that, had that course been followed. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) -Order! The Minister's time has expired. Mr BRAITHWAITE(Dawson)(3.26) —There is a question before this House that must be answered-whether there was a conspiracy in the manner in which the senior private secretary of a Minister of this House was being actively promoted for a job within the Australian Public Service. That conspiracy hinges on cronyism. One has only to go back in the history of appointments to the Trade Commission by this Government as recently as the Vancouver appointment to realise that Mr Combe was a political appointment. The Minister for Trade (Mr Dawkins), about whom this motion refers, has had a series of questions on notice for four weeks. One cannot say that we have been devious or have tried to do anything behind the door by giving him those facts and figures so that he could give us an answer. It was only when the matter was raised in this House earlier this week in the absence of any of those answers to questions that the Minister within the space of 4 1/2 hours suddenly found that the questions had been answered and were available, and he presented them in this House. If he is trying to hide something I would like him to explain how in 4 1/2 hours he could answer a series of questions. In addition, the Minister knows what information was available to us. He says that we are selectively quoting. Mr Lee —It was leaked. Mr BRAITHWAITE —The honourable member says that we leaked. That is the other lie. We have not leaked. I took those documents on the basis that they were available to the Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Mr N.A. Brown) and that they were not to be photocopied-and they were not. Mr Hand —Do you say that the Deputy Leader leaked them? Mr BRAITHWAITE —As far as I am concerned, they were not leaked. It is interesting that in the 15 minutes in which the Minister was asked to respond he filled a full five minutes in vilification of the honourable member for O'Connor (Mr Tuckey). What does the Minister have to hide? If there is to be a conspiracy there has to be a web-and what a web this is. The Minister has mentioned that Mr Walton asked for an extension of his appointment so that he could retire in it. Is there anything unusual about that-a man who has served his country for about 20 years asking that he be retained in what I would suggest to be profitable employment of an experienced person in this position? That was not the point of the argument, as the Minister has tried to say because after that correspondence the Minister approved Mr Walton's appointment to the end of his term in May. He had it gazetted under the approval of the Governor-General. The very reason that the extension was not given was that Mr Harding in the Department said: `Because this is so we cannot change it. You stay there and you do not get your retirement, because at this stage we have appointed your successor, Mr Watkins'. One would assume that he was appointed on exactly the same basis-for a term which could not be cancelled. That is the conspiracy: The laws applied to Mr Walton's appointment were changed for Mr Watkins's appointment. There are many matters here. The significant factor has already been pointed out by my colleague, that is, Mr Klein and his influence within a Minister's department and the fact that he has a propensity for travelling in Italy-in 1984 and again in 1985. I suggest that the 1985 visit came about because he wanted to return to Milan, where he graduated. He went there on appointment from another Minister's office on a very delicate mission in matters of trade, travelling right across Europe and Asia. That was where he was able to go and perhaps try to indicate to the Minister that he had certain qualifications for the job, although he was learning about it. I mention the car manufacturers, about which he was expected to be a specialist. We have already heard that his only specialisation in the car industry was the fact that he hired a Mercedes-Benz-not an Italian made car-on a four-day trip at a cost to the Government of $2,900. There are major inconsistencies between what the Minister is now saying and what has happened. The more recent inconsistency is that, as recently as yesterday, he said that he did not know the names of the two final applicants for the job, yet in March he volunteered that he favoured Mr Klein for the job. Even back then he knew-and I would suggest that he knew as far back as the important meeting of 22 October. So, there is a man who, for quite a number of years, worked in an advisory capacity for a Minister and also a shadow Minister and he had a reason to go there. There is only one problem with that: Mr Walton was firmly in place to the end of May and the transaction had to be completed before Austrade took over, I believe, on 6 January. So it was a matter of some haste. It is interesting to note that the minutes in question were minutes of a meeting to which the Minister was invited the week before, but for some reason he was unable to attend. It has been suggested, in answer to a question, that Mr Walton was the author of these minutes. I have never heard of a person being an author of minutes: I have known people to be the recorders of minutes. Those minutes recorded the activities of quite a few people at that meeting. The Minister has already tabled the actual minutes. Mr Walton's problem was that he was the recorder and conveyer of bad news to the Minister at his more recent meeting when he met with basically the same group. How can the Minister complain about a man who is faithfully recording the proceedings of a previous meeting, a meeting which, I understand, the Minister was invited to attend? Had he been there, he would have got these comments to his face. He says that they are unduly flattering to the author. I have read through the minutes and I cannot see anything unduly flattering. Mr Howard —They probably aren't flattering to the Minister. Mr BRAITHWAITE —They are not flattering to the Minister or his Government. The matter of the potential number of people to attend the America's Cup was only a basic part of the problem because, as I understand it, the Government, in its great flurry to get people to Western Australia, had not provided a budget in order that the Australian Tourist Commission could arrange to take them there. Not only that; it had not provided the extra staff required at the consuls to process the documentation for people who would be coming over. That was the criticism implied in the minutes: If this is the Minister's estimate of people who are going-an estimate which I understand he got from Western Australia, where the telephone calls were made; not even Qantas was contacted-what about the support staff? So, there is a major conflict. Let us go to the other part of the major conflict in the documents. I have a statutory declaration from Mr Walton. I want to put a question to the House. On receipt of those documents my understanding was that I was not supposed to photocopy or reproduce them-I did not do so. The Minister, in the telephone call, said: `I will produce them to you as long as you hand them back personally. They are for your eyes only'. That is all I did. Do honourable members believe the explanation of the Minister, in the pickle he is in, or the explanation that I gave of what I understood happened. Who do honourable members believe? Let me now turn to where the Minister says that he asked for the minutes to be withdrawn. Mind you, he was given four weeks to give this considered reply. The statutory declaration has been signed by Mr Walton. This was made after the meeting. I understand that the meeting was the first time that the Minister had the opportunity to assess Mr Walton's qualifications for the job. In his statutory declaration Mr Walton said: As he left the room the Minister said that he wished to talk to me outside for a moment whilst the others present remained behind. I met the Minister outside and to my astonishment the Minister said that the wording of the two papers I had distributed to delegates was inappropriate- how was he to know that they were inappropriate when he was not even at the first meeting- and then said that the papers were, and I quote his exact words- expletive deleted- political dynamite'- for whom were they political dynamite? The Minister and his Government- and that I should return to the room, collect the papers and then destroy them. That is not a withdrawal. He asked that they be destroyed. The statutory declaration further states: I said that the delegates had their own records of the meeting in Genoa-14/15 October . . . but the Minister reiterated that the papers should be collected and destroyed, and then he walked off. On that basis Mr Walton sought legal advice and was asked to make that statutory declaration. I ask honourable members: Whom do they believe? Do they believe the Minister when he said that he withdrew them-he did not use those words-or the words of a public servant- Mr Carlton —A respected public servant. Mr BRAITHWAITE —Do they believe the Minister or that well respected public servant? Let me turn to the meeting and whether or not it was the catalyst for the Minister then to ask for a reference from his departmental officers on the qualifications of Mr Walton to hold the job. I think it would be fair to say that such a request must be coloured by the attitude of the Minister when the officer was present at the same meeting. He sought the advice of Mr Walton's two more or less superiors in Europe, Mr Hill and Mr Conroy. They actually wrote and confirmed everything that the Minister said; that when Mr Walton was first in his post he was basically feeling his way, that he was then acquainted with the initiatives and that they felt there was no reason why he would not be able to carry out the Minister's initiatives. That was that. The Minister did not want that response. He considered that advice and then turned around and said that Mr Walton was going to be withdrawn. That was all within one and a half months of that meeting. I come to another important date. Even as late as the end of November Mr Watkins was still being promoted, with the approval of the Minister, to take Mr Walton's place in May. Suddenly, on 20 December, an advertisement appeared calling for applications for the job. We understand that again the conspiracy deepens: The man who must then have considered himself to be the prime applicant for the job actually had a hand in drafting that advertisement. It is interesting that on that occasion the Minister instructed his Department to place the advertisement. No wonder so little work is done within this Government if the Minister instructs his Department in placing every advertisement that goes out under the Department's name. The advertisement was placed on 20 December. I again indicate the deadline of 6 January. It was fair enough for Mr Walton to be apprised of the terms of the Department when the Minister had approval, but he then found out that he had run out of time. A further rating or approval then had to be given by Austrade itself. What I ask is: Unless there was a rush, why could that advertisement not have been placed with Austrade acting at arm's length from the Minister? No, the Minister had to insist, as his dying chance to get Mr Klein into the job, on having that job advertised and filled, and then he found that he had run out of time. It is not the first time such a conspiracy has existed. I go back to the situation of the Combe appointment. The Vancouver representative was withdrawn on a certain date and his replacement was all ready to go to Vancouver. Somehow or other that appointment was changed, I understand, to Stockholm, and who got the job in Vancouver? One does not have to guess too hard. It was Mr Combe himself. It is just another episode in a very sad affair. What we are asking the House on this occasion is whether, on these facts and on this evidence, it has confidence in the Minister to perform the very high and important duties he has. Does it have confidence in the Minister that he might be able to really get on with the job of Australia's trade, with the record deficits that are now occurring? I would suggest that we have not. We should be asking the Parliament, the Government, and also the Acting Prime Minister (Mr Lionel Bowen) about why the Minister has been so inconsistent with his replies. Obviously a conspiracy has occurred. The fact that the Minister went out of his way this morning to try to pressure Mr Klein to get out of the job because he was too big an embarrassment to him indicates to me once and for all that the Minister has been caught with his hands in the till and he must stand condemned in this regard. I ask whether the Government and the Acting Prime Minister have lost confidence in this Minister, as we have. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr HOLDING(Melbourne Ports-Minister for Aboriginal Affairs)(3.41) —Mr Deputy Speaker, as you yourself have pointed out, there can be no more serious allegation against any member of this Parliament or any Minister of the Crown than an allegation which is put in two ways. The honourable member for O'Connor (Mr Tuckey) put his argument in two ways. First of all, he made an attack upon the personal integrity of the Minister for Trade (Mr Dawkins) and, secondly, he said: `Well, if that fails it goes to the question of incompetence'. Let us look at the basis of the two heads upon which the allegation that goes to the question of the integrity of the Minister is put. First, we had rehashed yet again the question of the relationship of the Minister to some shares owned by his mother. Last week in this Parliament that allegation was made not on the basis of there being a conflict of interest but on the basis that there was a potential conflict of interest. Not for one moment was it suggested at any time in the House that there was a direct conflict of interest, nor was it suggested at any time, then or even now, that any of the Ministers who participated in the decisions about the Holmes a Court takeover bid on the Broken Hill Proprietary Co. Ltd was in any way influenced. But in the warped and devious mind of the honourable member for O'Connor, by the time he comes into this Parliament, where last week he was talking about a potential conflict of interest, today he is talking about a conflict of interest. Why the slide? As everyone knows, the honourable member for O'Connor has a personal attitude where he is prepared to malign and abuse the Minister on any occasion, and I will deal with that aspect later. Let us look at the position on the whole question of declaration of members' interests. There is a genuine conflict between members opposite and those on this side of the House as to whether there should be a register, what should be registered, and what disclosures ought to take place. There is genuine disagreement about that. In relation to the Bowen Committee of Inquiry concerning Public Duty and Private Interest report, no submission made to the Committee by members of this Parliament ever suggested that a member was bound to disclose the interests of an extended family. No one ever suggested that a member was in some say responsible for the shareholdings of a mother or an uncle or a father or a brother. It is interesting to see what a prominent member of the Liberal Party had to say, a person versed in the affairs of big business-no less a person than Mr Elliott, who handles money on behalf of the Liberal Party. What did the Federal Treasurer of the Liberal Party, Mr John Elliott, have to say about this allegation of the honourable member for O'Connor? He said: `It is staggering'-those are his words, not mine-`that the Federal Liberal Party has been reduced'-those are his words, not mine-`to scoring political points over shares owned by a Labor Minister's mother'. There is a bit more integrity and capacity and a bit less criminal propensity outside the Liberal Party than one finds in the attitudes of some members of this Parliament. So much for the allegation about the shares held by the Minister's mother. I shall now deal with the second head of the argument. We were told today that there has been a criminal conspiracy. Who were the parties to this conspiracy? There is a minute available, and it was made available by the Minister when this matter arose. Is a Minister involved in a criminal conspiracy going to say to the shadow Minister opposite: `There are the files. Have a look at them and make up your own mind about it'? Is that the action of a Minister who is involved in some kind of conspiracy? Honourable members opposite know that there was a minute on the file from a senior public servant which suggested that the particular officer who has been the subject of these allegations ought to have his services at the post in question terminated. In talking about a conspiracy-and honourable members opposite were doing so; that was their term-are they suggesting that the senior public servant who gave a minute to this Minister, which they have seen, saying for various reasons that the services of this officer ought to be transferred from a particular posting, is part of the conspiracy? Mr Braithwaite —We got 50 per cent of the papers. Mr HOLDING —Honourable members opposite were confronted with the documents. What does the Minister do when a senior public servant says to him that there are various reasons for terminating this man's services? I do not want to go into the reasons. Honourable members opposite know about them; they have seen the documents. When a senior public servant says to his Minister that there is a level of incompetence-and I will not put it any more highly than that and I will not go into all the details, in fairness to the person concerned-and suggests that this man's services be terminated in this post, what does the Minister do with that? Does he act on it or does he ignore it? If he ignores it, the honourable gentlemen on the other side of the House will say: `Ah, he is not discharging his duties'. If he acts on it with honesty and integrity and makes the files available, they scream: `Criminal conspiracy'. I ask this House to make some judgments, not merely in terms of this motion but, more importantly, in terms of why this motion was moved in this form. What are the reasons? The reasons are, as the public of Australia and the Press Gallery know, that this is the most incompetent, ill-led Opposition in the history of the Commonwealth. The Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard) is absolutely haunted by the mere presence of the leader he deposed. He spends so much time looking over his own shoulder that it is impossible for him to look forward on anything. One of the great issues facing the people of Australia is the question of finding jobs for young people. Where is the Opposition's policy? What have members of the Opposition produced as a substitute for a policy? They produce a hit list of their own supporters. We were told-we wait with bated breath-that we might get what passes for a policy in about May this year. Mr Ian Cameron —Tell us about George Georges. Get on to the subject. Mr HOLDING —Yes, let us get on to it. What are the motives? The Leader of the Opposition sacked prominent and able members of the Opposition and put them on the back bench in order to promote the likes of the honourable member for O'Connor. Why did that occur? Mr Tuckey —Haven't you been reading the newspapers lately? Mr HOLDING —The problem is that if honourable members opposite stopped reading the newspapers we would not have a Question Time. They live on a day to day basis. What they pick up will become the question. If the journalists take a day off we have to sit here and wait. We get better questions from our own back benchers than we ever get from honourable members opposite. Let us look at these people who want to lecture us on political morality, on public leadership. The latest polls show that the Leader of the Opposition-this is why he has to rely on someone like the honourable member for O'Connor as his hit man-has a public support rating of around 26 per cent. It is about half that of the leader he deposed. These are Liberal Party supporters being polled, and 14 per cent of them said they would rather have anybody except the Leader of the Opposition. One State parliamentarian in Western Australia said that he even thinks the honourable member for O'Connor would make a good leader if he would keep his mouth shut. There are as many undecided as there are saying they would support anybody except the present leader. So what we have is not an Opposition; it is a political rabble that purports to pass for an Opposition. Opposition members come into this House and talk about conspiracy and about propriety in office. Let us look at their record of propriety in office. This Government has been in office for almost four years and the Ministry is the same as it was when we started. In the first year of the Fraser Government, 1976, two Ministers were sacked for impropriety. In 1977 there were no fewer than three. They were getting better all the time-and these are the people who are talking about fingers in the till. A total of eight Ministers were stood down or sacked in the first three years. They did not resign but were sacked for political impropriety. So we are now lectured on political propriety by members and supporters of the former Governmment when they changed Ministers more often than they changed their shirts. What we have now in this Parliament is the unique spectacle of a beleaguered, surrounded and desperate Leader of the Opposition who in order to maintain his own position has put more talent on the back bench than he has on the front bench, so ultimately he has to rely on the odd talents of the honourable member for O'Connor. Mr Duncan —A convicted felon. Mr HOLDING —I note those words. Perhaps we should not be too uncharitable to the honourable member for O'Connor, but I simply say this: In over 20 years of public life I have met some very interesting parliamentarians but the honourable member for O'Connor is absolutely unique. He is the only gutter politician I have ever seen whose odiferous behaviour is so consistent that it makes the gutter he has come from look permanently squeaky clean. Mr Tuckey —Big deal, Clyde. Mr HOLDING —He wants to lecture Ministers about impropriety. The fact of the matter is-I say this as kindly and as charitably as I can-the only person in this Parliament who has been convicted for a criminal offence is the honourable member for O'Connor. If we want to read the transcript, if we want to look at the documents, we find that the honourable member for O'Connor in presenting his defence to the court about a cowardly and brutal assault lied to the court and had his evidence rejected. Now he comes into this House believing that if he makes any kind of personal attack on members of the Government it will get him some kind of political promotion. Mr Sinclair —No, it is the integrity of their responsibility. It is a different thing altogether. Mr HOLDING —Listen to the Leader of the National Party! At least I will say this for the Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Mr N.A. Brown): He is a lawyer of some calibre but he distances himself from these two gentlemen; otherwise he would be locked up for consorting. This is a miserable censure motion and a motion that does this Opposition no credit. It does its mover no credit and it does not do its seconder any credit. It is a motion without honour, it is a motion without principle and it is a motion without integrity and it will be rejected by this House. I move: That the question be now put. Question resolved in the affirmative. Original Question put: That the motion (Mr Tuckey's) be agreed to. The House divided. (Mr Deputy Speaker-Mr Leo McLeay) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 58 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 75 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 17 —— Aldred, K. J. Howard, J. W. Beale, J.H. Hunt, R. J. D. Blunt, C. W. Katter, R. C. Braithwaite, R. A. Lloyd, B. Brown, N. A. McArthur, F. S. Burr, M. A. MacKellar, M. J. R. Cadman, A. G. McVeigh, D. T. Cameron, Donald Macphee, I. M. Cameron, Ewen (Teller) Miles, C. G. Cameron, Ian Millar, P. C. Carlton, J. J. Moore, J. C. Cobb, M. R. Peacock, A. S. Coleman, W. P. Porter, J. R. Connolly, D. M. Reith, P. K. Conquest, B. J. Robinson, IanDobie, J. D. M. Rocher, A. C. Downer, A. J. G. Ruddock, P. M. Drummond, P. H. Shack, P. D. Edwards, Harry Sharp, J. Everingham, P. A. E. Shipton,R. F. Fife, W. C. Sinclair, I. McC. Fischer, Tim Slipper, P. N. Goodluck, B. J. Smith, W. Hall, Steele Spender, J. M. Halverson, R. G. Sullivan, K. J. Hawker, D. P. M. Tuckey, C. W. Hicks, N. J. (Teller) Watson, DavidHodges, J. C. Webster, A. P. Hodgman, W. M. White, P. N. D. Baldwin, P. J. Jakobsen, C. A. Beazley, K. C. Jenkins, H. A. Beddall, D. P. Jones, BarryBilney, G. N. Kelly, R. J. Blanchard, C. A. Kent, L. Blewett, N. Keogh, L. J. Bowen, Lionel Kerin, L. J. Brown, John Klugman, R. E. Brown, Robert Lamb, A. H. Brumby, J. M. Langmore, J. V. Campbell, G. Lee, M. Charles, D. E. Lindsay, E. J. Charlesworth, R. I. McHugh, J. Chynoweth, R. L. Maher, M. J. Cleeland, P. R. Martin, S. P. Cohen, B. Mayer, H. Cross, M. D. Mildren, J. B. Cunningham, B. T. (Teller) Morris, AllanDawkins, J. S. Morris, PeterDubois, S. G. Mountford, J. G. Duffy, M. J. O'Keefe, N. P. Duncan, P. O'Neil, L. R. T. Edwards, Ronald Price, L. R. S. Fatin, W. F. Punch, G. F. Free, R. V. Saunderson, J. Gayler, J. Scholes, G. G. D. Gear, G. Scott, J. L. Gorman, R. N. J. Simmons, D. W. Grace, E. L. Snow, J. H. Griffiths, A. G. Staples, P. R. Hand, G. L. Theophanous, A. C. Hayden, W. G Tickner, R. E. Holding, A. C. Uren, T. Hollis, C. West, S. J. Howe, B. L. Willis, R. Humphreys, B. C. (Teller) Wright, K. W. Hurford, C. J. Young, M. J. Jacobi, R. Fitzgibbon, E. J. Jull, D. J. Milton, P. Cowan, D. B. Keating, P. J. Nehl, G. B. Darling, E. E. Andrew, J. N. Question so resolved in the negative. Mr WILLIS(Gellibrand-Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations) —For the information of honourable members, I present the text of a statement made by the Minister for Finance relating to the review of invalidity retirement benefits arrangements in the Commonwealth superannuation scheme. Motion (by Mr Young) proposed: That the House take note of the paper. Debate (on motion by Mr N.A. Brown) adjourned. Mr KERIN(Werriwa-Minister for Primary Industry) —For the information of honourable members, I present a report on Australia's plant breeding needs. Motion (by Mr Young) proposed: That the House take note of the paper. Debate (on motion by Mr N.A. Brown) adjourned. Mr HURFORD(Adelaide-Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs) —For the information of honourable members, I present a report on access and equity in the delivery of Federal Government services and programs to migrants, together with the text of a statement relating to the report. Motion (by Mr Young) proposed: That the House take note of the paper. Debate (on motion Mr N.A. Brown) adjourned. Mr COHEN(Robertson-Minister for Arts, Heritage and Environment) —For the infor- mation of honourable members, I present the Government's response to the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Environment and Conservation report `Administration of the Environment Protection (Impact of Proposals) Act 1974'. Motion (by Mr Young) proposed: That the House take note of the paper. Debate (on motion by Mr N.A. Brown) adjourned. Mr LIONEL BOWEN(Kingsford-Smith-Attorney-General) —I wish to make a personal explanation. I claim to have been misrepresented. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) —You may proceed. Mr LIONEL BOWEN —In the Australian newspaper on 10 April there was an article stating that immigration forms had been lost by myself or my electorate office and referring to allegations made by Mr Derek James Greaves. The matter was given some prominence. I have been unable to make an explanation to the House because the matter has been before the Federal Court of Australia and I did not want to intrude into that. The allegations made by Mr Greaves were that certain immigration papers had been lost or mislaid in my office from 1982, and that that was the reason Mr Greaves felt he was entitled to remain in Australia. Those allegations were false, and are false, and I would like to give the explanation. I saw Mr and Mrs Greaves towards the end of 1982. At that stage it was indicated that they had lodged what is called an application for permanent residence. They were here on visitors' visas and I was asked to assist in the representations. I suggested that they might help by getting some offers of employment which they could give to my electorate office. They did get offers of employment and my electorate office then tried to locate the file in the Department of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs so that the matter could be linked up. On 30 May 1983 my electorate secretary wrote to Mr and Mrs Greaves saying: The Immigration Department in Sydney are having difficulty in locating your Application for Permanent Residency and the file number . . . It would be appreciated if either one of you could contact Mr Bowen's office . . . There is a note that on 2 June Mrs Greaves rang to say that they had never lodged any application forms and asked my office to send them a fresh set, which it duly did. Those forms were completed and we then sent them to the Department of Immigration on 26 July 1983. The Department of Immigration dealt with the forms in a letter to my electorate secretary on 1 September 1983 thanking us very much for the forms. The letter continued: It is noted that Mr and Mrs Greaves are currently in Australia. No further action can be taken on the sponsorship until their departure from Australia has been confirmed. Mr and Mrs Greaves should advise their proposed departure arrangements. That letter was forwarded to Mr and Mrs Greaves on 7 September 1983. So never at any stage did we have the application forms. They themselves indicated that they had not lodged them. They were given fresh forms to lodge and they were duly lodged. The Department looked at them and said: `We will not process them until you leave Australia'. They were given that advice. There are letters to confirm this, which I now table. I am aware that the Australian published these remarks as the result of statements made in the court from the bar table. It is clear if one looks at the correspondence that earlier I had advised the solicitor in writing on 4 April as to the true position. It is disappointing to think that the instructing solicitor was not able to inform counsel of the correct position. Mr N.A. Brown(Menzies) —Mr Deputy Speaker, I seek leave to make a personal explanation. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) —Has the honourable member been misrepresented? Mr N.A. Brown —Yes, I have, by reason of the references made to me in the course of a question asked today by the honourable member for Maribyrnong (Mr Griffiths). Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —The honourable member may proceed. Mr N.A. Brown —I say that despite the fact that the question apparently- Mr Kerin —He didn't name you. Mr N.A. Brown —I thought, when he was asking the question, that he was referring to me. On listening to it again I realise that he was referring to a staff member, but the question subsequently referred to me-the implication being, I understand, that there was some responsibility on my part, or certainly a responsibility on someone's part, to do something about it. That is why I am seeking leave to make a personal explanation. I am informed that the allegations made by the honourable member in the question are completely false and are certainly denied. Mr Hand —Mr Deputy Speaker, I take a point of order. I am in some difficulty. I would not like the Deputy Leader of the Opposition to put himself in the position of misleading the House. I ask you to ask him to be extremely careful in his personal explanation. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! There is no point of order. Mr N.A. BROWN —About six months ago, as I understand it, the senior staff member to whom I presume the question referred was travelling with me from Canberra to Melbourne. He had a first class ticket. He was not issued with an economy class ticket; he had a first class ticket, which he was entitled to have under the rules, which I will refer to in a moment. There could be no suggestion, therefore, that he had an economy class ticket and asked for a first class ticket or a first class seat. If this had been brought to my notice before the question had been asked I would have pointed out that the rules provide for first class travel for him anyway, and I acknowledge the agreement of the Special Minister of State (Mr Young) with that. I will refer to the rules in detail in a moment. Apparently, before the departure of the aircraft he was given an economy class seat and asked for a first class seat, which he was given. It cannot be said, therefore, that this was, in any sense of the word, an upgrading. It was not an upgrading because he had a first class ticket, and I can only assume that the first class ticket was paid for. There was therefore no upgrading, so that allegation is completely false. As to the claim made, again without referring it to me, that the staff member held himself out as being a member of parliament, that is completely false. Not only is it completely false but also it is a ludicrous allegation to make and has no substance whatsoever. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! I think the Deputy Leader of the Opposition can claim where he was misrepresented but I do not think that the rules are so wide- Mr N.A. Brown —Fair go, Mr Deputy Speaker. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! I do not think the rules are wide enough to allow the Deputy Leader to make an explanation on behalf of a staff member. It is unfortunate- Mr N.A. Brown —Mr Deputy Speaker, the question was not ruled out of order. Surely I am entitled to speak on behalf of a member of my staff when the question referred to me? Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Unfortunately the honourable member cannot. Mr N.A. Brown —Mr Deputy Speaker, I must say that I am surprised at that ruling. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —The Deputy Leader of the Opposition has been in this Parliament about as long as I have-a little longer, I think-and he knows that a member may make an explanation about where he has been misrepresented. When that is the wording of the form, it is difficult to expand it to enable a member to make an explanation about where a staff member was misrepresented. I think I have given the Deputy Leader a fair enough chance to rebut the allegations and- Mr N.A. Brown —The question was not ruled out of order and it referred to me. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER — Order! If the deputy Leader of the Opposition can tell the House where he has been misrepresented the Chair is willing to hear him, but he must state where he has been misrepresented. Mr N.A. Brown — Mr Deputy Speaker, if you read the question again when you have an opportunity to do so- Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —I am not interested in reading the question; I am interested in hearing where you have been personally misrepresented. Mr N.A. Brown —Mr Deputy Speaker, just a moment. Let me finish my sentence, if you do not mind. When you have an opportunity to read the question, you will find that I personally, by a reference to my office, was referred to in that question-the necessary and only implication- Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —The Deputy Leader- Mr N.A. Brown —Let me finish this sentence too, if you do not mind-the necessary implication being that there was some impropriety on my part or some obligation on me to rectify this. Let me conclude very briefly by reading a provision from the book provided by the Special Minister of State, which sets out Opposition office-holders' entitlements. It is a very short statement and I ask honourable members to bear with me. The provision states: The senior staff member (or the staff member standing in for that person) and the Office-holder's Press Secretary are entitled to travel first class when accompanying the Office-holder. It is clear that two staff members are entitled to travel first class, not one. There were two staff members present and, as I understand it, they both travelled first class. It is within the rules. There is no impropriety, nothing to censure or criticise and, frankly, I am startled at the suggestion that a question should be asked, based on the allegations made, without giving any opportunity to a person outside this House to put in his contribution as to whether what is alleged is true or false. I leave it to the House to make its own judgment on the morals of a person who would ask a question in that manner which is completely false and completely baseless and rejected. Mr GRIFFITHS(Maribyrnong) —Mr Deputy Speaker, I wish to make a personal explanation. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Has the honourable member been misrepresented? Mr GRIFFITHS —I have. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —The honourable member may proceed. Mr GRIFFITHS —The Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Mr N.A. Brown), in the course of his personal explanation, indicated that certain events had transpired that reflected on the question I asked during Question Time today. I simply say that I have been informed by a member of this House, no less, of the circumstances which took place. I have also received information, as recently as today, which indicates that the staff member in question held himself out to be a member of this chamber in order to obtain a first class air ticket. Mr N.A. Brown —Mr Deputy Speaker, I take a point of order. If you have an opportunity of ruling a personal explanation or a purported explanation out of order on the grounds that the member has not been misrepresented, surely this must be it. The honourable member is simply entering into an argument about the facts. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! I was about to draw the honourable member for Maribyrnong to a close when the intervention occurred. Mr YOUNG(Port Adelaide-Leader of the House) —by leave-I wish to inform the House of a revision of the sitting pattern for the remainder of the autumn sittings. Honourable members can all get out their diaries and mark them now. On 14 April a motion instigated by the Australian Democrat, Senator Macklin, was passed by the Senate. I might say that it is the first thing it has passed for some time. That motion read in part: that, unless otherwise ordered, where a Bill is introduced by a Minister, or is received from the House of Representatives, after 30 May 1986, and a Motion is moved for the Second Reading of the Bill, debate on that Motion shall be taken to be adjourned on the conclusion of the speech of the Senator moving the motion, and the resumption of the debate shall be made an Order of the Day for the first day of sitting in August 1986, without any question being put. As a consequence of this motion the Government is obliged to include an extra sitting week before 30 May to ensure that essential Bills, including the taxation Bills, are debated in the House and are available for debate in the Senate. The Government has decided that the House will sit from 20 to 23 May inclusive. The pattern for the following week will be varied slightly and the House will sit from 26 to 29 May. At the moment it is still intended to sit from 2 to 5 June. I will circulate to honourable members the revised sitting pattern. The motion moved by the Senate raises all sorts of problems as far as the good government of this country is concerned in future- Mr Rocher —Why didn't you bring the Bills on earlier? Mr YOUNG —Whether the Bills are introduced or not is one issue. For the Senate to pass a motion that it will not deal with legislation coming from the House of Representatives is quite a different issue and something that the House will really have to take seriously in the future. This House is the Government of Australia. Mr SINCLAIR(New England-Manager of Opposition Business) —Mr Deputy Speaker, I seek leave to make a short statement. Leave granted. Mr SINCLAIR —The Opposition reluctantly accepts the proposal by the Special Minister of State and Leader of the House (Mr Young). However, I think that the concluding description of the reasons for this measure need to be put into perspective. There are not many instances when we in the National Party of Australia and the Liberal Party of Australia agree with the Australian Democrats. But in this instance the reason that the Senate has taken this unusual stand is the log jam that the Government is running the Senate into with the introduction and passage of legislation. I know that the excuse of the Leader of the House is that the Senate has been procrastinating on a number of pieces of legislation that have been submitted to it. It should be recalled that one of these pieces of legislation is the Australian Bill of Rights Bill. That Bill of Rights Bill is a Bill of no rights. It is a Bill that we disagree with totally. It should never have been introduced into the Parliament. The Government's solution lies not in proposing an additional sitting week in this place as it is doing but in withdrawing that Bill of Rights Bill. The second reason for this proposal is that last September-on 19 September in fact-the Treasurer (Mr Keating) came into this place and told us all that there were to be three new pieces of tax legislation. Now, in this month of April 1986, we still await the introduction of that legislation. If the Treasurer, the Government, the Australian Taxation Office and the Treasury had set about their task as we believe they should, those pieces of legislation, which we totally oppose, would have been introduced into this Parliament at the latest by the end of October 1985. For this Parliament to be called on to sit an additional week because the Government cannot get its act together is totally unacceptable. The people of Australia need to know that the tax legislation to be applied in this financial year has still not been before the Parliament. The only reason that the Government is seeking to extend the sitting pattern by a week is so that it can somehow or other, in a belated form, get that tax legislation into this place and over to the Senate so that it will apply to every taxpayer of Australia in the 1985-86 financial year. That is not a valid excuse for the Leader of the House to come in here and try to beguile us all into thinking that we are all being totally unreasonable and that it is a dastardly thing for the Senate to pass a motion stating that it will not receive any new legislation after 30 May. The actions of the Treasurer and the Government in denying Australians at this point complete knowledge of their tax liabilities, when the package was introduced last September, are not acceptable. There has been all the shilly-shallying in the world about what will be in that legislation. We have had all the nonsense about the possible withdrawal of the provisions for the quarantining of farm losses. It has been an on again, off again situation. It goes from the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Kerin) to the Minister for Finance (Senator Walsh), back to the Acting Treasurer (Mr Hurford) and then back to the Minister for Finance. Had the Government got its act together and the legislation been in here, there would be no need for the Special Minister of State to ask that we sit an additional week. However, having said that, given the diabolical state of the economy of this country and given the appalling way in which the Government is running the nation, it would be a jolly good thing if we sat right through the winter recess. If the Special Minister of State cares to move a motion to that effect, in all seriousness-so that all of those honourable members who sit along the Labor benches and who would be going on their overseas jaunts could stay in here and talk about matters of more serious moment-we will be delighted to support that motion. Mr BRUMBY(Bendigo) —I present the ninth report of the Publications Committee, sitting in conference with the Publications Committee of the Senate. Copies of the report have been circulated in the chamber. Report-by leave-adopted. 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 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 every pray. by Mr Ian Cameron,Mr Hodges,Mr Hunt,Mr Reith and Mr Ruddock. 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 Mr Cowan,Mr Grace,Mr Jenkins,Mr Lee and Mr Allan Morris. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia sheweth that whereas: 1. They are completely satisfied with the design of the existing Australian National Flag. 2. They are aware it properly reflects the immutable characteristics of Australia, namely: (a) The Union Jack, itself the creation of three Christian Crosses, represents the Nation's historical origin and the source of its language and law; (b) The Southern Cross on an azure blue background signifying its geographical location on this planet Earth; (c) The large star depicting the advent of Federation in 1901. 3. They know the Flag has been a source of inspiration to generations of Australians in peace and war. 4. They recall that millions of native-born 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 Ewen Cameron,Mr McArthur and Mr Reith. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled in Parliament. The petition of certain citizens of Australia draws to the attention of the House of Representatives their concern at any change to the Australian Flag without first holding a Referendum to assess the opinion of the citizens of Australia. Your petitioners therefore pray that no changes be made to the Australian Flag without reference to the citizens of Australia in the form of a Referendum. by Dr Harry Edwards. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of certain citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: That the Australian flag symbolises the continuity between Australia's past, its present and the future; That the presence of the Union Jack on the flag represents not a subservience to Britain, but a reminder of our inheritance of the fruits of hundreds of years of struggle for individual liberty against the forces of tyranny and oppression; Nonetheless recognises the rights of Australians should they wish as a people to change the designs of their flag. Your petitioners humbly pray that no change be made to the Australian flag except with the consent of the people in a referendum. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Ruddock. To the Honourable 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 air ship 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 of Australia to intercede with the Government of Sri Lanka: to desist from airship attacks and seeking a military solution; to offer refuge under humanitarian and compassionate programs, to Tamils who are fleeing from the violence; abandon all direct and indirect forms of repatriation to any Tamil who has sought refuge in Australia and grant them meaningful assistance to resettle; 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. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Hollis,Mr Kent and Mr Ruddock. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled in Parliament. The petition of the undersigned respectfully showeth: introduction of any additional capital gains taxes, wealth taxes or death duties is opposed on the grounds that: they adversely affect the small and medium size businesses in Australia, destroying incentive and discouraging investment in this important area of the economy; the Australian economy, and employment in particular, is heavily reliant on growth in small businesses; any capital gains that might result when owners of small businesses finally sell the business are not `windfall gains' but the result of many hard years of work and sacrifice, with very little being taken out of the business by way of salaries so that the maximum amount of money can be ploughed back into the business to create growth and jobs; the owners of small businesses often depend on a capital gain-which are simply deferred salaries-when they eventually sell their business to sustain them in retirement; Your petitioners request that the House of Representatives, in Parliament assembled, will protect the rights of private enterprise and reject any inequitable additional taxes. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Cadman and Mr Reith. 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 We do not believe there are any legitimate grounds for enforcing compulsory employer-paid superannuation. We do believe that retirement benefits should be paid by a tax levied on ALL income earners. We do believe that Business in Australia cannot afford to be damaged by further costs which will add to inflation, cause a loss of jobs and further weaken our international competitiveness. Your petitioners therefore pray that your Honourable House will: reject the principle of employer-paid compulsory superannuation and disassociate yourselves from the Trade Unions' demands that employers pay 3% superannuation for all employees. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Donald Cameron and Mr MacKellar. 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 in Parliament assembled, we the undersigned call upon all Members to pay due respect to returned Service personnel and cease the constant erosion of our entitlements by the Hawke Government. Your Petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Government does not proceed with its intention to further means test Veterans' disability pensions in order to achieve their desired cuts in Government spending. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Hodges. To the Honourable the Speaker, and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned electors of Australia respectfully showeth- We, the undersigned, recognise that every individual has the basic right to negotiate employment conditions if he or she so chooses, free from Union interference of any kind. We request that the Federal and State Governments introduce new legislation or amend existing legislation to permit negotiated employment contracts as an alternative available to those who do not wish to have a Trade Union acting for them in matters relating to their employment. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Hodges. To 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 peoples 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. 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, Parliament House, Canberra, ACT 2600. The petition of certain citizens of Australia draws to the attention of the House: That we, the undersigned, are greatly concerned by, and totally opposed to, paying a licence fee to operate a marine band radio which is carried in any craft, and which may be relied upon to summon assistance in emergency situations. We wish you to rescind the Regulation under the Wireless Telegraphy Act 1905, which prescribes this fee. Your petitioners, therefore, humbly pray that the Federal Commonwealth Government of Australia will protect us from payment of this fee, and your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Nehl. To the Honourable the Speaker and the Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of certain electors of Australia respectfully sheweth: That the Bill of Rights Bill, the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission Bill, the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission Amendment Bill and the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission (Transitional Provisions and Consequential Amendments) Bill if passed by the Parliament, will undermine human and civil rights in Australia; will attack the institution of the family in our country, and will destroy States Rights and the federal nature of our Commonwealth. Your petitioners humbly pray that: The Parliament rejects these Bills; abolishes the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission and moves to withdraw ratification of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. And your Petitioners, as in duty bound, will every pray. by Mr Nehl. To the Honourable the Speaker and the Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of certain electors of the Division of Cowper respectfully sheweth: That the Bill of Rights Bill, the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission Bill, the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission Amendment Bill and the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission (Transitional Provisions and Consequential Amendments) Bill if passed by the Parliament, will undermine human and civil rights in Australia; will attack the institution of the family in our country, and will destroy States Rights and the federal nature of our Commonwealth. Your petitioners humbly pray that: The Parliament rejects these Bills; abolishes the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission and moves to withdraw ratification of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. And your Petitioners, as in duty bound, will every pray. by Mr Nehl. 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 sheweth that: 1. We are completely satisfied with the design of the existing Australian national flag. 2. We are aware it properly reflects the immutable characteristics of Australia, namely: The union Jack-itself the creation of 3 Christian crosses-represents the nation's historical origin, and the source of its language and law. The Southern Cross on an azure blue background signifying its place in space. The large star depicting the advent of Federation in 1901. 3. We know the flag has been a source of inspiration to generations of Australians in peace and war. 4. We recall that millions of native-born Australians and newcomers to these shores from other parts of the world have become united under its proud symbolism. 5. We are certain that any change to the flag will produce division in the Australian community. Your petitioners therefore pray that your Honourable House will propose and pass a motion that ``the existing Australian national flag remains sacrosanct from change''. And your petitioners 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 humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully sayeth: That we the undersigned are totally opposed to any taxation change which involves a tax on Health Fund contributions, health charges or benefits; That we are already required to pay a 1 per cent levy to partly finance the Medicare scheme and that we would regard any further taxation of our health insurance arrangements as unfair and unreasonable; That therefore we urge the Government to ensure that there is no taxation on illness and no special taxation on those who seek to insure themselves against the cost of private health care. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Ruddock. 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 weapons 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 weapons states-to conclude at an early stage a treaty banning all nuclear weapons tests in all environments for all time, (b) call on all nuclear weapons states to declare an immediate moratorium on all nuclear weapon tests pending conclusion of a CTB. 2. All federal members of Parliament and senators make strong representations to the Australian Government to act towards these goals. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Tickner. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth. Our alarm with the continued spiralling cost of commodities brought about we believe, by the monopolisation of retail outlets by multi and transnational consortiums. We would ask the Government legislate, effective price control and anti monopoly measures to prevent further erosion of the living standards of the Australian community. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled, seek your most urgent action to rectify this deep concern to the community. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray, by Mr Tickner. To the Right Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives of the Commonwealth in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of New South Wales respectfully showeth. That they strongly support the establishment of the Western Sydney State University as recommended in the Parry Report and call upon the House to establish the Western Sydney State University in conjunction with the New South Wales Government. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Free,Mr Grace,Mr Gorman and Mr Price. 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 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 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 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 petition of certain electors of Dawson respectfully shows that the proposed capital gains tax: penalises small business and farming enterprises, discourages long-term investment, hinders capital formation, will freeze existing investment patterns, and limits the investors' ability to adjust to changed market conditions. Your petitioners humbly pray that the Government will abandon its illconsidered capital gains tax proposal. by Mr Braithwaite. To the Right Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives of the Commonwealth in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of New South Wales respectfully showeth: That they oppose the construction of any additional nuclear reactor at the Australian Atomic Energy establishment at Lucas Heights in N.S.W. Your Petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Government will not allow an additional Nuclear Reactor to be established. And your petitioners, as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Tickner. The humble petition of certain citizens of Queensland, Australia, respectfully showeth that we are totally opposed to any change in the Australian National Flag as declared in the Flags Act (1953). Your petitioners humbly pray that Parliament in its wisdom will take no action to change the Australian National Flag. And your petitioners as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Dr Watson. Petitions received. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) —Madam Speaker has received a letter from the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard) proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion, namely: The growing confusion, division and conflict within the Government's ranks on major policy issues. 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- Motion (by Mr Young) put: That the business of the day be called on. The House divided. (Mr Deputy Speaker-Mr Leo McLeay) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 72 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 52 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 20 —— Baldwin, P. J. Jakobsen, C. A.Beazley, K. C. Jenkins, H. A.Beddall, D. P Jones, BarryBilney, G. N. Kelly, R. J.Blanchard, C. A. Keogh, L. J.Blewett, N. Kerin, J. C.Brown, John Klugman, R. E.Brown, Robert Lamb, A. H.Brumby, J. M. Langmore, J. V.Campbell, G. Lee, M.Charles, D. E. Lindsay, E. J.Charlesworth, R. I. McHugh, J.Chynoweth, R. L. Maher, M. J.Cleeland, P. R. Martin, S. P.Cross, M. D. Mayer, H.Cunningham, B. T. (Teller) Mildren, J. B.Dawkins, J. S. Morris, AllanDubois, S. G. Morris, PeterDuffy, M. J. Mountford, J. G.Duncan, P. O'Keefe, N. P.Edwards, Ronald O'Neil, L. R. T.Fatin, W. F. Price, L. R. S.Free, R. V. Punch, G. F.Gayler, J. Saunderson, J.Gear, G. Scholes, G. G. D.Gorman, R. N. J. Scott, J. L.Grace, E. L. Simmons, D. W.Griffiths, A. G. Snow, J. H.Hand, G. L. Staples, P. R.Hayden, W. G. Theophanous, A. C.Holding, A. C. Tickner, R. E.Hollis, C. Uren, T.Howe, B. L. West, S. J.Humphreys, B. C. (Teller) Willis, R.Hurford, C. J. Wright, K. W.Jacobi, R. Young, M. J. Aldred, K. J. Hodgman, W. M.Beale, J. H. Katter, R. C.Blunt, C. W. Lloyd, B.Braithwaite, R. A. MacKellar, M. J. R.Brown, N. A. McVeigh, D. T.Burr, M. A. Macphee, I. M.Cadman, A. G. Miles, C. G.Cameron, Donald Millar, P. C.Cameron, Ewen (Teller) Moore, J. C.Cameron, Ian Peacock, A. S.Carlton, J. J. Porter, J. R.Cobb, M. R. Reith, P. K.Coleman, W. P. Robinson, IanConquest, B. J. Rocher, A. C.Dobie, J. D. M. Ruddock, P. M.Downer, A. J. G. Shack, P. D.Drummond, P. H. Sharp, J.Edwards, Harry Sinclair, I. McC.Everingham, P. A. E. Slipper, P. N.Fife, W. C. Smith, W.Fischer, Tim Spender, J. M.Hall, Steele Sullivan, K. J.Halverson, R. G. Tuckey, C. W.Hawker, D. P. M. Watson, DavidHicks, N. J. (Teller) Webster, A. P.Hodges, J. C. White, P. N. D. Fitzgibbon, E. J. Jull, D. F.Milton, P. Cowan, D. B.Keating, P. J. Nehl, G. B.Darling, E. E. Andrew, J. N.Bowen, L. F. Howard, J. W. Question so resolved in the affirmative. Bill returned from the Senate with amendments and requests. Ordered that the requested amendments be taken into consideration in Committee of the Whole House forthwith. Consideraton of Senate's requested amendments. Senate's requested amendments- No. 1-Page 1, clause 2, line 7, leave out ``on 5 December 1985'', insert ``on a date to be fixed by Proclamation''. No. 2-Page 7, clause 5, at end of clause, add the following new sub-clause: ``(12) In this Act, a reference to a person, or a unit of the Defence Force, that was allotted for duty in an operational area shall be read as a reference to a person, or unit of the Defence Force- (a) that was so allotted for duty in accordance with administrative arrangements applicable in the part of the Defence Force in which the person was serving, or of which that unit formed a part, as the case may be; or (b) that is, by an instrument in writing signed by the Minister for Defence, deemed to have been allotted for duty in an area described in item 4 or 8 in Schedule 2 during the period specified in that item.''. No. 3-Page 9, paragraphs 6 (5) (a) and (b), lines 28 to 43, leave out the paragraphs, insert the following paragraphs: ``(a) shall be taken to have commenced- (i) if the person was in Australia on the day as from which the person was allotted for duty in that area-on the day on which the person departed from the last port of call in Australia for that service; or (ii) if the person was outside Australia on the day as from which the person was so allotted for duty-on the day as from which the person was so allotted for duty; and (b) shall be taken to have ended at the expiration of- (i) if the person was allotted for duty from an operational area to another area outside Australia (not being an operational area)-on the day on which the person arrived at that other area or on the day as from which the person was allotted to that other area at a time when the person was in that other area; or (ii) in any other case-on the day on which the person arrived at the first port of call in Australia on returning from operational service.''. No. 4-Page 39, sub-clause 34 (3), line 14, after ``served'', insert ``on the person''. No. 5-Page 61, paragraph 47 (8) (a), line 41, leave out ``dependent'', insert ``dependant''. No. 6-Page 61, paragraph 47 (8) (b), line 42, leave out ``dependent on'', insert ``dependant of''. No. 7-Page 63, clause 47, at end of clause, add the following new sub-clause: ``(13) On and after 1 May 1986, paragraph (3) (a) shall be read as if `$520' were omitted and `$624' were substituted.''. No. 8-Page 111, sub-clauses 84 (6) and (7), lines 28 to 35, leave out the sub-clauses, insert the following sub-clause: ``(6) Subject to section 93, where a person, other than a person included in a prescribed class of persons, is provided with treatment under section 87 or 88, the person is liable to pay to the Commonwealth in respect of that treatment- (a) unless paragraph (b) applies-charges in accordance with a scale of charges determined by the Commission, by instrument in writing, being charges based on charges payable for treatment as private patients in public hospitals in Australia; or (b) if the person is not ordinarily resident in Australia-the cost (as determined by the Commission by instrument in writing) of and incidental to that treatment.''. No. 9-Page 132, after sub-clause 105 (3), insert the following new sub-clause: ``(3A) Where a scheme prepared by the Commission in accordance with sub-section (1), or an instrument under sub-section (2), has been approved by the Minister, the Commission shall furnish copies of the scheme or instrument to the Minister, and the Minister shall cause copies to be laid before each House of the Parliament within 15 sitting days of that House after the Minister received those copies.''. No. 10-Page 139, sub-clause 110 (1), line 32, leave out ``as the Commission determines'', insert ``as are prescribed''. No. 11-Page 139, sub-clause 110 (2), line 34, leave out ``as the Commission determines'', insert ``as are prescribed''. No. 12-Page 142, after clause 114, insert the following new clause: Review of decision, &c. ``114A. (1) Subject to sub-section (2), a person who is dissatisfied with a decision of the Commission in respect of an application for- (a) clothing allowance; (b) funeral benefits under section 99, 100 or 101; (c) decoration allowance; (d) Victoria Cross Allowance; (e) recreation transport allowance; (f) temporary incapacity allowance; or (g) loss of earnings allowance, may request the Commission, in writing, to review the decision, and, where such as request is duly made, the Commission shall review the decision, or cause the decision to be reviewed by a person to whom the Commission has delegated its powers under this section (not being the person who made the decision). ``(2) A request under sub-section (1) to review a decision of the Commission shall set out particulars of the grounds on which the request is made, and may be made within 3 months after service on the person to whom the decision relates of notice of the decision, but not otherwise. ``(3) Where the Commission reviews a decision under sub-section (1), the Commission may affirm or set aside the decision and, if it sets aside the decision, it shall make such other decision as it considers to be in accordance with this Act. ``(4) Where the Commission makes a decision, in substitution for the decision set aside, granting an application for an allowance specified in sub-section (1), it may approve payment of the allowance as from a date not earlier than the date as from which the Commission could have approved payment of the allowance if it had made the substituted decision in place of the original decision. ``(5) Sections 60 and 62 apply to a review under this section in like manner as they apply to a review under section 59 and, for the purpose of their application to a review under this section- (a) references in sections 60 and 62 to section 59 shall be read as references to this section; and (b) references in section 60 to a review shall be read as references to a review under sub-section (1) of this section. ``(6) A reference in sub-section (1) to a decision in respect of an application for funeral benefits under section 99 shall be read as not including a reference to a decision of the Commission to grant, or refuse to grant, an approval of a kind referred to in paragraph 99 (3) (a), (b), (c) or (d).''. No. 13-Page 144, after sub-clause 116 (3), insert the following new sub-clause: ``(3a) Where a scheme prepared by the Commission in accordance with sub-section (1), or an instrument under sub-section (2), has been approved by the Minister, the Commission shall furnish copies of the scheme or instrument to the Minister, and the Minister shall cause copies to be laid before each House of the Parliament within 15 sitting days of that House after the Minister received those copies.''. No. 14-Page 152, paragraph 127 (1) (a), line 13, leave out ``within the period and in the manner'', insert ``within a reasonable period and in a reasonable manner''. No. 15-Page 152, paragraph 127 (1) (b), line 17, leave out ``within the period and in the manner'', insert ``within a reasonable period and in a reasonable manner''. No. 16-Page 152, paragraph 127 (1) (c), line 21, leave out ``on a date, and at a time and place'', insert ``on a reasonable date and at a reasonable time and place''. No. 17-Page 153, sub-clause 131 (1), line 23, leave out ``as the Commission determines'', insert ``as are prescribed''. No. 18-Page 153, sub-clause 131 (2), line 36, leave out ``as the Commission determines'', insert ``as are prescribed''. No. 19-Page 153, sub-clause 131 (2), line 41, leave out ``as the Commission considers reasonable'', insert ``as are prescribed''. No. 20-Page 154, sub-clause 131 (3), line 1, leave out ``as the Commission determines'', insert ``as are prescribed''. No. 21-Page 154, sub-clause 131 (4), line 6, leave out ``as the Commission determines'', insert ``as are prescribed''. No. 22-Page 154, sub-clause 131 (4), lines 10 and 11, leave out ``as the Commission considers reasonable'', insert ``as are prescribed''. No. 23-Page 154, sub-clause 131 (5), line 12, leave out ``as the Commission determines'', insert ``as are prescribed''. No. 24-Page 154, sub-clause 131 (6), line 16, leave out ``as the Commission determines'', insert ``as are prescribed''. No. 25-Page 154, sub-clause 131 (6), lines 19 and 20, leave out ``as the Commission considers reasonable'', insert ``as are prescribed''. No. 26-Page 154, sub-clause 131 (7), line 21, leave out ``as the Commission determines'', insert ``as are prescribed''. No. 27-Page 154, sub-clause 131 (8), line 31, leave out ``as the Commission determines'', insert ``as are prescribed''. No. 28-Page 154, sub-clause 131 (8), lines 35 and 36, leave out ``as the Commission considers reasonable'', insert ``as are prescribed''. No. 29-Page 155, sub-clause 131 (9), line 10, leave out ``as the Commission determines'', insert ``as are prescribed''. No. 30-Page 155, paragraph 131 (11) (e), line 32, leave out ``that'', insert ``that''. No. 31-Page 155, sub-clause 131 (12), line 36, after ``59'', insert ``, 114a''. No. 32-Page 175, clause 174, at end of clause, add the following new sub-clause: ``(4) Where the Commission, under section 114a, affirms a decision of the Commission in respect of an application for an allowance or benefit referred to in sub-section 114a (1), or sets aside such a decision and substitutes another decision for it, then, subject to section 29 of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975, application may be made to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal for a review- (a) of the decision so affirmed; or (b) of the decision made by the Commission under section 114a in substitution for the decision so set aside.''. No. 33-Page 177, clause 176, at end of clause, add the following new sub-clause: ``(6) Where the Administrative Appeals Tribunal, upon application under sub-section 174 (4) for a review of a decision made by the Commission with respect to an application for an allowance under section 97, 102, 103 or 104, grants the allowance referred to in that section, or increases the rate at which the allowance so referred to is to be paid, the Tribunal may approve payment of the allowance, or of the allowance at the increased rate, as the case may be- (a) if the application was made within 3 months after service on the applicant of a document setting out the terms of that decision-from a date not earlier than the earliest date as from which the Commission could, if it had not made that decision, have approved payment of the allowance, or payment of the allowance at the increased rate, as the case may be; or (b) in any other case-from the date on which the application under sub-section 174 (4) was made.''. No. 34-Pages 198 and 199, clause 206, line 16 (page 198) to line 43 (page 199), leave out the clause. No. 35-Page 200, paragraph 208 (1) (a), line 42, before ``make'', insert ``knowingly''. No. 36-Page 201, paragraph 208 (1) (b), line 8, before ``obtain'', insert ``knowingly''. No. 37-Page 201, paragraph 208 (1) (c), line 11, before ``obtain'', insert ``knowingly''. No. 38-Page 201, paragraph 208 (1) (d), line 15, before ``obtain'', insert ``knowingly''. No. 39-Page 201, paragraph 208 (1) (e), line 18, before ``make'', insert ``knowingly''. No. 40-Page 204, sub-clause 215 (3), line 17, leave out ``this section'', insert ``sub-section (1)''. No. 41-Page 204, paragraph 215 (3) (a), lines 20 and 21, leave out ``4 December 1985'', insert ``the day immediately preceding the date fixed under section 2''. No. 42-Page 204, paragraph 215 (3) (b), line 23, leave out ``5 December 1985'', insert ``the date fixed under section 2''. No. 43-Page 204, clause 215, at end of clause, add the following new sub-clauses: ``(4) The Principal Member of the Board shall, as soon as practicable after 30 June in each year, prepare and furnish to the Minister a report on the operations of the Board during the year that ended on that 30 June. ``(5) The Minister shall cause a copy of a report furnished to the Minister under sub-section (4) to be laid before each House of the Parliament within 15 sitting days of that House after the day on which the Minister receives the report. ``(6) The first report to be prepared and furnished to the Minister under sub-section (4) shall be a report on the operations of the Board- (a) under the Repatriation Act 1920 in respect of the period that commenced on 1 July 1985 and ended on the day immediately preceding the date fixed under section 2; and (b) under this Act in respect of the period that commenced on the date fixed under section 2 and ends on 30 June 1986.''. Mr HOLDING(Melbourne Ports-Minister for Aboriginal Affairs)(4.38) —I move: That the amendments be agreed to. I thank the Committee for its support of the Veterans' Entitlements Bill. This marks the culmination of the parliamentary passage of the veterans' entitlements legislation package. For the first time we will have consolidated in one piece of legislation the repatriation entitlements of all Australian veterans and their dependants. As I acknowledged when the Veteran's Entitlements Bill was debated last year, the challenges of providing a continuing high standard of service to the veteran community throughout the remainder of the twentieth century and beyond are enormous. This legislation will provide the framework within which the Government will meet those challenges. We have already made major changes to the repatriation determining system. The backlog of claims awaiting determination is steadily being reduced and further improvement is expected. There have been increases in pensions and benefits, including significant non-indexation increases, and the introduction of computer technology to improve service delivery. In the past three years we have increased spending on veterans' affairs by 40 per cent or about 20 per cent in real terms. Substantial extra spending has been allocated to service pensions as large numbers of veterans have reached retirement age and to meet increases in the numbers and success rates of claims for disability and war widows pensions. In the next few months the Minister for Veterans' Affairs (Senator Gietzelt) expects to announce improvements to the repatriation hospital system. As the average age of the veteran population increases the Government is very conscious of its responsibility for ensuring that appropriate standards of treatment are available in our hospitals and through such initiatives as the home and extended care program. At this point I must pay tribute to the constructive role played by the Returned Services League and particularly its National President, Sir William Keys, in the development and passage of this legislation. There has been prolonged and wide-ranging community debate over it and the entitlements that it embodies. In the process certain differences of opinion have emerged. However, I believe that these differences have been substantially resolved in the process of consultation and conciliation which has culminated in the passage of this Bill. I also believe that this legislative package will provide the framework for the provision of benefits and services to our veteran community well into the twenty-first century. Given the financial and administrative constraints within which all governments must operate it represents a major advance in the overall welfare of Australian ex-servicemen and women. Mr TIM FISCHER(Farrer)(4.42) —The Veterans' Entitlements Bill 1985 represents the completion of 11 months of deliberations in the national Parliament in respect of the biggest revamp of repatriation legislation since World War II. When this Bill was first introduced into the House it was in a most unacceptable form. In particular, the 40-year rule would have had a very harsh impact on the war widows of this country, and the coalition makes no apology for amending this provision. The coalition has been strongly supported by people in the veterans community for its strong stand in relation to the 40-year rule. Government members who are rushing out of the chamber can have no pride in having supported that initial provision in the Veterans' Entitlements Bill last year. I do not hesitate to remind them, the electorate at large and the veterans community at large that no government in this country should have dared to introduce a measure containing a draconian 40-year rule which would have applied a more stringent standard of proof to war widows and an arbitrary date of 40 years after the completion of the conflict. It just so happened that October 1985 was the official cut-off date of the fortieth year after World War II. No wonder war widows have often had to carry an excessive burden in caring for their spouses; no wonder they felt rightly grieved, upset and absolutely terrified by that provision. Of course I am delighted that the Government removed that provision from the Bill. The coalition proceeded with some 42 amendments which gained support in the Senate, which has now led to this concluding phase of this massive veterans legislative package. I praise the role played by veterans organisations across Australia, including the national Returned Services League, under Sir William Keys who was mentioned by the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs (Mr Holding), and a range of other organisations such as the National Legacy Co-ordinating Council, which took a special interest in seeing the 40-year rule defeated, the Australian Veterans and Defence Service Council and many other organisations which have followed this legislative process blow by blow. I take this opportunity to pay tribute to the parliamentary process of this country. The veterans legislation has taken a lengthy period but in the process this Parliament has greatly improved it from what it was when it was initially introduced. Some of that improvement has been as a result of bipartisan attitudes, and that reflects credit on the Parliament. Too often one hears the community say: `All you do in the House of Representatives and the Senate is argue over unnecessary points'. Here is a classic case of both chambers looking at legislation over a lengthy period. A lot of genuine debate took place and concern was expressed in respect of the legislation. As a consequence of the numbers in another chamber and also as a consequence of the strength of the argument involved, the Parliament has amended the legislation and the Government has had to accept those amendments. I am delighted that we have an end product which is a great improvement on what it was at the outset. Unfortunately, the coalition's amendment in respect of retrospectivity was defeated in another place when the Australian Democrats split on the measure. That is another matter, but the Opposition was determined to try to eliminate the backdated bite at the Australian digger who was affected by that part of the measure. I raise a specific matter to which I have alluded before in debate and which has yet to be clarified. Unfortunately, it comes within the jurisdiction of the Minister for Defence (Mr Beaz- ley). Repatriation cover is being extended to those who served on HMAS Sydney and other ships which travelled between Australia and Vietnam. The Government has taken the additional measure of making the crew of such vessels eligible for defence service home loans. This provision is embraced in the legislation before the Committee and it is welcome. However, what is not yet clear is whether the return from active service badge and associated medal will be issued to those involved. I ask that the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, who is at the table, again refer that matter to the Minister for Defence. Whilst it will not be possible to have a finite response on this matter before the passage of this legislation, it is to be hoped that it will be clarified in a satisfactory way in the near future. It is fortuitous that this legislation will be passed on the eve of Anzac Day week when this country will pause to remember all those who served their country in times of war-the thousands who made the supreme sacrifice for their country at Gallipoli and in all the conflicts in which Australia has been involved. This legislation gives me the opportunity of saying that many of the Australians who were killed in war are buried in graves in the Middle East, Libya, Europe and elsewhere. It has been mentioned in another place and elsewhere that there is a threat to the sanctity of those graves as a consequence of various events and the attitudes of some leaders of countries which are prepared to use any means in their conflicts to make a point. I state very strongly that, if so much as one Australian war grave is deliberately bulldozed by the Libyan Government or any other overseas government, the Australian Government should take the maximum steps it can within its resources to terminate diplomatic relations and to cut off any aid which may still flow to that country. Such a desecration would be absolutely outrageous, it would be unacceptable to any fairminded person and would be very upsetting to the many next of kin whose relations are buried in countries such as Libya. They gave their lives in defence of the free world in World War I, and World War II or other conflicts. Whilst I cannot dwell on the matter I take this opportunity of making it very clear that I strongly support the stand and action that have been taken in recent days by the United States Government in combating terrorism around the world. I return to the veterans legislative package. A lot of the difficulties that have arisen in respect of this legislation came about because there was a lack of consultation, not about the VEB-the Government consulted about that once the sunset clause was in place-but about the proposals that were in the original mini-Budget legislation of 14 May. That is where the trouble started, particularly on retrospectivity, and it was started by the Federal Government taking action regarding parts of the Veterans' Entitlements Bill and putting them in the mini-Budget legislation without having proper consultation with the organisations and without proper consideration by both the House of Representatives and the Senate. In these closing stages of the consideration of the legislation I remind the Government that next time around, in terms of amendments to this legislation-there will have to be amendments to it-we will seek consultation because, by and large, there should be a bipartisan approach to veterans legislation, to looking after those who served their country in time of war. The performance of the independent monitoring committee announced by the Minister will be watched very closely by the coalition, with particular reference to the more stringent totally and permanently incapacitated pension criteria, because already there are indications that those criteria are causing some difficulty in the community at large. The coalition will address this matter in the preparation of our veterans' affairs policy for the next Federal election. The coalition is not opposed to the final passage of this very important measure. It gives me an opportunity to reiterate that the commitment of the coalition to the veteran is to provide the greatest generosity responsible government can afford. Mr HODGMAN(Denison)(4.52) —This is the final occasion when we will have an opportunity to comment on this tortured legislation before it passes into law. I commend and congratulate the Opposition shadow Minister for Veterans' Affairs, the honourable member for Farrer (Mr Tim Fischer), who has fought a long and valiant fight on behalf of Australia's 650,000 ex-service men and women and their dependants. As my colleague the honourable member for Tangney (Mr Shack) has just pointed out, the shadow Minister has, in the main, been successful. He has fought extremely well. He has reason to be proud of what he has achieved. However, this is a day of sadness for me. I say quite candidly that, with 20 years in politics, I regard it as a black day when legislation, which I find unacceptable, is to come into law-I exclude the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs (Mr Holding), who is at the table, because I cannot believe that with his extensive legal background he would have a bar of this-with a retrospective change of the onus of proof provisions. That is the one point on which we have failed. As the honourable member for Farrer has pointed out, because of the Australian Democrats split in the Senate, claims which were commenced before May last year will be dealt with under a different standard of proof provision than that which applied at the time the claims were commenced. Some of these claims have been in the pipeline for five or six years. Some of them relate to the widows and children of deceased ex-servicemen. What justice is there in the burden of proof provisions being changed for a case that has been in the pipeline for six years? The Opposition welcomes and supports these amendments this afternoon. Indeed, they are the Opposition's amendments in essence. We have got rid of the 40-year provision. What an iniquitous provision it was that an ex-serviceman who for one reason or another said `I am not going to claim the pension', did not go along and ask for his disability to be accepted, and then died, should leave a destitute widow faced with having to prove a case on incomplete medical records, based on evidence with respect to which many witnesses were dead. I say to the Government with the greatest of respect that it has been hoodwinked as to the amount of money involved in this area. It has brought in a retrospective change to an onus of proof provision which will be condemned by every ex-service man and woman in this country. I cannot believe that those who have served to keep Australia free should be treated by the Hawke socialist Government in this manner in 1986. I have said before in this chamber and I say it again: The Hawke Government has taken away a provision which came into law as a result of a bipartisan campaign by two great Australians on different sides of the political fence-Dr H. V. Evatt, former Leader of the Australian Labor Party, and Sir John Spicer. There were, of course, others, but these two Australians fought to get the onus of proof provision. This wretched, mean, miserable and utterly ungrateful Government has taken it away. Worse still, it has taken it away retrospectively. It is still not too late, before the Bill is presented for royal assent, for the Government to come to its senses and acknowledge its conscience. I have never made politics out of ex-service matters and I do not intend to. The people who come through my parliamentary office in their legions know that when we take up cases for ex-service men and women we fight them right through to the bitter end. I have something like a dozen cases coming up before the Administrative Appeals Tribunal where I appear in an honorary capacity on behalf of ex-service men and women, as I do before the Federal Court of Australia. However, as the Minister at the table knows, those with legal qualifications cannot appear in the early hearings. I cry on behalf of the people of Australia that we have treated our ex-service men and women in this way. The provision is wrong. The law is unjust. The honourable member for Farrer has fought valiantly and long. It is not his fault that on this one final point he was let down by a split in the Australian Democrats. I do not believe that an ex-service man or woman will ever vote for the Australian Labor Party again after what it has done. I have two final points. The Government is tightening up the TPI criteria, which is most unjust. It is now putting applicants in a position almost of having to prove the impossible. That is why the rumours are now sweeping Australia that not only will the Government stop people from getting the TPI pension from now on but also that it will move to reassess and review those who already have the pension. I warn the Hawke socialist Government as strongly as I can that if it tries to take away a single TPI pension in Australia today-the Minister can tell the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) this from me-it will bring down upon its head hellfire and brimstone, the like of which it has never seen. If there is one move to take away a single TPI pension in this country, the Government will be annihilated, morally and electorally, at the earliest possible opportunity. At dawn in eight days' time the people of Australia commemorate the 71st anniversary of Anzac. I, the Leader of the National Party of Australia (Mr Sinclair), and honourable members from both sides of the chamber will be attending those services. When we do, and when we are with the Anzacs on that day of commemoration, I will be proud of the fact that I have fought this legislation tooth and nail to the last minute. As my last minute to speak has now arrived, I sit down condemning a Government which has done a very wrong thing which the people of Australia will never ever forget and never ever forgive. Mr HOLDING(Melbourne Ports-Minister for Aboriginal Affairs)(4.58) —I want to pick up a number of the points that have been made. In respect of the request regarding medals for servicemen, although they are the responsibility of the Minister for Defence (Mr Beazley), I take the point that has been made and give my undertaking to the honourable member for Farrer (Mr Tim Fischer) that I will bring it to the attention of the Minister for Defence. The honourable gentleman also raised a question which, given that these proceedings are being broadcast, may cause some unnecessary concern. That is the question of some threat to war graves in Libya or other Middle Eastern countries. I am in a position to advise the House that this matter has been under the supervision of the Minister for Veterans' Affairs (Senator Gietzelt), who would want me, I think, to advise the House that there is no evidence to suggest that those graves will be interfered with or bulldozed, as has been suggested. Those of the Islamic faith have as high a regard for the sanctity of graves as those of the Christian and other faiths. In Libya there may be some destruction of graves if the escalation of conflict there continues. I think honourable members on both sides of the House would hope that peaceful solutions to the conflict are found. In respect of the statements made by the honourable member for Denison (Mr Hodgman), those of us who know him know that he will continue to maintain his rage. As gently as I can I remind him that the Returned Services League supports the standard of proof provisions. Basically, it is the ultimate support of the RSL which has ensured the passage of the legislation. I thank all honourable members for their contribution to the debate. Question resolved in the affirmative. Resolution reported; report adopted. Message received from the Senate acquainting the House that the Senate has agreed to the amendments recommended by His Excellency the Governor-General and returning the Bill without amendment. Debate resumed. Mr SINCLAIR(New England-Leader of the National Party of Australia)(5.02) —Immediately prior to the luncheon General Business debate I moved to amend the motion that the House take note of the statement on economic and rural policy presented by the Government. I did so for several reasons. The first and most notable is the concern of those on this side of the House that, while we welcome the fact that the Government has recognised in some measure the problems of the rural sector, the quantitative contribution towards the correction of the problems is grossly inadequate. The measure of that inadequacy is best demonstrated by the figures I cited this morning. I now reiterate them. By Budget, this Government has removed from the rural sector through increased charges, tax changes and other means something in excess of $442m and in this Budget it seeks to return about $108m, not the $200m that it pretends. The result is that the Government is now returning about one-third of what it has taken from the rural community. It is important that people in the community understand that, while there has been some move to recognise the problems of the rural sector, most of those moves have been either inadequate or clouded by prejudice which sadly has emerged in the confusion about what the quarantining of farm loss changes means. As late as Question Time today, we had a repeat of the conflict between the Minister for Finance (Senator Walsh) and the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Kerin). It appears that the $65m and the $45m referred to are gross, not net, figures as the Minister for Primary Industry has asserted in his glossy publication, the costs of which would far better have been handed out in the rural package. The point is that the products of the Government's changes in the quarantining of farm loss are still not known to the public, certainly not to those who have an interest in the rural community. I am afraid that the implications are that people in the rural community will get only half what the Government has promised, whatever the measure of that might be and whatever the inadequacies of the Minister for Finance, who seems to be presenting the real version of the Cabinet minutes, which is not the version that has been given to us in a somewhat cloudy form by the Minister for Primary Industry. There are a number of particular areas that I wanted to address. The first is the problem of the sugar industry. There is no doubt that the sugar industry has once again been sold short by the Australian Labor Party. For example, we have been told that $54m of Commonwealth price support will be provided in the package. That too is false. The maximum amount that the Commonwealth will be called on to pay under the present assessments of world sugar prices is about $15m. The Queensland Government has contributed its $27m. Yet again the Commonwealth Government will short change Queensland by saying that it will provide $2 for $1 in forms of price support. The net cost to the Commonwealth will be $15m, not the $54m that it pretends. I am afraid that the poor old cane growers and the sugar industry of Queensland will be taken to the cleaners and forgotten yet again by the Commonwealth Government. In the detail of the package a great deal was made of what is happening with rural reconstruction. People need to know two things. The Government has fundamentally changed the ground rules to the significant disadvantage of the those who, for reasons of high interest rates, the prices and incomes accord and the burden that this Government has imposed on farmers, find it almost impossible to continue. While $20m has been provided through an interest rate subsidy, this rural reconstruction scheme which, as Minister, I was proud to introduce into this Parliament a few years ago, has been so fundamentally altered from its original form that, instead of providing help in a meaningful way to many of those who would otherwise be able to stay on the land, it will really be there only to tinker at the edges. There will not be the help in social welfare and help for those who, because of the downturn in markets, seasons, and this Government's measures, are finding life almost impossible to bear. In social welfare, we know that the Isolated Children's Parents Association yet again has received a cold shoulder from the Government. Its representatives have been here to plead with the Minister for Education (Senator Ryan) and the Minister for Primary Industry to try to comprehend the extent to which many who are now resident in rural areas find themselves unable to give their children secondary education, simply because of the downturn in rural incomes. This Government has failed to adjust the various schemes that we introduced to try to help isolated children receive a fair educational opportunity. Anyone who talks about equality in Australia should know that the wives of many family farmers are in great distress because they know that their children are being denied an equal opportunity for even a secondary education because the Government refuses to modify those forms of assistance or index them to give the parents a reasonable opportunity of getting the children to school in the same way as do their brothers, sisters, colleagues and friends who live in the cities. That gross injustice and that discrimination against that important section of the Australian community are not satisfactory. The third area about which I want to talk is interest rates. There is no doubt that the Government in the package has completely ignored the fact that interest rates have been maintained at a grossly excess level simply because the Government has intervened by way of monetary policy to maintain the value of the Australian dollar. Of course, it does that because the accord has locked it into monetary policy as the only means of maintaining the dollar. There is no doubt that if it continues to maintain high interest rates, not only family farmers and small businesses but every householder in Australia will feel the bite of the economic wilfulness of this Labor Government. There is a very real consequence of the high interest rate policy of Labor. It is no excuse for the Minister for Primary Industry to say: `Do not worry about interest rates. They will continue to fall'. The reason that interest rates are falling has nothing to do with the Government. The fall is simply a product of fuel prices falling internationally. Australia, like other countries, is getting some benefit from it. On the subject of fuel, we know that all motorists in Australia, those caught in queues on bridges and in the cities today, are paying more than they should because this Government has not passed on, as import parity pricing should require, a fair measure of the reduction in world crude prices. Instead, it has increased the excise from 6.5c a litre to 18.6c a litre. Automatic indexation means that the burden of that excise will continue to grow. Every primary producer, small businessman and motorist continues to bear unnecessary costs simply because petrol prices have not been adjusted as they should. The same applies to oil costs, the oil sales tax and so on. Frankly, the Government has not answered, as we believe it should, the need to adjust fuel prices, not just for those who live on the land, but for everybody, by passing on the full measure of the international downturn in world crude oil prices. It should have. This statement ignores that measure. Within the package there are a number of particular measures that again seem to disguise the degree to which there is any understanding of the rural problem. My staff has calculated that the cost of new Public Service jobs provided by this package is in excess of $1m. We are talking about assistance to farmers but it is really a disguised means of assisting those in the Public Service-$1m additional cost by way of wages to public servants because of the rural package of support. As a result, we feel that the only way in which we can highlight the consequences of this policy and the degree to which it is inadequate as a solution to some of the fundamental problems of agriculture in Australia is to move the amendment which I submitted to the House before. It is an inadequate response to a very serious situation facing the rural community. It ignores completely the drought that seems regrettably to be hovering in so many areas of Australia and fails to acknowledge that it is this Government's measure of involvement in increasing taxes and charges which has imposed so high a burden on every Australian family farm. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Rocher) — Order! The right honourable member's time has expired. Is the amendment seconded? Mr Drummond —I second the amendment and reserve my right to speak at a later time. Mr SIMMONS(Calare)(5.11) —My worst fears about agro-politicians were confirmed when the Sydney Morning Herald of 16 April reported that the National Farmers Federation had focused on the decisions involving alleviation of farm costs in machinery and chemicals and had divided the total assistance dollars by the number of farms and come up with a simple mathematical figure. Obviously the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Kerin) anticipated such an approach, given his comments in the foreword to an excellent publication entitled `Economic and Rural Policy' which was released with the statement on Tuesday. In other words, for a variety of reasons, including such things as a simple appeal to various interest groups and in most cases shear political opportunism, the focus of the debate on rural economic policy is still unfortunately a narrow-minded view on cost issues rather than on the role of policy formulation in the rural sector. I wish to address my comments specifically to the causes of the rural sector's current problems. However, before doing so, let me briefly place these problems in some sort of factual context. Firstly, as at 30 June 1985, 28 per cent of farmers in Australia had no debt and 18 per cent had debts of less than $20,000. However, 12 per cent had debts exceeding $150,000, including most significantly, given the protests in recent times, one-quarter of all wheat growers in Australia. In other words, rural difficulties are certainly not uniform across the entire sector. Secondly, 25 per cent of Australia's farmers produce 60 per cent of the output so that, unless particular sectors are targeted, the 75 per cent of farmers who produce only 40 per cent of the output would be relatively disadvantaged. Thirdly, in 1980-81 farm costs increased at an annual rate of 15 per cent and averaged over 11 per cent for the Fraser years. In contrast, annual increases in farm costs under the Hawke Government have averaged 7 per cent and farm costs in 1986-87 are predicted by the Bureau of Agricultural Economics to be of the order of 3 per cent. Mr Beddall —We are the farmers' friends. Mr SIMMONS —Exactly, as my friend the honourable member for Rankin correctly comments. Fourthly, while primary production represents 37 per cent of export income and so affects overall living standards in Australia, the sector represents 10 per cent of total economic activity. As David Clark said in a thoughtful article in the Australian Financial Review of 14 April 1986: Why do so many of our farmers express extreme dislike for `pants polishers' and politicians, yet in times of downturn or drought go screaming to Canberra, laden with manure, invective and Monopoly sets for assistance? . . . Canberra thus has no `open sesame' solution to such longer term problems, although it could make greater effort to reduce some of the off-farm cost pressures squeezing the farm sector. I suggest, in light of the excellent statement by the Minister for Primary Industry on Tuesday, that this issue is being addressed with measures such as the proposed royal commission into the costs and efficiency of the national grain handling system and reductions in the brucellosis and tuberculosis eradication campaign levy, effective from 1 July this year, to note just two. However, to return to the issue of the exigencies of the international economy, the principal reasons for difficulties in the rural sector at present. The structure of the Australian economy is rather unique. It is centred around the production and export of basic commodities and raw materials to the world market based on Australia's undoubted comparative advantage in resources trade. About 70 per cent of Australia's agricultural production is exported. The root cause of the world agricultural trade crisis in the emergence in recent years of massive agricultural protection and subsidy policies in many countries, often justified unfortunately under the guise of so-called self-sufficiency. These policies have led to a contraction in world markets by the substitution of higher priced domestic commodities for cheaper imported products. Equally, they have led to the unloading on the world market of excess agricultural produce generated by subsidised domestic policies. European Community farmers, as we all know, are massively subsidised. These massive subsidies underpinning the common agricultural policy have generated dislocations everywhere in the European Community. Overall, the cost of the common agricultural policy to the Australian economy has been estimated by the BAE as of the order of $1 billion annually. For example, in 1973 the European Community had self-sufficiency levels in cereals of the order of 90 per cent, in beef and veal of 85 per cent and in dairy products of 108 per cent and 119 per cent respectively. European Community policies have depressed and destabilised prices on world agricultural markets. They have depressed them by increasing agricultural production and ensuring that surpluses are disposed of through the use of export subsidies. Prices have been destablisied because the European Community protects its large domestic market from the rest of the world. The United States Farm Bill has merely exacerbated existing difficulties caused by the common agricultural policy. The United States legislation was designed to meet the challenge of the European Community agricultural policies head on. The resulting competition for world market share using massive subsidies has all the hallmarks of a trade war which would depress world prices further and impact gravely, unfortunately on the trade and economic well-being of traditional and unsubsidised agricultural exporters such as Australia. Agro-politicians, political opportunists such as those we have heard in the debate so far, particularly from the National Party of Australia, and the farm lobby generally may be facing a severe credibility problem by crying wolf too often, given the likely state of political play over the next couple of years. I had an opportunity last week to talk to a number of farmers who came down as part of the protest leading up to this ministerial statement. I indicated to them that they should be prepared to give credit for announced measures that met some of their demands, if not all of them. I suggested that failure to do so perhaps decreases the chances of their future political impact, for the odds must suggest that the Hawke Government is most likely to be returned at the next general election and, given that obvious scenario, if a government is prepared to assist a sector of the economy that is not generally viewed as its natural constituency, it will significantly reduce its lobbying ability if it is not prepared to acknowledge beneficial actions by this Government. So I say to the rural sector: Give credit where it is due. Do not just bucket the Government for the sake of partisan political opportunism. Criticise, most certainly, where criticism is warranted, but for heavens sake be prepared to factually come to grips with a problem rather than resort to sheer political rhetoric. The economic and rural policy package is widely acknowledged by all fair-minded commentators as a responsible document and, given time for its contents to be digested by rural Australia, I am sure that the document itself will be received very well by the majority of the four million Australians who live and work in rural and provincial Australia. Mr DRUMMOND(Forrest)(5.20) —I agree with much of what the honourable member for Calare (Mr Simmons) has said about world-wide commodity prices and difficulties with the European Community and the American Farm Bill, but I would like to take a different tack in dealing with those problems. Rarely have I been so disappointed by a statement from this Government. It was heralded for weeks by the Government and the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Kerin) as the Government's answer to the ills of the primary industries of Australia. We were presented with a massive document of some 42 pages which took about an hour to deliver. It was full of tired and tried rhetoric, which we have come to expect from this Minister, but no basic understanding of what rural Australia has been telling-indeed shouting at-the Government for months. Time and time again organisations such as the National Farmers Federation, duly backed up by other commodity organisations, many academics and economists, and mass meetings and demonstrations of concerned farmers and citizens have warned this Government that it has got it wrong. During the organised phone-in a couple of weeks ago Telecom Australia recorded 83,000 additional telephone calls. These calls were not only from individual farmers but from people endeavouring to put their point of view and tell the Government that it has got it wrong. I assure honourable members that many heart-break stories came along the telephone lines. Mine was a targeted electorate and my office telephone ran hot for some days. Although I was not there for most of the time, because Parliament was sitting, I did answer a number of those calls. There were really heart-breaking stories from a lot of those people, some of whom I know personally. Some live not far from my own farm, and in particular I refer to a young couple who had taken over their farm in reasonably advantageous conditions from the girl's father. This year they were not able to put in their crop and were selling their sheep to pay the interest on the money they owed. So it went on, not only from farmers but also from machinery dealers and others. I wonder how many of those individuals who rang in got to speak to the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) or the Minister for Primary Industry? I know that none in my electorate who talked to me and who had rung those two gentlemen had succeeded. Were they listening? This long paper tiger of a statement and the accompanying glossy economic and rural policy is an exercise in subterfuge. How often have we seen it? We had the $4m campaign for the youth of Australia to ring in and talk to Bob. How many calls did he answer himself? What a shonk. We also have the drug offensive initiative. How much of that $100m will be effective? As the honourable member for Gilmore (Mr Sharp) has pointed out, what will be spent on the street, effectively, rather than on glorifying those who have perpetuated the drug offensive. So what do we have? We have another glossy document, a lengthy statement, on this Government's answer to the rural crisis. After the weeks and months of preparation and the Minister's build-up to the way ahead for the rural industries, it is just a nonsense. This document is an insult not only to the rural sector of Australia but to the people of Australia. The Government has got it wrong. What did the vast majority of those who rang me and endeavoured to ring the Prime Minister and the Minister for Primary Industry want to talk about? They were not on about the red herrings the Minister talked about for the four pages of his statement devoted to the grand solutions of tariff compensation and general subsidies on farm interest rates. He also spent some time on what he called the current privatisation fad. These issues have been raised by various organisations at different times, but in utter despair because this socialist Government is not listening to what they are saying. I say again that the Government has got it wrong. The rural sector is saying that it does not want handouts or subsidies; it wants to be able to compete on world markets. It wants this Government to recognise that we are a trading nation and that prosperity for all Australian, our very way of life, depends on our ability to produce more efficiently than other nations. When I speak of the rural sector, I am speaking on behalf of all exporters, whether mining or manufacturing. Thank goodness we still have some manufacturers who can hold their heads up high and export on world markets. They are saying: `Let's get the macro-economics right. We don't really want to hear the tired rhetoric of the Minister for Primary Industry any longer.' How often in his statements in the House and out in the field has he stressed that Australia's economic growth is the most rapid in the Western world, that our job creation record has greatly exceeded our targets, and that this outstanding record has been affected by a number of factors, not the lest being the Government's success in the area of wages, fiscal and monetary policies. The fundamental problem is that by and large the rural sector has not shared in this economic success. Who has shared in it? Have the exporters? Where is this economic success? Where is the 4.5 per cent growth this year, and the 5 per cent growth last year? Has it touched the wealth producers of the nation, the exporters? Has it been in the Public Service area and in government employment schemes, service industries, building industries and, perhaps thankfully, the tourism industry-the non-productive industries? If there has been some measure of success or growth, the down side of that has been high inflation in comparison with our trading partners and a high current account deficit, leading to high overseas indebtedness. What sort of legacy are we building up for future generations? Australia, the lucky country, the prosperous country, owes a scandalous $70 billion. The Commonwealth Government has doubled overseas debt since it has been in office. The people are saying that they do not want handouts; they want the Government to be responsible and to address the big issues. One of those issues is interest rates. Why are they so high? Most of the phone calls I had demonstrated that most of the people outside this building are being damaged by high interest rates. The Government should look realistically at tariffs, move to deregulate the transport system throughout Australia, be fair in its pricing of fuel, and address itself to the accord with the union movement. It boggles the mind of the ordinary thinking Australian that no matter what the ability is of some sections of the community to pay the unions and the Government have an agreement through the accord that there should be automatic wage adjustments dictated by the consumer price index. On top of that we have a productivity case, agreed to by this Government and the trade unions, before the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission at the moment which will give the wage earners of Australia a 3 per cent rise, to be taken in the form of superannuation. How can the rural sector in its present position stand such an ill-conceived rise in wages through superannuation? The Minister says in his statement: According to the Bureau of Agricultural Economics, the real net value of rural production-the Bureau's key indicator of farm income movements-is projected to fall by 21 per cent in 1984-85, 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. Average farm incomes on family farms-which allows for depreciation-is projected to fall by 66 per cent. We must be living in fairyland. How can the rural sector afford that? Our once great rural industries, which are still responsible for 27 per cent of our export earnings, are bleeding to death. Despite the independence of the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission, everyone seems to treat this 3 per cent rise as a fait accompli. What of the independence of the Commission? The Minister for Primary Industry said in this statement: 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, 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. Discussions-what a joke, when he speaks of the 3 per cent productivity superannuation deal in the past tense! It is regarded as a fait accompli. Would it not be wonderful if the Commission were to listen to the other rational side of the argument and were to throw it out, the whole lot, in the interest of the exporters of this nation, the Commonwealth producers, the only ones who have the ability to sustain a prosperous future for the people of Australia. This is what the rural sector is saying, and there is no answer to that in this statement. Quite frankly, I believe that we have to stand alone. I understand the reasons why the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) is visiting the United States of America and I commend him for so doing in the interest of the rural sector. We understand, as I said earlier, the difficulties caused by poor commodity prices throughout the world, but on his visit the Prime Minister does not have to impress President Reagan. The President has been battling against the Farm Bills ever since they were mooted. Nor does the Prime Minister have to impress the bureaucrats. The Minister for Trade (Mr Dawkins) has recently returned from the United States of America and has assured us that the bureaucrats in America understand the plight of the Australian farmers and what the American Farm Bills could do to them. What the Prime Minister has to do is to impress the members of Congress in a very difficult election year. I had the privilege of meeting the powerful Senator Dole's right-hand man when I was in America a few months ago. He is a senator from Kansas who is up for election this year and is the Leader of the Majority in the Senate. The members there face great difficulties in their own right, and not only in regard to the election. I am sure that every member of this House is conscious of the difficult position in which many American farmers find themselves. We know that a number of banks have gone broke, there is a high rate of suicide and a feeling of despair in that country. There is no way in the world that the Americans will draw back basically from what they are doing with their Farm Bills. The point I am seeking to make is that we in this nation have to compete-perhaps that competition is unfair-with the European Economic Community and the United States and their subsidised products. Somehow or other we in Australia must seek to produce our products and to sell them on the world market against those factors. Hence, the points I have made in regard to the macroeconomics of the position rather than band-aid measures. Time in this debate is limited and I would have liked to touch on a number of other topics. However, I am sure that they will be ably addressed by other Opposition members in this debate. The Leader of the National Party has quite rightly highlighted the confusion that faces rural people in regard to the main plank of this policy paper relating to the quarantining of farm incomes. I am sure other speakers will address their remarks to that issue. Mr BEDDALL(Rankin)(5.35) —It is with mixed emotions that I speak in this debate on the policy statement delivered to the House by my colleague the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Kerin). The emotions are a mixture of pride and of sorrow and I would like to expand on these before the Parliament today. First, I have an immense sense of pride in being able to support a dedicated Minister who has brought into the House the most comprehensive statement on rural Australia delivered to this Parliament in living memory. The sorrow I feel is towards those sections of the rural community that have reacted in the traditional knee-jerk way that many of us had hoped the primary industry sector had overcome. I refer particularly to the National Farmers Federation. That Federation and Mr Ian McLachlan, its President, have had some degree of success in recent times in putting forward the farmers' case. If they read what the Australian Press is now saying, they will see that they are losing the battle. The Australian Press has rightly picked up the positive nature of this statement. I quote just one line from the Melbourne Age of today's date: Mr Kerin has offered farmers a sensible, moderate way to help themselves. When I was first elected to the Federal division of Rankin in 1984 I inherited large sections of purely rural areas totally in contrast to my previous Federal division. I undertook an extensive program of discussions with the representatives of local rural industry in my electorate to determine their needs and priorities. The issues most commonly raised with me were the price of fuel, the cost of fertiliser, tariffs on farm machinery, and finally, the overall cost squeeze being felt by rural Australia. All these issues have now been addressed by what I earnestly believe to be the fairest and most comprehensive policy review ever undertaken by a Federal Government. Over the 30 years that the National and Liberal parties controlled primary industry in this country, there were nothing but stop-gap measures aimed at appeasing particular sectional interest groups to the detriment of rural Australia as a whole. Reactions to the Minister's statement by National Party members and the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard) show that three years in opposition has done nothing to change the attitudes of these people to what are the true needs and aspirations of the genuine farming community. This Government, and in particular my fellow members of the primary industry and rural and provincial affairs committee of the Government, have undertaken extensive consultation with the farming sector to come up with a range of measures that we feel represent the true aspirations of Australian primary producers. I am particularly pleased that the city of Warwick and the surrounding districts of the southern Darling Downs were chosen for the first visit of the Prime Minister's country task force. Mr Tim Fischer —It was chosen because it was a marginal seat. Mr BEDDALL —I was greatly impressed with the reaction of the farming community within my Federal division to the visit of the task force in a hectic two days of meetings. The honourable member for Farrer (Mr Tim Fischer) said that the area was chosen because it was a marginal seat. He should ask the honourable member for O'Connor (Mr Tuckey) why we are going to his electorate next week. The task force met a large number of producer organisations as well as representatives of local Government and country business communities. I am pleased that most of the issues raised by those organisations have now been addressed in the Minister's statement. In contrast with many so-called representatives of rural Australia, these organisations put forward constructive proposals in a spirit of co-operation that five years ago would have been unheard of between rural producers and representatives of a Federal Labor government. There was no grandstanding by these organisations, and I would like to put on record in this Parliament my appreciation of the efforts that these producer organisations took in formulating their submissions to the Prime Minister's country task force. As I said earlier in my remarks, all the major issues that were first raised with me when I became a member representing a purely rural area have been addressed either prior to or in this particular statement. Probably the issue that received most attention during the Warwick discussions was interest rates and the quarantining of off-farm income. It is with particular pride that I am able to support the Minister in announcing that the Government has abandoned proposals for quarantining farm income. I congratulate the members of the primary industry and rural and provincial affairs committee of the Government on the efforts they put into convincing Cabinet of the adverse effects that this taxation provision would have had on rural Australia. I am also pleased to say that the Government will be instituting measures to ensure that it reviews primary producer business deductions to develop more closely targeted remedies to wipe out tax shelters for Queen Street farmers in primary production. In this way the Government will not discourage those people who are genuine in their farming pursuits. These measures will forgo $65m in revenue in 1987-88 and $45m in subsequent years. I think it is also appropriate in the debate to concentrate some amount of time on the fundamental problem facing agriculture, and that of course is corrupt world markets. It is therefore significant that at the very time that this debate takes place the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) is in the United States of America to discuss with President Reagan the impact of the United States Farm Bill on Australian agricultural exports. I, like many other members of the Parliament, have taken the opportunity to raise this issue with various visiting members of the United States Senate and House of Representatives. It is true to say that many people in the United States Congress who supported the Farm Bill did not consider the adverse effect that this Bill will have on Australia. We fully understand the United States Government's frustration with the agricultural policies of the European Economic Community. We share those views but we wish to ensure that Australia, which is a fair trader on world markets, does not suffer from the misguided policies of the European Community. I, like all other members of this House, wish the Prime Minister every success in his difficult task of convincing the United States Government that it should not implement policies that will seriously affect Australia's position in world agricultural markets. In the time remaining to me I would like to discuss the macroeconomic and income policies of the Government as they affect the rural sector. If macroeconomics is conducive to sustaining non-inflationary growth, the whole community, including farmers, benefits. Lower rates of inflation, restraint on on-farm and off-farm costs and improved capacity to compete on world markets are part of that macroeconomic policy. Strong income and employment growth also means a healthy increase in domestic demand for farm products. After almost a decade of poor economic growth under coalition governments the Australian economy expanded by 5 per cent in 1983-84 and by 4.5 per cent in 1984-85, and further expansion is assured for 1985-86. In 1982-83, the last year of the coalition Government, farm inflation was at 11 per cent. It was reduced to 8 per cent in 1985-86 and, following the implementation of this rural package, it is forecast to be only 3 per cent in 1986-87. This reduction in farm costs is one of the most significant factors flowing from the Minister's statement. Other macroeconomic measures that will have a significant effect on rural sectors include the floating of the dollar, the prices and incomes accord, and the Government's trilogy commitment. The floating of the Australian dollar has enabled the Australian farming sector to maintain a competitiveness on world markets that would have been impossible with the over-valued dollar that was part of the coalition's economic strategy. It has been estimated by the Bureau of Agricultural Economics that the devaluation alone has been worth $1000m to the Australian farming sector and, therefore, has obviously had an across-the-board beneficial effect on all our rural industries involved in exporting. It has also meant that farm income, depressed as it is, is much higher than it would have been if Australia had not floated the dollar as the previous coalition Government refused to do. Another major item of complaint from rural Australia has been that of the high interest rate burden. This has been addressed in the package by increasing funds available through the rural adjustment scheme which will enable $220m to be released to those farmers in greatest need. An across-the-board interest rate subsidy to the total farming sector would have been irrational, despite what many rural lobby groups claim. In fact, a significant proportion of the farming sector has no debt at all and is benefiting from high interest rates as the farmers are net lenders not borrowers. It is also pleasing to note that the downward thrust in general interest rates would benefit not only the farming sector, but the farming economy as a whole. Ninety-day bank bills that peaked at 20 per cent in December 1985 are now trading at around 15 per cent and the rate on 90-day Treasury notes, which exceeded 19 per cent in November 1985, has now declined to around 13 per cent. It is also important to note that these sharp falls in interest rates have not occurred at the expense of the exchange rate. If the Government had allowed the Australian dollar to depreciate to the level advocated by many rural lobby groups, this would have had a disastrous effect on our balance of payments and the Australian economy in general. This would have ensured not only that interest rates would have risen even higher in the short term, but also that inflation would have increased to the 11 per cent levels we inherited from the coalition Government upon assuming office. The Government does not accept arguments raised by some in the rural sector and in the wider community against its macroeconomic policies. These policies have been demonstrably effective. Real labour costs have fallen to a 15-year low at the same time as industrial disputation is at a 16-year low. These broad policies have obviously had a good effect on the rural sector, as they have had on the Australian economy as a whole. As inflation falls and interest rates decrease, the benefits of this package will become clearly evident to rural Australia. There will always be potential problems in the management of the Australian economy. Hard decisions will be called for. This Government has demonstrated that it has a comprehensive policy framework, that it can take such decisions and that it can adapt policy as circumstances warrant. None of that will remove the pressures farmers face from the declining world market prices but it will, along with other measures covered in this statement, help to give farmers the confidence needed to face these problems. I have great pleasure in supporting the Minister's statement. Mr MILES(Braddon)(5.45) —There are quite a few measures within this statement which we all agree will be of assistance to the rural community, but there are many things about it and the way in which the Government has gone about handling the rural problems which we certainly cannot agree with. Yesterday we saw the confusion the Government was in, and that confusion remains, between a Minister in another place and the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Kerin) in this House. Much has been said about the overall macroeconomic policies that influence the rural sector. So they do. In order to bring out a few facts about that I thought it would be interesting to have a look at the overall policies of previous Liberal-National Party governments and Labor governments down through the years to see the effects that they have had. I have a few interesting statistics which were taken in Australia over the last 20 years, commencing in 1965. Let us just have a look at that macroeconomic factor, inflation. The Liberal-National Party's average inflation rate in its period in office was 7.07 per cent and the Australian Labor Party's average inflation rate is 10.35 per cent. In other words, the Labor Government's inflation rate record, even at this stage, is 50 per cent worse than that of the coalition Government. Even in the area of unemployment over that period the coalition's record is much better than the Labor Party's record. The coalition Government's record for average unemployment is 4.7 per cent and the Labor Party's record is 5.8 per cent. If we look at the deficit as a percentage of gross domestic product we find that the Labor Party's average deficit is double that of the coalition. When we compare the Budget deficit figures for the last three years with the figures for the last three years of the Fraser-Anthony governments we find that the total coalition deficit is only $6.148 billion, whereas the Labor deficit is $19.625 billion. It is interesting even to look at new housing commencements. When we look at the number of new housing commencements in relation to the population of Australia we still find that the coalition Government's record is better than the Labor Government's record. Just to put it on the record, this means that the coalition Government had 9.9 new housing commencements for every 1,000 head of population and the Labor Government has had 9.8 housing commencements for every 1,000 head of population. Something else which really brings this home in this macroeconomic climate that has been talked about is that the outstanding debt of all government authorities and governments in Australia is $17,000 per taxpayer. That means that every baby born in Australia in 1986 can be considered to be starting life with a debt of around $6,800 incurred on his or her behalf by the Government. This is the macroeconomic climate in which farmers are trying to make ends meet. I want to turn to some of the words which were used in the Government's glossy pamphlet. I reiterate what I said the other day in a matter of public importance debate; that is, that this Government is largely about gloss and froth. The Government's first statement in the foreword of this pamphlet reads: This Government is a government for all Australians. Even before coming to office, we had developed a comprehensive set of policies covering Australia's primary industries and rural and provincial affairs. What were these comprehensive policies? Whom did they affect? Why is it that the Government has chopped and changed in direction at every opportunity and every crisis that this Government has faced in the rural sector? We still see the Government chopping and changing. We do not really know what it will do with the quarantining of farm losses. There is no value in a comprehensive policy for rural Australia when the Government has ripped $442m from the rural people of Australia in the last three years. The fact of having a policy does not make it good or bad. It is the action that flows from that policy that really counts. Let me briefly detail some of the action that has flowed from this Government's policies. If we look back to the end of 1984-85 the Government took $55m from the rural people of Australia through fuel excise and diesel rebate. General depreciation allowances were reduced by $53m and this year that figure is expected to be reduced by a further $89m. Under tax averaging, abolition of the in and out provisions meant that the rural people of Australia lost $35m and they stand to lose another $20m this year on tax averaging. Another statement made in the foreword is: . . . we have developed these policies further and made substantial progress in their implementation. So why is it that in northern Tasmania, an area that is rich in volcanic soils with a very favourable agricultural climate without extreme fluctuations in temperature or rainfall and with a long established farming area, a major rural supply firm has had its debt rise in the first two months of this year by 40 per cent, from $5m to $7m? Yet this Government claims that its policies have been implemented and that there has been substantial progress. I do not think that the rural people of northern Tasmania believe that that is progress. The statement also states: We have sensitively examined the claims made by farm leaders and the submissions received from rural and other organisations. Why then do we have farm leaders such as Mr McLachlan stating, in response to the Government's announcement, that it was `a disappointing anti-climax that will not defuse the farm disaster'? It does not seem to me that the Government has been very sensitive at all; otherwise we would not have the leader of the National Farmers' Federation making such a strong statement. The President of the Queensland Cane Growers Council has also said that Mr Kerin's statement contained a litany of empty promises. So the statement does not seem to me to be very sensitive to what the Queensland people desire. The policy statement also states: In some cases we have found issues warranting a significant response. In others, we have found the assertions made to be based on an inadequate appreciation of Government policy or of the way it works. The Government constantly gives the impression that it is never wrong. It always claims credit for the good things happening in the economy as though they have nothing to do with business or farmers or hard-working people around Australia. It claims that they are all to do with its policies. According to the Government, it is always somebody else who is illogical or irrational, who fails to comprehend or who has an inadequate appreciation; it is never the Government. The rural people are taken for mugs, or as a person in Melbourne said: `It is the Hawke drongo syndrome'. The rural people and their spokesmen know what is required and no amount of glossy paper or soothing words will meet the deep-seated needs of the rural people in Australia. The statement continues: The measures we are taking are too numerous and too diverse for that to provide any realistic indication of our commitment. Rural families, as a result of the quarantining of farm losses, the replacement of tariffs with bounties on agricultural machinery, or their being the last to have to pay the 3 per cent productivity increase, can identify only a direct cost benefit, of between only $285 and $340 in the first year and $205 to $260 in the second year. That is the only direct benefit that they can see coming out of this package. Certainly, there is an interest rate subsidy of $20m under the rural adjustment scheme. We applaud that. We understand there may be some benefits in the quarantining, but we are not sure. The Government goes on to state: . . . the Government has responded generously to the problems rural people face. However, we are pruning general government expenditure vigorously. This Government has imposed an iniquitous, discriminatory and unjust assets test on the rural people. What other policy is there under which one can invest, say, $1m in a home and still get the pension but one cannot invest it in a farm? The Government says that it has responded generously, but it has also said that it will introduce a capital gains tax. We still have interest rates at an all time high and the economic climate with which the rural people are faced will reduce farm incomes by 40 per cent in this and the next year. This is at a time when the Livestock and Grain Producers Association states that 35 per cent of family farms have zero or negative income and that that will be reduced by another 40 per cent. The average income for a farming family today is $7,600. These figures indicate that so much of what the Government has been saying and so much of what is in the package are absolute nonsense. Finally, as the time has been limited, I believe what has happened over the last few days is that the rural people of Australia have totally lost faith in this Hawke Government. They have been led to believe that certain things would happen. Their expectations have been raised, but they cannot see anything forthcoming. They are very disturbed. This Government stands condemned for its lack of forward planning. This is not a comprehensive document. It may be comprehensive from the point of view of public servants and the people who prepared it, but it is not comprehensive for those people who know what it is like out on the farms of Australia. This is a meagre response to the needs of rural people and it lacks the maximising of benefits to the oppressed and the new poor of Australia, the farmers. Ms FATIN(Brand)(5.58) —The Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Kerin) has referred to the economic and rural statement that we are discussing here today as an historic policy document. Certainly, the extent and scope of the statement show that our Minister and the Hawke Government in general are prepared to tackle rural issues on a broad front rather than apply band-aid solutions to individual sectors every time cracks appear in the dam. I congratulate the Minister on compiling a package of policies which heralds a new and innovative approach to rural planning in this country. My colleagues on this side of the House have already spent some time elaborating on many of the macro-economic implications of the statement and I do not want to take up the time of honourable members by repeating any of their excellent arguments. However, I do want to address myself briefly to some extremely important aspects of the statement. Unfortunately, these often seem to be passed over in all the heated discussion about whether the rural sector is receiving a realistic level of government support. For the first time in Australia's history the Federal Government is giving a high degree of formal recognition to the role and status of rural women. In recent years there has been a dramatic increase in the number of rural women participating in the paid work force. Several factors have contributed to this increase. On-farm labour requirements have declined significantly. Girls in country areas are no longer dropping out of school at a higher rate than their urban counterparts and, of course, the need to supplement on-farm income has led many women to seek employment elsewhere. As the Minister announced in the economic and rural statement, the Government has decided to ask the Office of the Status of Women and the Country Women's Association to carry out a review of the needs and priorities of rural women. The results of the survey will be used by the Government to develop policy and to determine specific priorities when it comes to devising services and programs for rural women. Rural women are also being encouraged to comment on the draft National Agenda for Women, so that the final result of this nation-wide survey will accurately reflect the particular perspective of people in the country. I hope that members on both sides of this House are aware of the special kits prepared by the Office of the Status of Women which were launched recently by the Minister Assisting the Prime Minister on the Status of Women (Senator Ryan). These kits are aimed at helping women to prepare their contributions to the National Agenda. They show women who do not already know how to run meetings, how to communicate effectively with other community groups, and how to generate maximum coverage for their ideas. I congratulate the OSW on the quality of all this material and join the Minister in urging Australian rural women to take full advantage of this opportunity to speak directly to government. Another study soon to be undertaken by the Department of Community Services also has special relevance to the needs of rural women. The Department will be looking at the standard of delivery and effectiveness of all its programs in remote areas. There is a very serious issue to be addressed. When we talk about the crisis in rural Australia, when we formulate tariff agreements, terms of trade and industry assistance packages, we too often forget that a great deal of rural poverty exists away from the farms. Many urban Australians are completely ignorant of the appalling conditions in which people are forced to live in some of our small rural communities. I saw photographs recently which were more reminiscent of nineteenth century urban slums or poverty stricken convict settlements than of life in Australia in 1986. For these people, Government assistance often means the difference between sickness and health, or even life and death, and too often the standard and reliability of the delivery of this assistance is woefully inadequate. I welcome this review and look forward with interest to reading the results when they are reported at the end of this year. I am particularly pleased to note the establishment of a rural women's access program to fund projects aimed at improving the access by women to services and employment in rural areas. As part of the economic and rural policy statement, the Government had decided to allocate $100,000 for the program in 1986-87. The program will cover many aspects of the health, housing and education needs of rural women. There will be further development of information on the needs of rural women, as well as investigation of a rural women's telephone advice service and publication of a paper outlining rural women's programs. The rural women's access program will be jointly administered by the Office of the Status of Women and the Department of Employment and Industrial Relations' Women's Bureau. Support will also be provided by the rural and provincial affairs unit of the Department of Primary Industry. Programs such as this are obviously an essential part of ensuring that the development of a co-ordinated rural and regional policy takes account of the diverse needs and experiences of rural women. Like many people, both inside the Parliament and outside in the wider community, I have been arguing for a long time that policies for rural women need to be approached on an interdepartmental basis. Only by getting this kind of co-ordinated response to rural women's issues can we be sure that the policies, programs and services we put in place will be effective in improving opportunities for country women, rather than just tackling individual problem areas with no attempt at integration. I congratulate the Minister for recognising the advantages to be gained from the co-operative approach, and look forward to seeing similar programs being designed along these lines. Before turning my attention to other aspects of the economic and rural statement, I must mention the annual grant of $160,000 which the Government is making to the Rural Development Centre. The research undertaken by the Centre, which is attached to the University of New England, is concerned with many social and economic issues of importance to rural Australia and will obviously complement a lot of the policy development areas I have already mentioned. I turn now to the subject of rural education-another area that has received a significant boost in the rural statement measures. This is an issue of considerable concern. Declines in rural incomes affect the ability of parents to pay for their children's education, especially if the children need to be sent away from home to attend school. Financial difficulties may also mean a further deterioration in the already low levels of participation of young rural people in the senior levels of secondary education. The Government accepts its responsibility to improve education services for rural students. We have therefore, allocated $388,000 towards improving access to information on Commonwealth education assistance schemes. The Department of Education will also extend the operation of 008 telephone services to help country residents obtain information quickly and economically. Obviously the educational needs of people in rural areas are as diverse as those of metropolitan students. For students at country schools, the range of subjects offered needs to be increased so that country children are not denied opportunities and choices. There are also special needs relating to training for rural trades and industries. It is no longer completely satisfactory to rely on farmers taking on young inexperienced school leavers and training them on the job to be competent farm managers. Like other industries, farming has become technologically sophisticated. Understanding of advanced technology, including electronics, is becoming essential to the successful management of agricultural enterprises. Commercial management skills are rapidly assuming the same sort of significance. Some of these changing requirements are already being met by the various types of educational and training establishments around Australia, but there is a need for close monitoring of the situation to make sure that rural education and training services adequately meet the expectations and requirements of both the rural community and the rural industrial economy. As the Minister for Primary Industry announced in the rural statement, he and the Minister for Education will undertake a joint examination of the adequacy of rural education and training and will present their conclusions to the Government as soon as possible. I should emphasise at this point that the Government does not envisage any massive increase in funding being required as a result of changes to rural educational services. The Minister for Primary Industry has pointed out that many of the necessary changes will be qualitative, meaning that significant improvements will be made by reallocating existing funds rather than creating new areas of additional expenditure. Two other areas of social importance have been addressed by the rural policy package. The Government is aware that the isolated patients travel and accommodation assistance scheme needs to be improved if country people are to have easy access to health services. With the help of the States, the Government is looking at a variety of ways in which services for rural patients can be improved. It is hoped that negotiations already taking place will see much more satisfactory patient transport arrangements in place in the near future. The second area of assistance relates to housing and the announcement that a new research proposal on rural housing will be developed for consideration by the Australian Housing Research Council. Obviously the housing needs of metropolitan and rural residents differ quite considerably. The aim of the study will be to look at the various ways in which existing housing programs might be improved to better reflect this difference and increase the relevance of Government housing policies in rural areas. I want to close by congratulating the Minister once more for the concern he has shown during the preparation of the economic and rural statement about the overall quality of life of rural women. The Government has shown that its concerns about country people generally are as deep as its concerns about rural producers. The statement demonstrates that our commitment to country people is as great as our commitment to the urban community. We are truly a government for all Australians. Mr HAWKER(Wannon)(6.10) —I would like to start my speech on the economic and rural policy statement by reminding the honourable member for Rankin (Mr Beddall) that he has his facts wrong. I take up his point that this Government has undertaken the most comprehensive review of agricultural policy ever undertaken. I know that a little hyperbole is not unknown in this place but I am afraid he has got it very wrong. I draw his attention to the `Rural Policy in Australia' document produced in 1974 by the Whitlam Government and the `Agricultural Policy Issue and Options for the 1980s', which was the report of the working group in September 1982. Both of these documents are far more comprehensive than the one that the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Kerin) introduced in this place two days ago. Either of them, when placed on the scales, would require at least five copies of the Minister's statements to balance them. Overall I would have to say that this rural policy statement is extremely disappointing. It took the Minister over an hour to make his statement on rural policy. I am reminded of the saying of a senior colleague of mine. It is a funny thing about statements made to this chamber. Generally the size is inversely proportional to the content. That is certainly true about this statement. It is worth repeating what the Minister for Primary Industry said about some of the statistics relating to primary industry and the importance of primary industry in Australia. As the Minister pointed out, 20 per cent of Australia owes its livelihood either directly or indirectly to primary production. The Minister also went on to say that, as pointed out by the Bureau of Agricultural Economics, the real value of primary production will drop by 21 per cent in 1985-86. But even worse the Minister released a new figure, that is, in 1986-87 it is expected that the real value of primary production will fall by a further 21 per cent. By any measure, considering the size of the rural crisis now, these figures are quite devastating. If people think things are bad now they should just wait until next year. However, the size, depth and magnitude of the problem facing primary industry is far greater than that. It is very interesting to look at an article that was published in the Bulletin this week headed `Rural realities spell doom for 70,000 farm families'. Mr Downer —How many? Mr HAWKER —Seventy thousand. The art- icle begins by stating: The rural community faces a continuing tragedy in the final years of this century with as many as 70,000 families forced from their land. That was the prediction made last week by some senior agriculturalists during some of the protest meetings. If anything could tell us how serious the problem is, this article points out that it is not a problem that will be around for just this year or next year; it is something that will continue. The Minister went to some length to blame the problems on factors that have been created overseas, and to some extent he is correct. Overseas markets have been a major problem and commodity prices in almost all areas are low. No one would argue that this is not a major problem and no one would not wish the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) every success in his trip to the United States to try to convince the United States to reassess the impact of its current Farm Bill. Anyone who was as realistic and who thought about the problem would know that any results that the Prime Minister might achieve while he is in America-let us face it, his chances are not good-will be slow and painful and they will offer little relief in the short term. The Minister went on to suggest in his statement that `tariffs and other policy measures cannot be blamed'. All I can say is that that is just utter rubbish. In the past the Minister has admitted in this chamber that the figure produced by the National Farmers Federation when assessing the impact of support and tariffs for secondary industries is costing farmers something like $9,000 per farm per year. To suggest that tariffs and other policy measures cannot be blamed is just ignoring what the Minister has already accepted in the past. I think the Minister is quite correct to concentrate on the importance of macroeconomic policy. He made much about the floating of the Australian dollar but he gave a lot away when he stated: The cleanliness of our float is shown by the size of the depreciation we have been prepared to allow. That is a very telling statement. I emphasise the words `we have been prepared to allow'. That shows very clearly that the Minister has admitted that this float is a dirty float: He has admitted that the interest rates that this present Government is imposing on all business and people in Australia are the result of quite definite decisions made by the Government. They have probably caused the greatest single problem facing primary industry now. Nowhere does the Minister mention in his statement the effect of the enormous Budget deficit, to which my colleague the honourable member for Braddon (Mr Miles) has already alluded, nowhere does he mention the ballooning overseas debt and the devastating effect that it is having on Australia-it is now something like $70m-and nowhere does he mention the adverse balance of trade problem, which is running at something like $1 billion per month. Yet the Minister says that the value of the float of the Australian dollar has been to the advantage of Australians and to farmers in particular. However, he gives it away when he admits that the Government has been prepared to allow the dollar to reach only a certain level. Implicit in what he is saying is that interest rates in Australia are considerably higher than they need to be. It has been estimated conservatively that the amount of interest paid by farmers in the current year will be something like $1,125m. It has also been estimated by some experts that if there were a free float of the Australia dollar interest rates would probably fall by at least 5 per cent. If that were translated back to the level of indebtedness of Australian farmers that would mean saving of $300m to $400m, and that is probably more than double the measures announced by the Minister in his great package. In other words just by allowing the Australian dollar to float freely the Minister would have achieved more to help farmers, particularly those who are in debt, than all at the wonderful glossy package that he has produced. I turn to a couple of the measures announced by the Minister. One is the so-called removal of the quarantining of farm losses. Unfortunately, we are still in doubt as to what this really means because we have heard the Minister for Primary Industry say that it will save $65m but, of course, it is only saving something that the Government was going to impose anyway so it is really no saving. The Minister for Finance (Senator Walsh) has said that that figure is wrong. It will be very interesting to see the real figures when they can be properly estimated and the legislation when it is introduced. The other measure that the Government is proposing to introduce which will be a real slug on farmers is the fringe benefits tax. At the moment we do not know what that cost will be but I suggest that it will be substantial and it will add significantly to the costs of farmers and, in particular, to the cost of employing farm labour. One area is the provisions of houses for station hand. It has always been recognised that such housing should be provided by the employer. It is generally provided at low rental and the reason for that is the difficulty often of attracting people to move to remote areas. But worse still about this fringe benefits tax is the fact that it will be a tax on employers, not employees. One wonders how long it will be before the Government's bosses in the Australian Council of Trade Unions will say: `This is not a bad idea. Let us put all the taxes on employers and let the employee take what comes in the next pay rise'. On top of this we have the wonderful so-called 3 per cent superannuation slug which, as any actuary will tell honourable members, is nothing more than a disguised pay rise. Another tax which has been proposed by this Government is the capital gains tax. The Minister made much of what the Government was supposed to do when he answered a question in the House yesterday from my colleague the honourable member for Mallee (Mr Peter Fisher). The Minister seems to be able to say one thing before an election and contradict himself afterwards, because before the election he said that he would oppose a capital gains tax and now he seems to be welcoming it with open arms. He talked about the fact that there will be an exemption from, as he put it, intergenerational transfers of land. But as the Minister knows full well, that is likely to be an illusion for many people because many farmers operate in partnerships or often have to operate with trust. In these forms of ownership it is very likely that this so-called exemption from the capital gains tax will be no such thing. Another matter of which the Minister has made a big thing is the proposed royal commission into grain handling. It is worth reminding the Minister that in 1981 the Australian Wheat Growers Federation did a lot of work on this proposal, brought it to the former Government and asked it to accept it. The former Government ran into a real snag, which was that any such inquiry requires co-operation from the State governments. I suggest that already the Minister is finding out how difficult these things are. An article in today's Australian headed `Queensland snubs inquiry on wheat industry; states: Queensland will not take part in the royal commission into alleged inefficiencies in State wheat transport handling and storage systems. The article goes on to point out that the Western Australian Government has already instituted its own inquiry. So, I wonder in all seriousness whether the Minister expects this so-called royal commission to achieve anything more than has been attempted in the past. Mr Cleeland —Are you saying that it is not a national problem, then? Mr HAWKER —It is a national problem, all right. Mr Cleeland —Shouldn't there be a national inquiry? Mr HAWKER —I am suggesting that the Minister is making a lot of noise about it. I am not sure that he will be as successful as he would have everyone believe. Overall, this package is bitterly disappointing to many farmers who will find that it is nothing more than a so-called band-aid. It may help a small percentage of farmers, but it certainly does not direct itself towards the major problems which are facing agriculture now and which are going to continue to face agriculture for quite a while. The Government has failed in many ways. The Minister has failed. He has failed to attack the interest rate problems. He has failed to attack the lack of a competitive environment in Australia. He has failed to address the fact that an addition of something like $440m has been imposed on primary producers in the last three Budgets of this Government. So, when the Minister offers a package which he claims is of the order of $200m-that figure is in dispute after what the Minister for Finance has said-he really is not offering a great deal. The Minister has failed to attack the costs he has imposed on the rural sector, for example, by the removal of the fuel freight equalisation scheme. He has failed to attack the problems caused by high interest rates. He has failed to look at the problems that an inflexible wages system is forcing on Australia. I suggest to this Government that it is doing so at its own peril. I draw the attention of honourable members to a paper published by the Centre for Economic Policy Research of the Australian National University and headed `The Contributions of the Farm Sector to Annual Variations in Gross Domestic Product', by Dr O'Mara. In that paper Dr O'Mara draws some very interesting conclusions. In his summary he states: There is considerable evidence that the relative contribution of the farm sector to annual changes in non-farm output has not declined over this period- that is, from 1953 to 1982- and may even have increased . . . the results presented in the present paper could be interpreted as implying that a satisfactory and consistent treatment of the farm sector in Australian macroeconomic models has become more, rather than less, important over time. The Government will ignore this warning at its own peril. If it ignores it, rural Australia will pay an enormous price, with the suffering of people-real people-out in the bush continuing. In conclusion, I read a wonderful quotation from the Minister's media release on 15 April: This is the most comprehensive program of policies for rural Australia adopted by any Federal Government. If this is the best the Government can do, it is very disappointing. The Minister's statement was nothing more than 42 pages of pure chaff. There was very little grain. The little grain that is there would be barely enough to feed a budgerigar. Mr CAMPBELL(Kalgoorlie)(6.25) —Just before the last election I was in the town of Northhampton on the edge of my electorate. I was in the bar of a pub and was accosted by a farmer. He said to me: `What we want from you people is less government. What about the super bounty? You haven't moved it for years. Why don't you let the dollar float cleanly?' He said: `What about the interest rates? Stop all this tariff nonsense. And how about putting some value back in the dollar? Get off our backs'. That was his scenario for the improvement of the rural sector. I do not blame that gentleman. He was drunk, confused and scared. I mention the incident only because I believe that what he said typifies the level of debate we have heard from honourable members opposite today. On a question as important to Australia as the crisis in the rural sector, I had hoped that we would have some level of bipartisanship, some area of real concern and at least some knowledge. Alas, that was not to be. I think the last speaker, the honourable member for Wannon (Mr Hawker), typified the very low level of debate I have mentioned. The real problems facing Australian agriculture have not just occurred. They have been developing for a long time. I believe that the document prepared by the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Kerin) and presented to the Parliament is an exceedingly good document. It gets to the long term interests of agriculture. There is absolutely no doubt that farmers who are now surviving out in the rural sector will survive much better as a result of the policies contained in this document. Unfortunately, the rural crisis has not been fully understood. We have had two problems running simultaneously. There are the long term macro-economic problems. This is the most important area. It is correct that the Government has addressed it. However, running parallel with this area is an area of real hardship in the bush. It comprises a relatively narrow band of farmers who are in what I call diabolical trouble. Unfortunately, there is not a lot in the statement for those people. These people are suffering from the definition of `viability'. I have been caught by this definition, and my background is entirely in the rural sector. It is easy to say to a person that he is not viable, but circumstances in agriculture change very quickly. For instance, the price of sugar is rising very rapidly now. A month ago that certainly would not have been predicted. There is no way of predicting what will happen in the future. Predictions by the Bureau of Agricultural Economics so often have been wrong. I was declared non-viable in 1969. In 1973 I had a tax problem. That is the case with many people today. In my opinion, what needs to be done is to have more consideration for people who are caught in this vice of non-viability, people who bought land between 1979 and 1983 and who probably paid too much for that land. But they were being encouraged to buy it and it looked like a good thing at the time. There is no doubt that hindsight improves vision immensely. I am appalled by the number of rational economists with 20/20 hindsight vision. These people need consideration. We need to look at providing to them some form of assistance greater than that provided at the moment. I believe that an extension of Part 10 of the Bankruptcy Act as it applies to the rural sector should apply also to secured creditors. What is happening out there in the bush, out there in the real world, is that the commercial sector, the commercial banks, are saying to some farmers: `We will not lend you any more money because we do not think you are viable. But we will not besmirch our good name by foreclosing on you, either. We will just leave you there, because we know that your equity will gradually be whittled away and eventually we will get our money, or things might radically improve and the whole thing will be reversed'. The commercial banks live by feeding off the second mortgagee, which is very often the public sector, the various rural adjustment authorities. I believe that we should be able to say to these people: `We are going to have a restructuring'. We ought to be able to say to the banks: `Interest will stop from this point on and we will provide ongoing finance for these people on the basis of crop lands or stock lands'. I believe that this initiative will have to be advanced by the States and I hope that my State of Western Australia will look closely at it. I want to say a few words about these people who are in trouble, because I believe that they are the innovators, the people who are prepared to have a go. They are often the people who have tried to substitute hard work for capital. They have tried to use their muscles instead of money, but they got caught by world commodity price downturns, high interest rates and in some cases drought as well. There is absolutely no doubt, and we on this side of the House understand this, that interest rates have been kept high by the Government's macro-economic policies-the same policies that have enormously benefited other parts of the rural sector. They are the policies that are necessary to stop inflation taking off again. The scourge of inflation is a real scourge. It appals me to hear honourable members opposite suggest the sorts of remedies that would undoubtedly send inflation through the roof. If the Government were to float the dollar and let it drop, there is no doubt that interest rates would come down very quickly. There is also no doubt that inflation would take off just as quickly. Anyone with an ounce of common sense or any knowledge of economics should understand that. It is very easy and glib for people opposite or out in the community to recommend these policies. Often they are recommended by people who know very well what would be the consequences of implementing them. They try to score cheap points and rely on the good sense of this Government not to listen to them. I seek leave to continue my remarks later. Leave granted; debate adjourned. Sitting suspended from 6.31 to 8 p.m. Bill presented by Mr Lionel Bowen, and read a first time. Mr LIONEL BOWEN(Kingsford-Smith-Attorney-General)(8.01) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. This Bill proposes to amend a number of Acts to remove or alter provisions which discriminate on the ground of sex or marital status to ensure that those Acts will be consistent with the Sex Discrimination Act. Acts done in direct compliance with legislation which was in force at the time when the Sex Discrimination Act came into operation on 1 August 1984 are the subject of an exemption under section 40 of the Act. This exemption for what would otherwise be unlawful acts of discrimination on the ground of sex, marital status or pregnancy operates for two years after the commencement of the Act unless extended by regulations either generally or in relation to specified legislation. In October 1984 all Commonwealth departments began a review of Commonwealth legislation to identify provisions which would be inconsistent with the Sex Discrimination Act 1984. (Quorum formed) As a result of that review a number of provisions have been identified by departments as involving discrimination on the ground of sex or marital status. The Government believes that wherever possible discriminatory provisions in legislation should be removed rather than preserved by regulation. This Bill is one of a number of measures the Government will be placing before the Parliament to achieve this aim. Where legislation is to be otherwise amended by Bills to be introduced in this session, amendments to remove inconsistencies with the Sex Discrimination Act 1984 will be included in those Bills. This Bill deals with certain measures which are more appropriately dealt with in omnibus legislation rather than by a series of small and separate amending Bills. The Bill now before the House amends ten Acts to effect a variety of changes. The Re-establishment and Employment Act 1945 contains a number of redundant provisions concerning assistance to servicemen in the years immediately after World War II. Some of these redundant provisions conflict with the Sex Discrimination Act 1984 and it has been decided that the opportunity should be taken in this Bill to repeal all the redundant provisions. The Seamen's Compensation Act 1911 and the Compensation (Commonwealth Government Employees) Act 1973 at present provide for the payment of compensation to de facto spouses and other dependants of seamen and of Commonwealth employees. The Bill proposes the amendment of the definition of `de facto spouse' in those Acts to make them consistent with the definition of `de facto spouse' in the Sex Discrimination Act 1984. The Seamen's Compensation Act 1911 is also to be amended to remove a provision which terminates the payment of compensation to a child of a deceased seamen if the child marries. Honourable members will see that the review of Commonwealth legislation by departments has picked up both obvious and perhaps not so obvious instances of discrimination. Honourable members will also see that the Government has extended its review into some legislation which is already exempt from the Sex Discrimination Act 1984 for an indefinite period, namely, the Compensation (Commonwealth Government Employees) Act 1973. Whilst this Act is exempt from the operation of the Sex Discrimination Act 1984, it was considered that this was not a good reason why the Act should not be amended, as far as practicable, to be consistent with the Government's commitment towards eliminating discrimination. Amongst the discriminatory provisions identified by departments in reviewing Commonwealth legislation there are a small number which will be preserved by regulation. Regulations to this effect are expected to be made in the near future. These regulations will preserve the operation of some provisions indefinitely, mainly where the other options open to the Government to remove discrimination would have been either to remove an entitlement to a particular benefit or to make benefits available to a wider group, thereby imposing a considerably greater burden on the taxpayer. Honourable members will be aware that legislation such as the Social Security Act 1947 is already exempt from the Sex Discrimination Act 1984 for reasons such as I have just mentioned. The proposed regulations will preserve the operation of similar benefits. Of the other regulations proposed I need mention only one in relation to taxation legislation which arises because the process of reviewing all taxation legislation was delayed by the need to give priority to reform of the taxation system. Regulations under the Sex Discrimination Act 1984 will be made to enable a one-year extension of the exemption for taxation legislation until 1 August 1987. Financial Impact Statement The measures in this Bill do not have any direct financial implications. I commend the Bill to the House. I present the explanatory memorandum to this Bill. Debate (on motion by Mr White) adjourned. Bill presented by Mr Hurford, and read a first time. Mr HURFORD(Adelaide-Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs and Acting Treasurer)(8.09) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. This Bill will give effect to a further two of the Government's tax reform measures. First, it will provide rules limiting tax deductions for interest incurred in borrowing money to finance rental property investments-so called negative gearing. Secondly, it provides a depreciation allowance of 4 per cent per annum in respect of residential income-producing buildings. The Bill also contains amendments to overcome a decision of the Federal Court that sanctioned arrangements under which future income rights could be disposed of for a non-taxable capital sum. Other provisions contained in it will introduce grouping provisions into the Australian Capital Territory payroll tax law to close a loophole which enables employers, by payroll splitting, to make multiple use of the exemption available for small payrolls. Finally, the Bill will amend the income tax law to facilitate the introduction of a system of self-assessment for taxpayers, give the force of law in Australia to an airline profits agreement with the People's Republic of China, and authorise deductions for gifts made to the Australian Sports Aid Foundation. Madam Speaker, I will now outline in more detail the significant measures contained in the Bill. Negative Gearing The Bill will give effect to the Government's decision explained in the statements of the Treasurer (Mr Keating) of 17 July and 25 September 1985, to limit the income tax deductibility of interest associated with the negative gearing of rental property investments. Negative gearing occurs where, in a particular year, interest on borrowings used to finance rental property investments exceeds net rental income from those investments. Under the existing law, a taxpayer is able to set off that excess against income from other sources and thereby shelter that other income from tax. The Government takes the view that the general taxpaying community should not be obliged effectively to subsidise the acquisition of investments by a particular group of taxpayers in this way. Competition for the purchase of residential property between these investors has been reflected in increased prices, to the detriment of ordinary home buyers. The amendments proposed by this Bill are to apply whether the investor is an individual, company, partnership or trustee of a trust. Under them, a limit will be placed on the income tax deduction allowed for interest on borrowings used to finance rental investments made after 17 July 1985. The deduction limit will be an amount equal to the net rental income from those investments. Net rental income is the aggregate of gross rental income from all such investments less related deductions other than building depreciation and interest. Interest in excess of the deduction limit in any year will be carried forward and treated as interest incurred in the next income year. In this way it may be set off against net rental income of that next year or of later years. There is to be no limit on the number of years excess interest may be carried forward. In the case of a partnership, each individual partner will be deemed to have incurred his or her share of the partnership's excess interest. Measures in the Bill will allow a company to transfer excess interest to another company within the same group of companies. Investments in land and buildings will be regarded as rental investments to the extent that the land and buildings are used, or held ready for use, for the purpose of producing rent. Rental investments made after 17 July 1985 will include land and buildings acquired under contracts entered into after that date and, with certain exceptions, buildings and improvements the construction of which commenced after that date. Such investments will also include shares in rental property companies and interests in rental property partnerships and trust estates acquired after 17 July 1985. The Bill provides that a rental property company, partnership or trust estate is one having at least 75 per cent of its net worth on the last day of the year of income in interests in land used, or held ready for use, for rent producing purposes. The interests may be held directly or through interposed companies, partnerships or trusts. The amendments will not apply to investments by employees in residential accommodation leased to employees at or adjacent to a site of mining operations or in or adjacent to a timber felling area, where capital expenditure on that property may be written off under the existing income tax law. Rental property acquired as a beneficiary of a deceased person who acquired the property before 18 July 1985 is also excluded from the scope of the amendments. Interest on a loan replacing borrowings that financed a rental property investment made before 18 July 1985 will generally not be subject to the deduction limit. Where, after 25 September 1985, a change of 50 per cent or more occurs in the beneficial ownership of rental property acquired before 18 July 1985, the amendments will apply. On the other hand, they will generally not apply to a rental investment made after 25 September 1985 if changes in beneficial ownership after that date are less than 50 per cent and the former owner or owners acquired the property before 18 July 1985. It is estimated that this measure will result in a revenue gain of $55m in 1986-87, $100m in 1987-88, rising to $195m in 1990-91 and subsequent years. Residential Income-Producing Buildings The income tax levy is to be amended by the Bill to allow depreciation deductions in respect of residential buildings used for the purpose of producing assessable income, where construction commenced or commences after 17 July 1985-the date on which the proposal was announced. Extensions, alterations or improvements will similarly qualify for depreciation deductions. This measure is aimed at stimulating new building for rental housing purposes and thus increasing the supply of rental accommodation. Deductions will be available on the same general basis as deductions are presently available in respect of traveller accommodation buildings and non-residental buildings used for income producing purposes. In broad terms, fixed annual deductions of 4 per cent of capital expenditure on the construction of an eligible building, extension, alteration or improvement will be available to the owner, or in certain circumstances the lessee, over a 25-year period. With the introduction of this measure, all new buildings, extensions, alterations and improvements that are used for the purpose of producing assessable income will generally now qualify for depreciation deductions. For residential buildings, special provisions will apply to deny deductions where a building, or any part of a building, is used by the owner, or eligible lessee, or by an associate of them. The cost of revenue of this measure is estimated at $2m in 1986-87 and $7m in 1987-88. Assignment of Rights to Future Income This Bill will give effect to the Government's decision announced on 9 October 1985 to tax, in the hands of the assignor, consideration received for the assignment of rights to future income. The Government's decision was made following the decision of the Federal Court of Australia in a case where rights to receive future interest payable under long term agreements were assigned to an unrelated finance company for full consideration. The court upheld the claim by the assignor that the consideration received was a non-taxable capital receipt. The assignee, as a finance company, could offset the consideration received by it against the assigned interest as it was derived. The Commissioner of Taxation, under special leave granted by the High Court, has appealed against the decision of the Federal Court. In the Government's view, the taxation implications of pre-10 October 1985 arrangements are therefore appropriately a matter for determination by that court. However, in view of the potentially large amounts of tax involved in arrangements of the kind in question, the Government believes it is proper to amend the income tax law, as a precautionary measure, in relation to such arrangements entered into on or after that date. By this Bill, where a right to receive income is transferred after 9 October 1985 under arm's length and certain non-arm's length arrangements without the transfer to the transferee of the property giving rise to the right, the amount of any consideration received or receivable in respect of the transfer will be taxed in the hands of the transferor. Complementary amendments will modify the existing anti-avoidance provisions relating to the transfer of future income rights for less than seven years. They will, in relation to post-9 October 1985 assignments, apply only where the parties to the transfer are associated and the consideration, if any, in respect of the transfer is less than full consideration. Where the existing anti-avoidance provisions as modified apply, any consideration for the assignment will not be treated as assessable income. While it is not possible to quantify the saving to the revenue from this proposal, the potential revenue loss in the absence of this change in the law could, if the High Court confirms the efficacy of the arrangements, have amounted to many millions of dollars. Australian Capital Territory Payroll Tax The Bill will also give effect to the Government's decision-announced on 26 July 1985-to close a loophole in the Australian Capital Territory Payroll tax law. It will do this by the introduction of grouping provisions. Under the Australian Capital Territory Payroll tax law, tax is payable by employers whose annual taxable wages exceed the prescribed exemption level. This is presently $170,000. Some employers have entered into arrangements under which their business operations are conducted by a number of separate entities, so that their payroll is split between these entities. Under these arrangements, liability to payroll tax is either avoided totally or at least substantially reduced. Exploitation of the exemption level is estimated to cost the revenue some $7m annually. The Bill will introduce into the Australian Capital Territory payroll tax law provisions, similar to those in force in the States and the Northern Territory, under which certain related employers are to be treated as an employer group for payroll tax purposes. Several employers will constitute a group where they are related companies, they share the same employees or they carry on businesses that are under the control of the same person or persons. Where several employers are treated as an employer group, only one member of that group will be entitled to the benefit of any exemption available. That entitlement will be calculated by reference to the wages paid or payable by all members of the employer group. The amendments will apply in relation to wages paid or payable on or after the first day of the month following that in which this Bill receives the royal assent. Self-Assessment Other provisions in this Bill will smooth the way for the introduction of a system of `self-assessment' of income tax returns. The decision to introduce this system was taken following a detailed examination by the Commission of Taxation of existing income tax-assessing methods. The Government has endorsed the Commissioner's decision and agreed to some technical changes in the income tax law to facilitate introduction of the system from 1 July next. Under self-assessment the Commissioner's officers will generally not subject income tax returns to the same degree of technical scrutiny that has existed in the past before a notice of assessment is issued. Self-assessment will mean that, after assessments have been issued, there will be more audits and more checking and verifying of information in returns against data obtained from external sources. Taxpayers who, when their return is processed or later, are found to have made false or misleading statements in their returns will face heavy penalties. Measures, passed by the Parliament in 1984, are relevant in this regard. The more limited initial checking of returns that will occur under self-assessment could mean that the assessment that is made on the basis of a taxpayer's return produces a tax Bill that is higher or lower that what the law really authorises. To remedy this, the Commissioner's power to amend assessments is to be widened. The new power to amend to correct an error of law will enable a taxpayer's liability to be either increased or decreased, generally within a period of three years after the due date for the payment of tax under the assessment. Where the commissioner detects an error that was against the taxpayer, the taxpayer will be paid interest when the original mistake is corrected. To compensate the revenue where tax was underpaid as a result of an error in a taxpayer's favour, the Bill also contains provision for the payment of interest to the Commonwealth. Where an amended assessment increasing a taxpayer's liability occurs because the taxpayer made a false or misleading statement in his or her return then, rather than interest, the penalties provided for under existing law may apply. Interest will be calculated from the date on which the underpaid tax should have been paid to the date on which the amended assessment is made. The rate of interest will be the same as that applicable from time to time under the Taxation (Interest on Overpayments) Act 1983. The present rate is 14.026 per cent per annum. These amendments are to apply to amended assessments made on or after 1 July 1986 in respect of the 1985-86 year and all subsequent years of income. Gifts The gift provisions of the income tax law will be amended by the Bill to give effect to the Government's announcement of 10 December 1985 to make gifts to the Australian Sports Aid Foundation tax deductible. Deductions will be allowable for gifts the value of which is $2 or more made on or after 18 February 1986-that being the date of the Foundation's incorporation. The cost to revenue of this measure is estimated at up to $5m in a full financial year. Airline Profits Agreement with the People's Republic of China Finally, the Bill will provide legislative authority for the entry into force of a taxaton agreement, limited to the taxation of profits derived from international air transport, with the People's Republic of China. Details of the agreement were announced when it was signed in Beijing on 22 November 1985, and copies were made available to the public at that time. By the agreement, Australia and China are to exempt from their respective income taxes profits derived from international air transport by the other country's international airline. The practical effect of the agreement is that Australia will have the sole right to tax Chinese source profits from the international airline operations of Qantas Airways Ltd, while China will have the same right with respect to Australian source profits from international operations of China's airline, CAAC. Upon entering into force, the agreement will have effect in both countries in relation to profits and revenues derived on or after 1 July 1984. Although this agreement with China is restricted to international airline profits, I advise honourable members that China is included in the Government's current negotiating program for comprehensive taxation agreements. The agreement with China is expected to have a negligible impact on revenue. An explanatory memorandum comprehensively explaining the features of this Bill, and an associated Bill that I will introduce shortly, is being circulated from the information of honourable members. I commend the Bill to the House. I also table the explanatory memorandum. Debate (on motion by Mr Tim Fischer) adjourned. Bill presented by Mr Hurford, and read a first time. Mr HURFORD(Adelaide-Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs and Acting Treasurer)(8.23) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. This Bill will formally impose the interest charge payable under section 170aa of the Income Tax Assessment Act, which it is proposed be inserted in that Act by the Bill I have just introduced. Honourable members will be aware that, under section 55 of the Australian Constitution, laws imposing taxation may only deal with the imposition of taxation and cannot contain any extraneous matters. Because interest payable under proposed section 170aa of the Income Tax Assessment Act is likely to be regarded as a tax, this Bill is designed to ensure that constitutional requirements are met. I commend the Bill to the House. I have already tabled the explanatory memorandum which includes a reference to this Bill. Debate (on motion by Mr Tim Fischer) adjourned. Bill presented by Mr Hurford, and read a first time. Mr HURFORD(Adelaide-Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs and Acting Treasurer)(8.25) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. This is the first of three Bills to amend the Tobacco Charge Acts (Nos. 1-3) 1955 to restore, with effect on and from 1 April 1986, the rate of charge that applied immediately prior to that date. This Bill will amend the Tobacco Charge Act (No. 1), which imposes a tobacco charge on the sale of Australian tobacco leaf to manufacturers of tobacco products for smoking. Regulations under the Rural Industries Research Act 1985 effective from 1 April 1986 brought into operation amendments of the tobacco charge Acts that were enacted last year. Those amendments repealed the rate of charge specified for the purposes of those Acts-3.5 cents per kilogram of tobacco leaf-and provided for the rate to be prescribed by regulations made under the Tobacco Charge Act (No. 1). However, no such regulations have been made, with the result that since 1 April 1986 there has been no rate of tobacco charge prescribed. Regulations retrospective to 1 April 1986 cannot now be made. Accordingly, it is proposed by this Bill to restore the previous rate of tobacco charge-3.5 cents per kilogram of tobacco leaf-to apply to chargeable sales made on or after 1 April 1986. As total tobacco charge collections are used to finance tobacco research-now administered under the Rural Industries Research Act-and to finance the operations of the Australian Tobacco Board, the amendments will have no net effect on revenue. However, as collections for April 1986 are estimated to be some $300,000, the Government will be seeking early passage of the Bills to ensure that there is minimal interruption to collections of the tobacco charge during 1985-86. An explanatory memorandum containing a more detailed explanation of the three Bills is being circulated to honourable members. I commend this Bill to the House, and table copies of the explanatory memorandum. Debate (on motion by Mr Tim Fischer) adjourned. Bill presented by Mr Hurford, and read a first time. Mr HURFORD(Adelaide-Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs and Acting Treasurer)(8.30) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. This is the second of the three Bills I mentioned when introducing the Tobacco Charge (No. 1) Amendment Bill 1986. The Bill will amend the Tobacco Charge Act (No. 2) 1955 to restore, in respect of purchases of Australian tobacco leaf by manufacturers of tobacco products on or after 1 April 1986, the rate of tobacco charge that applied immediately prior to that date. Apart from the nature of the transactions that are subject to the charge, the Bill is to the same effect as the first Bill in this package. I commend the Bill to the House. Debate (on motion by Mr Tim Fischer) adjourned. Bill presented by Mr Hurford, and read a first time. Mr HURFORD(Adelaide-Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs and Acting Treasurer)(8.32) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. I come to the last of the three tobacco charge amendments Bills. This Bill is to the same effect as the two previous Bills. It will restore the rate of tobacco charge payable in respect of tobacco grown by a manufacturer of tobacco products and appropriated, on or after 1 April 1986, by that manufacturer for manufacturing purposes. I also commend this Bill to the House. Debate (on motion by Mr Tim Fischer) adjourned. Bill presented by Mr Barry Jones, for Mr Howe, and read a first time. Mr BARRY JONES(Lalor-Minister for Science)(8.33) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. This Bill contains measures which will amend the Social Security Act 1947 and the Compensation (Commonwealth Government Employees) Act 1971. The main amendments to the Social Security Act 1947 are- the introduction of the `young homeless allowance'; a bar to payment of unemployment, sickness or special benefit to a full time student who is eligible, in principle, for an education allowance; a change in the treatment of lump sum compensation payable to sickness beneficiaries; and a change in the rate of benefit that applies to a legally married but permanently separated unemployment beneficiary to the rate that applies to a single unemployment beneficiary. The Bill will also provide for the social security amnesty. In `Youth Policies in the 1985-86 Budget', Budget Paper No. 13, the Government recognised the needs of unsupported young people, whether students or unemployed, and indicated that new provisions would be introduced, under strict conditions, to provide an independent rate of allowance equal to that of the living away from home rate under the tertiary education allowance. This Bill introduces a new allowance for 16- and 17-year-olds who are homeless and without support. It will increase the rate of income support received by 16- and 17-year-old unemployment, sickness and special beneficiaries, who currently receive $50 per week. The allowance, called the young homeless allowance, will result in such a beneficiary being eligible for a level of assistance equal to the tertiary education allowance, currently $73.28 per week. The allowance is available only on strict conditions, which are intended to ensure that only those in genuine need are assisted and that there is no undue incentive for a young beneficiary to leave home. The current measure will apply from 1 July 1986 and will cost $2m in 1986-87 and $2m in 1987-88, in broad terms. In conjunction with this development, the Bill also provides that unemployment or sickness benefit, and in consequence, special benefit, is not available to a full time student who is, in principle, eligible for an education allowance. The policy this reflects is that such persons should look to and be covered by education allowances rather than what are primarily workforce related benefits. There will be some cases where, following recent Administrative Appeal Tribunal decisions, a full time student receiving special benefit also receives an education allowance typically a secondary allowance scheme-SAS-payment. Since there will be a corresponding young homeless allowance available separately under the SAS program, most, if not all, of these beneficiaries will be more appropriately assisted by the education allowance, rather than special benefit. Full time students not eligible in principle for an education allowance may, however, qualify for benefit, as may some part time students who will not be eligible for education allowances. Consistent with the young homeless allowance, this measure will apply from 1 July 1986. However, transitional arrangements will ensure that an eligible beneficiary at that date may continue to receive benefit until the end of the academic year. This bar will create estimated savings of $10m in 1986-87 and $20m in 1987-88. The Bill will make new arrangements for the treatment of a lump sum amount of compensation received by a sickness beneficiary. In many cases there are lengthy delays in the resolution of compensation claims. Accordingly, the Act currently enables sickness benefit to be paid as an interim form of income support where a person qualified for benefit has a compensation claim pending, subject to the benefit being repaid, in whole or in part, where the claim is resolved in favour of the beneficiary. However, it is currently unclear whether a lump sum should be treated as compensation for the balance of the person's life, the balance of the person's working life, or some lesser period. The new arrangements would treat all lump sums in the same way by precluding a person from sickness benefit for a period calculated by dividing the lump sum by average weekly earnings, as measured by the Australian Statistician. This means that anyone receiving sickness benefit who is seeking lump sum compensation will be able to be certain as to the consequences for their sickness benefit. This initiative will apply to all lump sum payments which are paid or become payable on or after 1 July 1986, and will create estimated savings of $20m in 1986-87 and $20m in 1987-88. The Bill will change the rate of unemployment benefit which is applicable to a beneficiary who is legally married but permanently separated. Currently, such a person is eligible to the rate of $97.90 per week which is applicable to a single unemployment beneficiary with dependants, rather than the lower rate applicable to a single beneficiary without dependants, which is $91.45 per week. There is no difference in principle between a legally married but permanently separated person and a person who is not married. The abolition of this unintended anomaly will also mean that where a legally married but permanently separated beneficiary is divorced, the rate of benefit applicable will not thereby drop to the rate applicable to an unmarried person. This change will create savings of $4.5m in 1986-87 and $5m in 1987-88. The Bill will also provide a legislative base for the social security amnesty which was announced on 12 February 1986. The amnesty is, of course, one element of the Government's strategy designed to reduce significantly social security overpayments and to improve further the administration of pensions, benefits and allowances. The amnesty only applies to people who have omitted to do something-that is they failed to advise a change of financial or other circumstances. It has been specifically designed for people on the treadmill. In effect, these people want to set the record straight, surrender the payment completely, or have the rate corrected downwards. However, they have been afraid to come forward in the past because they fear prosecution or having to repay the amount overpaid to them. The amnesty allows these people to get off the treadmill without fear of repercussions. The amnesty does not apply to people who have deliberately told lies to increase their payment or commence a new one. It does not cover changes in circumstances which occur after 12 February 1986. It is worth emphasising that the amnesty is for `treadmill' cases-not for those deliberately cheating the system. The amnesty will have two main consequences. First, future outlays will be reduced because people who come forward between 12 February 1986 and 31 May 1986 under the amnesty will cease to receive payment or will be paid their correct entitlement in the future. Second, correcting the record in these cases will allow resources to be better targeted on the prevention, detection and recovery of overpayments in deliberate fraud cases. The Bill will also make a number of less significant changes and make minor or technical amendments which will up-grade the Act. I turn now to the amendments which this Bill would make to the Compensation (Commonwealth Government Employees) Act 1971. The principal aim of the amendments is to improve the administration of the compensation system. The three main reforms proposed by the Government would- extend the powers of the Commissioner for Employees' Compensation so that a claimant may be required to provide certain information; clarify a provision of the Act which gives rules for the calculation of weekly benefits to partially incapacitated employees; and remove the six months time limit within which a claim for compensation must be lodged. The Commissioner has occasionally had difficulties in obtaining information in support of a claim for compensation, particularly where the claimant has sought legal advice before making the claim for compensation. In the absence of sufficient information to determine a claim in favour of the claimant, the Commissioner must determine that liability to pay compensation does not exist. The claimant may then ask the Commissioner to reconsider that determination or seek review of the determination in the Administrative Appeals Tribunal. In general, if the reconsideration or appeal results in a more favourable determination, the claimant becomes entitled to legal costs associated with the reconsideration or appeal. Such costs are not payable in relation to the initial determination. To overcome some cases where there has been an apparent abuse of the system, the Commissioner's powers would be extended so that the provision of information relevant to a claim for compensation may be requested where the claimant has the information or can obtain it without unreasonable expense or inconvenience. If the claimant fails to comply with the request and subsequently seeks a reconsideration of the initial determination, the Commissioner may declare that the claimant's costs in relation to the reconsideration are not payable. A decision of this nature will itself be reviewable by the AAT. The powers of the AAT in relation to the costs of proceedings before it will also be varied by these amendments. The AAT may not make an order in relation to the cost of proceedings in a case where the claimant failed to comply with a request for information if the AAT is satisfied that, had the Commissioner had the information requested, the initial determination would have been more favourable to the claimant. The second reform proposed by the Government would clarify section 46 of the Compensation Act, which provides rules by which benefits payable to partially incapacitated employees are calculated. In calculating these benefits, the Commissioner is required to take account of the amount that the incapacitated employee is `able to earn' in some suitable employment or business. The phrase `able to earn' has been subject to various interpretations, such as `is actually earning' or `would be earning if he could find employment'. It is desirable to reduce this uncertainty. Accordingly, the Bill would insert a new sub-section 46 (4a) which would set out the factors to be taken into account in determining how much a partially incapacitated employee is able to earn. Those factors include the amount the employee is actually earning, the amount the employee would be earning if he or she had accepted an offer of suitable employment, and the amount that he or she would be earning if the employee had engaged or continued to engage in suitable employment. Where the employee has failed to seek suitable employment, the amount per week that, having regard to the state of the labour market at the relevant time, the employee could be expected to be earning in suitable employment could be taken into account. Other factors which can be considered are whether the employee's failure to accept an offer of employment, or to seek, engage or continue to engage in suitable employment was reasonable in the circumstances, as well as any other relevant matter. The third main amendment to the Act would remove a provision imposing a time limit on the lodgment of claims which is of little practical use. In general, a claim for compensation must be lodged within six months of the employee becoming aware of the injury or disease. However, the Act also provides that a claim for compensation made outside that period shall be deemed to have been made in good time if the Commonwealth would not be prejudiced if the claim were treated as a sufficient claim, or if the failure to lodge the claim within six months was a result of the death or absence from Australia of the claimant, or from ignorance, mistake or any other reasonable cause. In practice, these qualifications mean that few, if any, claims will fail because of late lodgment. The Bill would remove the prescribed six months period, so that claims need only be made in writing and served on the Commissioner. These are not all the changes to the Act which would be made by this Bill. Several other minor or technical amendments will be made and are referred to in the explanatory memorandum accompanying the Bill. None of the above measures has cost implications, and should produce small administrative savings. I commend the Bill to the House. I present the explanatory memorandum to the Bill. Debate (on motion by Mr Braithwaite) adjourned. Bill presented by Mr John Brown, and read a first time. Mr JOHN BROWN(Parramatta-Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism)(8.48) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. This Bill and the Australian Institute of Sport (Consequential Provisions), Bill 1986 are complementary and are to be considered concurrently. The Australian Institute of Sport Bill 1986 is for an Act which will, in effect, convert the Australian Institute of Sport from a public company to a Commonwealth statutory authority. The Australian Institute of Sport (Consequential Provisions) Bill 1986 is for an Act to provide for the dissolution of the company known as Australian Institute of Sport, in consequence of the establishment of a statutory authority by that name and for related purposes, including the transfer of assets to, and the assumption of liabilities by, the authority. The main Bill sets out the objects, functions and powers of the Institute and covers a wide range of issues relating to its management and operation. The Bill defines the relationship between the Institute and the Commonwealth within which the Institute will undertake its tasks. The complementary Bill ensures that there is administrative continuity between the company and the authority on the date of the effect of the legislation and ensures that the interests and entitlements of staff are protected. Background I do not intend to give a detailed address on the background, achievements and future of the Institute. That level of detail is provided in a supplementary statement on the Institute which I will provide to honourable members in due course. It is important, however, to reflect briefly on the Institute's development and progress over the last five years. In that relatively short time, the Institute has become the focus for top level sports development in Australia and has earned international recognition as a leading institution for the training and preparation of high performance sportsmen and sportswomen. It is timely now to review the Institute's objectives and direction after a period of sustained growth, to ensure that its future operations continue to reflect the aspirations and meet the needs of the Australian sporting community. In assessing the Institute's performance to date and canvassing options for its future development, it is important to review its origins. The Institute bears testimony to the vision of the Whitlam Labor Government, particularly Australia's first Commonwealth Minister for Tourism and Recreation, the late Frank Stewart. It was that Government, and that man in particular, who conceived and nurtured the Institute concept to the stage where it could be introduced to serve the interests and needs of the Australian sporting community. As part of its general commitment to improving the quality of life of all Australians, the Whitlam Government was keen to encourage men, women and children throughout Australia to enjoy and enrich their growing hours of leisure. In that context, Frank Stewart asked Professor John Bloomfield of the University of Western Australia to review the role, scope and development of sport and recreation in Australia. Professor Bloomfield's report, which became the platform for many Federal initiatives in sport and recreation, recommended, as one of many proposals, the establishment of a national institute of sport and recreation to provide leadership for and co-ordination of national sport and recreation programs, services and research. I should add here that it is most appropriate that Professor Bloomfield is still involved closely with the Institute and is currently Chairman of its board of management. To develop the Institute proposal further, Frank Stewart asked Dr Allan Coles, then from the University of Queensland, to lead a study group which would examine the feasibility of a national sports institute in the context of provisions existing in Australia for the adequate preparation and training of sportsmen, sportswomen, coaches and sports medicine personnel, and make recommendations as to the need for a national sports institute. After extensive consultation in Australia and an inspection of sports institutes overseas, the study group strongly recommended the establishment of such an institute as a major step towards meeting the needs of sport in Australia, with respect to both mass participation and excellence. Unfortunately for Australian sport, the study group's report was published in November 1975. The political stituation at that time meant that it was never formally adopted by government. Nonetheless, the report was the most significant literary contribution to Australian sport of its time and many of its recommendations have subsequently been put into practice by Federal, State and Territory governments. The momentum generated by the study group's report was dissipated over the following years by the incoming Government's initial lack of interest in the Australian Institute of Sport concept. It was not until 1980 that the then Minister for Home Affairs, Bob Ellicott, to his great and eternal credit, took up the proposal and was able to persuade the then Government to pursue it. The Institute was incorporated as a public company, the most expeditious way of com- mencing the enterprise, on 24 September 1980 and commenced operations on Australia Day 1981. In its first year, 151 athletes in eight residential sports-athletics, basketball, gymnastics, netball, soccer, swimming, tennis and weightlifting-attended the Institute. The responsibilities and functions of the Institute have grown considerably since, in keeping with the enhanced level of support and assistance provided by the present Government. For instance, whereas $4.5m was made available for the Institute's operation and programs in 1982-83, $13.944m was provided by this Government in 1985-86, including $2.944m for the management of what has in the past been known as the National Sports Centre, which was transferred to my portfolio in December 1984. In 1985-86, 297 athletes in 13 residential sports participated in the Institute's programs and over 2,200 athletes in 52 sports attended the Institute under the auspices of the national training centre program introduced in 1982. In addition to fulfilling its own charter as a centre of sports excellence, the Institute has played an important catalytic role in the establishment of similar institutes by State governments in New South Wales, South Australia, Western Australia and Tasmania-all of which have become important components of the national sports development network. The rapid expansion of the Institute's services has placed considerable pressure on the Institute. It is seen in some parts of Australia as being all things to all sportspeople. Despite its considerable facilities and resources it is not, and can never aspire to being such a broad and all-encompassing enterprise. Government Announcement By 1985-86 the Institute had grown further, into an enterprise that employed about 150 staff-there were 28 in 1980-81-had a budget of $13.944m and managed facilities costing $77.5m. In this situation, the Government felt it was appropriate to consider alternative modes of management and administration to carry the Institute into the future. As a result, on 18 November 1985 the Government announced its intention to convert the Australian Institute of Sport to a statutory authority. This move will enable the AIS to operate with fewer overall constraints than in the past. At present the Institute, as a company, is subject to two sets of constraints-those normally applicable to a statutory authority, which have been imposed by government decision and practices, and those legally imposed by companies legislation, which can involve, for example, additional reporting and special meeting requirements. The legislation will ensure appropriate accountability to the Government of the day and, through it, to this Parliament. Within this framework, it is and will remain, under clauses 10 and 25, the responsibility of the Institute's Board to ensure the proper and efficient performance of the functions of the Institute, determine its policies and direct the conduct of the affairs of the Institute by its Director. The new arrangements will bring the Institute into line with other national institutions, such as the Australian Sports Commission, the National Library and the Australian National Gallery, which are also largely Government funded. Under the new arrangements we propose formally transferring ownership of the facilities at the Bruce complex to the Institute. However, the community will continue to have substantial access to those facilities, compatible with Institute use, including for appropriate non-sporting purposes. Major Features of the Bills The main Bill, which builds on the experience of the Institute's operations over the last five years, outlines the Institute's objects, which are to provide resources, services and facilities to enable Australians to pursue excellence in sport, to improve sports coaching standards and to foster co-operation in sport between Australia and other countries. It is intended, in pursuance of clause 5 (b), that there be an added thrust to the Institute's coaching efforts-it being widely recognised in sporting circles that broad developments in coaching standards are essential to improving our performance in top grade sport and to engendering the right attitudes at all levels of sport. In that regard, I was attracted recently by the following comments by one of the world's greatest-ever sportsmen, Sir Donald Bradman, when he was the first inductee to the Hall of Fame at the Australian Gallery of Sport in Melbourne. The Don said that the role of coaches `is not only to encourage and improved athletic skill, but also to mould citizens who will be a credit to society and who will add to our nation's standing and reputation in all parts of the world'. The Bill, in clause 5 (a), not only recognises the original concept of achieving excellence in sport while also furthering educational and vocational skills but also specifically mentions the furthering of a participating sportsperson's personal development. In that regard, I am again drawn to thoughts expressed by Sir Donald Bradman, when he said: . . . Whilst I applaud our Government's newfound encouragement for the sporting fraternity, I hope nobody gets carried away by the mistaken notion that financial help and good facilities guarantee success. They merely open the door. Success must still be motivated from within. Hard work and dedication remain essential for all individuals who must embrace with equal fervour, opportunity and responsibility. The Bill defines the functions of the Institute, which include program implementation, facility management, the provision of sports medicine and sports science services and fund raising for Institute purposes. In performing these functions the Institute will consult widely with national and State sporting bodies and persons in the Australian sporting community, as appropriate. Appropriate consultation will also occur between governmental interests at the Federal and State or Territorial levels. It also specifies the powers that the Institute will have to undertake its work. These include the provision of scholarships, the ability to pursue commercial sponsorship of the Institute's activities and the distribution of articles bearing the Institute's logo. The Institute may also charge fees in respect of access to its resources and facilities. It is important to note that the Bill makes special mention of community access to the Institute's facilities. This has been a feature of the Institute's services to date and, as I mentioned earlier, will continue to be so. I would draw the attention of honourable members to those aspects of the Bill that define the powers and responsibilities of the Minister. The Government is anxious to ensure that the Institute operates within the framework of overall Government sports development objectives and policies-in accordance with a strategic plan to be prepared by the Institute for consideration by the Minister-and also in the broader context of Government objectives concerning the role of statutory authorities. These provisions make it clear that the Institute will be directly responsible to the Government. Together with the provisions that allow the Minister to issue directions to the Institute and review its financial estimates, they will ensure a due and proper degree of ministerial overview and responsibility in harmony with the increased size and importance of the Institute. The Bill contains the usual sorts of provisions related to a range of administrative and operational issues, including the appointment of members to the Board, remuneration and financial management. The members of the Board, will be appointed by the Governor-General. The Board itself will appoint the Director. I reiterate that the Institute will be required to submit estimates in respect of its proposed budget, will be subject to the scrutiny of the Auditor-General and will be required to publish an annual report, which will be presented to Parliament. The consequential provisions Bill is, as the title implies, required to cover all the `once-only' matters that are associated with the conversion of the company to the statutory authority. Its main effect is to dissolve the company on the commencement of the Act. I am advised that this is the most appropriate method of winding up the affairs of the company, in the context of simultaneously establishing the statutory authority. Honourable members will note that the statutory authority automatically assumes responsibility for the assets and liabilities of the company, so there will be administrative continuity between the two bodies. Particular attention is drawn to the various clauses which relate to protection of interests and rights of Institute staff. In effect, terms and conditions for transferred staff will be those which exist under the company. The statutory authority will be also required to fulfil the normal financial reporting requirements for 1985-86, on behalf of the company, and the standard arrangements for audit of the Institute's affairs for that year will be effected. Financial Impact Statement It is intended that the statutory authority be established on 1 July 1986, which is a particularly convenient date in terms of administrative arrangements and financial appropriations. At this stage the Government's allocation to the Institute for 1986-87, its first full year of operation as a statutory authority, is still being considered in the Budget context, and also in the context of a comprehensive review of the Institute's funding and staffing arrangements which is being carried out by the Department of Finance and the Institute. While it is the Government's concern that the Institute has sufficient funds available to continue its present level of activity, and over time to pursue a number of new sports development initiatives, such issues also need to be considered in the light of the Government's overall economic policy and the allocation of funds for the Australian Sports Commission and the Department of Sport, Recreation and Tourism, each of which have clear and specific responsibilities in the sector of sports development appropriate to their proper roles and structures. With the formal transfer to the AIS of responsibility for facilities management allied with the establishment of the Institute as a statutory authority, we look to general improvements in management and operational effectiveness, including the areas of maintenance and cleaning, purchasing, security, concessions and catering, facility usage and public relations, promotion and marketing activities. These improvements will be reflected, primarily, in better quality services to the public, AIS athletes and coaches, and commercial entrepreneurs. They should manifest themselves quantitatively in the medium term-say, two to three years-through increased revenue resulting from greater usage of the facilities. To give the AIS the flexibility it needs in the management of the complex, I also propose that it be funded in a single line appropriation, although the facilities' operating costs will be separately identified for accounting and management purposes. This Bill places the Australian Institute of Sport clearly within the ambit of the Government's commitment to overall management improvement within the public sector. I am confident that the proposed arrangements will enhance the quality of the Institute's functions without themselves leading to extra costs, and have a consequential impact on the standards of sports performance and coaching in this country. The Future Honourable members will note that the Bill provides for the Board of the Institute to prepare a strategic plan, initially for three years and then updated regularly. The initial plan, and any variations to it, will need to be approved by me. Work on the first plan is currently being done. As mentioned earlier, I shall be providing a separate statement of the history, achievements and possible future directions of the Institute. At this stage I wish to say, however, that the Government has been committed to the consolidation and, subsequently, the extension of Institute programs and activities to ensure that the maximum number of Australians can benefit from them over time. I am sure that the growing bond between the Institute and State institutes of sport will be strengthened over time. Such co-operative arrangements can only enhance the range of opportunities available to our sports-people and further develop Australian sport. It is likely that there will be greater opportunities for non-resident athletes to use the Institute's resources through such measures as the national training centre program and the satellite coaches program. Although the Institute is located in Canberra, we see it servicing the needs of Australia and, as a consequence, will be looking to ensure that its advice, services and resources are readily available to those needing them through the decentralisation program already commenced in Perth and Brisbane. This short overview of the Institute's origins, development and future is intended to demonstrate to honourable members the significance of its role in Australian sport and sports development. The Government remains committed to providing the optimum training environment and technical support for our leading athletes. It remains committed to the provision of increased opportunities for Australian sportspeople to reach their potential. It remains committed to the role of the Institute in achieving those objectives. However, I would remind honourable members that the Institute does not stand alone as the vehicle for the development of sport in this country. Programs administered by the Australian Sports Commission, which was conceived and developed by the current Government, and established as a statutory authority on 1 July 1985, extend assistance to all levels of the Australian sporting structure and balance the top-level orientation of the Institute. These initiatives complement and balance the functions of my Department, which will continue to provide policy advice on sport and recreation matters, as well as administer major facility development programs and sport and recreation programs for the disabled, and implement recreation, fitness and safety initiatives which will enhance the leisure environment for all Australians. The record of this Government in providing assistance for sport in Australia is unique. Our support has enhanced the capacity and capability of the Australian sporting infrastructure to cope better with the increasing demands placed on it. The Government firmly believes that the Australian Institute of Sport is vital to sports development in Australia and to Australia's re-emergence on the world's sporting fields. The Government is dedicated to ensuring that its significance and status will not be diminished. I commend the Bill to the House. I also present the explanatory memorandum attached to the Bill. Debate (on motion by Mr White) adjourned. Bill presented by Mr John Brown, and read a first time. Mr JOHN BROWN(Parramatta-Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism)(9.09) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. As I outlined the objectives and provisions of the Australian Institute of Sport (Consequential Provisions) Bill 1986 when the preceding Bill, the Australian Institute of Sport Bill, was introduced, there is no need for a further explanation on this Bill. I present the explanatory memorandum. Debate (on motion by Mr White) adjourned. Bill presented by Mr Barry Jones, and read a first time. Mr BARRY JONES(Lalor-Minister for Science and Minister Assisting the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce)(9.10) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. This Bill provides for a payment to be made to domestic oil companies as reimbursement for liftings made under the crude oil allocation scheme in February 1986 at the January import parity price-IPP. As honourable members will be only too well aware, since late January there has been a dramatic fall in world oil prices. The IPP for Bass Strait crude lifted in February was $43.71 a barrel. As from 1 March the price fell to $27.09 a barrel, a fall of 38 per cent, and it fell a further $6.10 a barrel on 1 April. Domestic oil companies which, in compliance with the voluntary crude oil allocation scheme, continued to lift high priced domestic crude during February, faced significant losses when this crude was refined and came onto the market after the lower crude oil prices were reflected in lower maximum wholesale prices by the Prices Surveillance Authority. The potential loss to companies for all their inventory holdings at the end of February was estimated to be between $575m and $600m. Stock gains and losses are a normal feature of commercial activity and it is usually open to enterprises to arrange their affairs so that the financial impact of price variations is optimised to the benefit of the enterprise. In the case of oil refiners, faced with the dramatic fall in world crude oil prices, one option would have been to stop lifting indigenous crude oil until its price reflected the international market. Such action would have been disastrous for the domestic producers, as well as for government revenues. Consequently, to ensure that the indigenous crude oil lifting program was adhered to in February, the Government gave an undertaking to the refiners that it would deal sympathetically with their inventory problem. The Government undertook to reimburse the refiners for their liftings of high priced indigenous crude oil in February. The total gross amount involved is $210.6m. This is calculated as total allocation liftings in February times the difference between the prevailing IPP and the IPP at 1 March 1986. This amount is offset by the value of product sales, recorded as entered for home consumption, made in the period in March before the Prices Surveillance Authority determined new maximum wholesale prices. The value of these sales-adjusted to take into account both the imported component of those product sales, 25 per cent, and those products that do not carry an excise component and are therefore not recorded as entries for home consumption, 10 per cent-was $85.8m, leaving a reimbursement to be made to oil companies of $124.8m. The payment will be disbursed to individual companies on the basis of their share of liftings under the crude oil allocation scheme and on the condition that they have settled all inter-company obligations under the scheme. Clearly, it would be wrong for anyone to see the payment as a windfall gain for the industry-it is reimbursement for losses incurred during February, as a result of the 1 March IPP change, over which the refiners had little or no control. They could not take normal commercial action to minimise these losses and at the same time comply with their obligations under the crude oil allocation scheme. Refiners always bear some commercial risks in holding stocks-and have accepted the normal ups and downs. However, the circumstances they faced in February could certainly not be seen as normal and the payment should not be regarded as setting a precedent. Indeed, no similar payment has been made in regard to the 1 April adjustment to the import parity price recently announced. Following the Government's announcement on 24 February partially to reimburse refiners for inventory losses, there has been some suggestion that similar treatment be given to retailers for stock losses they may have suffered. However, such suggestions have obviously taken little or no consideration of the different circumstances in which retailers and refiners operate: Retailers were not obligated, like refiners, to purchase high priced stocks in February. Retailers were free to run down their stocks in anticipation of the fall in price of petroleum products. In fact retailers were free to exercise the full range of commercial options to maximise their financial returns and minimise their losses. Whilst refiners normally hold between 50 to 60 days stock, city retailers hold only 3 to 7 days stocks and country retailers about 9 to 10 days stocks. The retailers potential exposure to stock losses is therefore a great deal less than for refiners. Retailers are also free to set their prices on the basis of market forces. They have had the commercial option of not lowering their prices until higher priced stocks were exhausted. For refiners the timing of any price change and the maximum wholesale price for their product are set by the Prices Surveillance Authority. It was for these reasons that the Government could find no justification for extending the stock reimbursement scheme to cover petroleum retailers. The Bill provides fair compensation to domestic refiners who continued to meet their obligations by lifting higher priced crude oil in February under the crude oil allocation scheme. The allocation scheme has operated effectively since the late 1960s and the Government has not been prepared to see it placed in jeopardy because of the totally unpredictable international oil market conditions that prevailed in February. The crude oil allocation scheme provides an assured market for locally produced crudes and an important incentive to continuing petroleum exploration and development in Australia. I present the explanatory memorandum to the Bill and commend the Bill to the House. Debate (on motion by Mr White) adjourned. Bill presented by Mr Barry Jones, and read a first time. Mr BARRY JONES(Lalor-Minister for Science and Minister Assisting the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce)(9.19) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. This Bill proposes various amendments to customs and excise laws to implement government decisions which, in particular, alter the arrangements relating to concessions on goods re-imported after repair or renovation, provide for the termination of compulsory maturation for brandy, whisky and rum and remove a sex discrimination provision in the Excise Act. A number of other amendments of a technical or administrative nature have been included in the Bill and I will provide brief details of the more important of these in a few moments. The provisions of clauses 16 to 18 which introduce new procedures into the Customs Act for concessions on goods re-imported after repair or renovation-that should interest the Opposition-follow the Government's acceptance of the Industries Assistance Commission recommendations contained in its report on re-import concessions dated 16 November 1984. That report recommended a number of new arrangements for re-imported goods, the bulk of which were implemented on 22 November 1985. At that time it was announced that the proposals affecting concessions on goods re-imported after repair or renovation would be delayed until necessary amendments could be made to the Customs Act. It would be useful if I were to first outline the measures which were implemented on 22 November 1985 by way of customs tariff proposals. From that date any goods or parts of goods re-imported without change to their identity have been eligible for duty free entry if all taxes and charges payable on original entry have been paid and not refunded. This duty free eligibility applies to re-imported goods or parts irrespective of the length of time the goods have been overseas, and irrespective of whether the goods or parts had entered the commerce of another country or changed ownership. Additionally, goods re-imported after being repaired or renovated are now assessed for duty on the repair value only and the rate of duty applicable is the rate applying to the parent goods if there has been no change in the identity of the parent goods. Finally, any goods repaired overseas, or replaced, under a specific warranty may be re-imported duty free. The provisions of this Bill complete the re-import package by authorising the Comptroller-General of Customs to make a commercial tariff concession order which will permit duty free entry of goods re-imported after repair or renovation if it is established that the repair or renovation is not capable of being performed in Australia in the normal course of business. Provision is made for orders to be made in respect of repairs or renovations to particular goods or particular repairs or renovations to a class or classes of goods. The Comptroller-General also has the discretionary power to refuse to make an order if the making of the order would be likely to have a substantially adverse effect on the market for any goods or services in Australia or would not be in the national interest. Concessions for goods repaired overseas have operated for many years but have lacked the precision and simplicity proposed by the new arrangement. The new arrangements are to be inserted into Part 15A of the Customs Act, which contains the provisions governing the administration of the commercial tariff concession system. By utilising the established commercial tariff concessions system in that part of the Act the Government believes that Australian repairers will be given a much better opportunity to demonstrate their capacity. Applicants for the concessions will need to document fully and support their applications. If a prima facie case is established, notification of a proposal to make the relevant tariff concession order will be published in the Commonwealth of Australia Gazette. The concession order will be issued only if, after 28 days following publication, no objections to the order have been received. The provisions of Part 6 of the Bill propose to terminate the compulsory maturation requirements for brandy, whisky and rum as currently contained in the Spirits Act. I should emphasise that the termination will not take place until 1 April 1990. Following a review of regulations applicable to spirituous beverages, the Government announced on 4 May 1984 that the compulsory maturation of the spirits would be retained at that time but that the issue would be examined with a view to abolition in three to four years. The Government's examination of the issue, which involved in particular health and quality standards, revealed a significant divergence of industry opinion on the question of compulsory maturation. Firms with a tradition of producing matured spirits favoured retention while other interests suggested that the market, and not government regulation, should be the determining factor. The Government considers that removal of compulsory maturation will allow producers to prepare unmatured products if the market dictates such a requirement. Production of matured products could continue, commanding whatever price the market would pay. Removal of the requirement is also consistent with the Government's policy to remove unnecessary business regulation. It should be noted, however, that States and Territories, which are currently responsible for food and beverage standards in Australia, still require maturation under State and Territory law. Further, some investment in wooden casks has been made for maturation purposes. In view of this, we have decided to postpone termination until 1 April 1990. This will, we believe, provide more than adequate time for any necessary adjustments to be made within the industry. The amendment proposed in clause 24 of the Bill proposes to bring the Excise Act into harmony with section 40 of the Sex Discrimination Act. If the Excise Act is not amended as proposed, Section 40 of the Sex Discrimination Act will render search of persons under the Excise Act unlawful. The amendment therefore proposes that where persons are to be searched for the purposes of the Excise Act they are only to be searched by persons of the same sex as the person to be searched. Section 104 of the Excise Act currently restricts searches of females by a female searcher but would permit a female searcher to search a male person. I now turn to the more important amendments of a technical or administrative nature. Part 2 of the Bill proposes to amend the Coal Excise Act to provide now that the excise duty imposed by the Act is to be paid on the amount of coal sold by a producer as shown on the invoice document provided by the producer to the purchaser. The legislation currently requires excise to be paid on the quantity of coal produced and removed from a mine. In today's operations some producers have difficulty in complying with this requirement, since beneficiation of raw coal to meet higher quality standards often takes place at locations remote from the producer's mine. This contrasts with the situation in the industry at the time the excise was imposed in 1949 when practically no beneficiation took place. The amendments will align the Act with current industry practice and will have no effect on the amount of duty paid by the producers. The proposed administrative amendments in Part 3 of the Bill amend the Customs Act as a consequence of the introduction of the Protection of the Movable Cultural Heritage Bill 1985, currently before the Senate. That Bill proposes to protect Australia's heritage of cultural objects and extend certain forms of protection to the cultural heritage of other nations so as to enable Australia to accede to the 1970 United Nations Educational Scientific and Cultural Organisation Convention on the means of prohibiting and preventing the illicit import or export of cultural property. Regulations under the Protection of Movable Cultural Heritage Act will specify the material to be controlled. The amendments now proposed to the Customs Act provide the necessary authority for officers of Customs to seize cultural objects as notified by the Minister for Arts, Heritage and Environment when those objects are subject to the control of the Customs. Finally, the significant technical amendment in Part 5 of the Bill proposes to bring the provisions of the Excise Act into line with the Customs Act provisions which relate to entry of ship's and aircraft's stores. The proposed new section 58d of the Excise Act makes provision for the regulations to exempt goods from the requirement of entry as ship's and aircraft's stores in certain circumstances. It is intended that exemptions will apply, for example, in cases where stores are removed and placed on board aircraft under Customs supervision and permission. Financial Impact Statement The provisions of this Bill have no direct financial implications. I commend the Bill to the House. I present the explanatory memorandum to this Bill. Debate (on motion by Mr Tuckey) adjourned. Bill presented by Mr Barry Jones, and read a first time. Mr BARRY JONES(Lalor-Minister for Science and Minister Assisting the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce)(9.29) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. Excise Tariff Amendment Bill Excise Tariff Amendment Bill Excise Tariff Amendment Bill Excise Tariff Amendment Bill The main purpose of this Bill is to incorporate into the Excise Tariff Act 1921 a number of excise tariff proposals requiring enactment following tabling in the Parliament. The Bill also proposes to introduce a new item into the Tariff Act as a consequence of the introduction of inwards duty free shopping at international airports and to vary the excise duty concessions available to vice-regal persons following a review of existing arrangements. Clause 3 of the Bill, which operates from 23 May 1985, abolishes the excise duty on wine produced with added sugar and introduces revised definitions and restructured tariff items dealing with brandy, whisky, rum and liqueurs. The item relating to wine produced with added sugar was introduced in the 1930s for the purpose of inhibiting the manufacture of wine made by adding sugar before fermentation. State legislation prohibits this practice, rendering the provision in the excise tariff redundant. The new definitions and restructured tariff items relating to brandy, whisky, rum and liqueurs stem from a detailed review or legislation covering wines and spirits undertaken jointly by the Food Standards Committee of the National Health and Medical Research Council and Commonwealth Government departments. The provisions in this Bill bring the Excise Tariff Act into harmony with new standards for wines and spirits accepted by the Government and being adopted by State governments. The changes in clauses 4 and 5 of the Bill alter the excise duty rates on manufactured tobacco and on naturally occurring liquefied petroleum gas with effect from 20 August 1985 and 1 October 1985 respectively. Progressive increases in the tobacco duty were foreshadowed in the 1983-84 Budget when measures progressively to align the excise rate for tobacco with that applying to cigarettes and cigars were announced. The increase in clause 4 of the Bill represents a further step towards elimination of the difference between the relevant excise duty rates. The increase in the excise duty on LPG in clause 5 is made in accordance with the Government's LPG excise policy. Briefly, that policy provides for the LPG excise rate to be calculated on the basis of 60 per cent of the amount by which the weighted average price for naturally occurring LPG exceeds $147 per tonne. The average price is calculated as a weighted average of the price received from exports and local sales of LPG. The proposed new item 21 of the tariff as contained in clause 6 of the Bill is part of the legislative package necessary to facilitate the introduction of inwards duty free shopping at international airports in Australia. The provisions of item 21 will remove the excise duty on any excisable portion of the limited quantity of airport shop goods available as passenger concessions if purchased at inwards duty free shops. The bulk of the legislative package was passed by the Parliament in the Budget sittings last year. It contained amendments to the Customs Act, the excise Act and various sales tax laws. Amendments to appropriate regulations are being undertaken separately and it is proposed that the total legislative package come into force on 1 May 1986. Inwards duty free shops, which will be located at the airports between the disembarkation area and the Customs barrier, will sell only alcoholic liquor, tobacco products and perfume to passengers arriving on international flights. That does not cover Tasmania. The duty concessions available to passengers will not alter. Mr Hodgman —What about between New Zealand and Tasmania? Mr BARRY JONES —No, coming to the mainland. They are currently one litre of alcoholic liquor and 250 grams of tobacco products. There is no specific limit on the amount of perfume eligible for the duty concession, provided the amount does not represent a commercial quantity. Finally, the provisions of clause 7 of the Bill alter the excise duty concessions available to vice-regal persons and their staff. The provisions propose to remove the concessions on articles for the personal use of vice-regal persons, and articles for the official or personal use of staff members who are not Australian citizens. The existing concessions date back to when governors and their staff were nearly always appointed from outside Australia. It comes perhaps 150 years too late. This is now not the case and the Government therefore believes that there is no longer any justification to continue duty concessions on goods for personal use or on goods for staff members who are not Australian citizens. There is no change to the concessions available on goods for the official use of the Governor-General or State Governors or members of their families. Financial Impact Statement The alterations contained in clause 3 of the Bill have no direct financial implications. Increases in the excise duties on tobacco and LPG as set out in clauses 4 and 5 of the Bill are expected to result in increases in revenue of $3.75m in 1985-86 and $5m in a full year in the case of manufactured tobacco and $18m in the case of LPG in 1985-86. The introduction of inwards duty free shops is expected to benefit airport concessions revenues by about $5m in a full year. The alterations to the vice-regal concessions will have minimal financial implications. I commend the Bill to the House. I present the explanatory memorandum for the Bill. Debate (on motion by Mr Tuckey) adjourned. Bill presented by Mr Barry Jones, and read a first time. Mr BARRY JONES(Lalor-Minister for Science and Minister Assisting the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce)(9.35) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. Bounty and Subsidy Amendment Bill Bounty and Subsidy Amendment Bill Bounty and Subsidy Amendment Bill Bounty and Subsidy Amendment Bill This Bill proposes a number of amendments to certain bounty and subsidy Acts administered by the Comptroller-General of Customs. For some time it has been the practice in this Parliament wherever possible to have cognate debates on bounty and subsidy schemes. Consistent with this practice this omnibus Bill contains all of the proposed amendments to bounty and subsidy Acts which are at this time required to be dealt with in the 1986 autumn sittings. New bounty and subsidy schemes will continue to be self-contained in individual Bills in the usual way. The most important measures in this Bill, which I will detail shortly, propose amendments to, firstly, the Bounty (Computers) Act to enable bounty to be paid under the provisions of that Act on modems and multiplexers generally used with computers; secondly, the Bounty (High Alloy Steel Products) Act to introduce separate bounty schedules for high alloy steel bar products and stainless steel flat products; and, thirdly, the Bounty (Ships) Act to enable bounty to be paid under the provisions of that Act on certain hovercraft. The significant amendments to the other bounty Acts acquit undertakings given by the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce (Senator Button) to the Senate Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills to provide a right of review of determinations by the Comptroller-General of Customs in respect of the effective registration date of premises and, in the case of the Bounty (Metal Working Machines and Robots) Act decisions by the Minister in relation to the modification of bountiable equipment. The other amendments contained in the Bill are of a formal nature which either correct minor errors discovered in the principal Acts or slightly vary schemes to ensure that any bounty or subsidy is correctly paid. I now turn to the major amendments proposed in this Bill. The addition of modems and multiplexers to the definition of `bountiable equipment' under the Bounty (Computers) Act is proposed as a consequence of the Government's consideration of the Industries Assistance Commission report No. 352 of 5 October 1984 on telecommunications and related equipment and parts. Modems and multiplexers are communications equipment used as the link between computers to enable them to communicate with one another. The Government's acceptance of the IAC recommendation of a 25 per cent value added production bounty on modems and multiplexers generally used with computers was announced on 10 October 1985. The decision to introduce this bounty on units produced after 1 July 1986 recognises the increasing convergence of telecommunications and computer technologies and the need for consistency in the assistance accorded the various segments of the information industries. The introduction of the bounty together with consequential tariff changes is designed to remove assistance anomalies between these goods and other computer equipment, reduce problems of product substitution, and complement earlier Government decisions designed to foster the local computer hardware industry and avoid cost imposts associated with the widespread use of computer equipment. Finally, in relation to this Act, the provisions of clause 9 of the Bill which are in similar terms to section 9 of the Bounty (Metal Working Machines and Robots) Act make it clear that an Industries Assistance Commission report is not required prior to the making of any ministerial declarations for the purposes of section 5 of the Act. The provisions of section 5 of the Act provide the facility to vary the classes of equipment eligible for bounty by ministerial gazettes notice. This facility is essential to cater for the rapidity of technological change in this industry and thereby keep the Government assistance package relevant to the needs of the industry. It was the intention from the inception of the legislation that section 5 variations would be made without an IAC inquiry on each occasion, though they would still be subject to parliamentary scrutiny through the usual tabling and disallowance procedures. The amendments to the Bounty (High Alloy Steel Products) Act in Part 5 of the Bill replace the present single schedule of bounty rates with separate schedules for high alloy steel bar products and stainless steel flat products. This alteration is proposed as a consequence of the Government's acceptance of a recommendation by the Steel Industry Authority. When the present bounty arrangements were put in place Comsteel, the major producer of steel bar products, was also the sole producer of steel flat products. Following an industry reorganisation in April 1984 the production of bar and flat products respectively was transferred to the separate companies of Comsteel Vickers and the Broken Hill Proprietary Co. Ltd coated products division. As a result of relatively buoyant market conditions being experienced by the manufacturer of flat products, bounty payments for both sectors of the market have been at low levels. This has been detrimental to the manufacturer of bar products, Comsteel Vickers, which is experiencing depressed market conditions. The proposals in this Bill are thus designed to enable each sector of the industry to receive an appropriate level of bounty assistance based on product sales, as intended under the steel industry plan. The new schedules are constructed on a similar sliding scale to the present arrangements, providing maximum assistance at uneconomic levels of output and phasing out at higher levels. A maximum bounty rate of 20 per cent will be payable where the annual rate of sales is less than 10,500 tonnes for high alloy steel bar products and less than 10,000 tonnes for stainless steel flat products respectively. No bounty is payable where the annual rate of sales is in excess of 23,000 tonnes for bar products and 25,000 tonnes for flat products. The previous bounty ceiling of $9m, which applied to the combined sales of both sectors will be apportioned on the basis of $3.28m for bar products and $5.72m for flat products. The new bounty schedules are to apply retrospectively from 1 July 1985. The last of the major proposals contained in Part 7 of this Bill will permit bounty to be paid under the Bounty (Ships) Act on the production of hovercraft-type vessels of over 150 gross construction tons if such vessels are registered as ships and used to convey passengers or goods solely or principally over waterways. Hovercraft were previously excluded from bounty eligibility in 1980 because there was no hovercraft industry in Australia at that time, and the construction techniques then employed and the method of propulsion, principally jet engined, were considered to relate more to the aircraft industry than to shipbuilding. Since then, however, Australian industry has developed the capacity to manufacture air-cushioned vehicles, commonly referred to as hovercraft, using shipyard techniques and powered by diesel marine engines. These vessels are registered and controlled under the relevant shipping regulations. As such vessels compete directly with high speed ferries and hydrofoils, both of which are eligible for bounty under the Act, it has been decided to extend the present Act to cover these air-cushioned vessels. The impact on bounty payments is expected to be slight as hovercraft essentially compete with other high speed vessels and any hovercraft sales would be largely at the expense of the other craft. In conjunction with the bounty proposal it is proposed that air-cushioned vehicles falling to chapter 89 of the Customs Tariff Act which exceed 150 gross construction tons and which are currently dutiable at 25 per cent, will be free of duty. This will bring hovercraft into line with the tariff treatment accorded other bountiable vessels in the Customs Tariff Act. Financial Impact Statement The inclusion of modems and multiplexers as bountiable products under the Bounty (Computers) Act is expected to cost an additional $3.5m per annum in bounty payments under that Act in 1986-87. It is anticipated that the bounty payments under the new steel arrangements in the Bounty (High Alloy Steel Products) Act will be about $4.3m in 1985-86 compared with $3.5m under the existing arrangements. With respect to the proposed amendments to the Bounty (Ships) Act the market potential for hovercraft has been assessed at two per annum, involving bounty payments of approximately $1.2m. However overall expenditure is expected to be minimal as the hovercraft would be essentially competing with other high speed bountiable vessels and any sales of hovercraft would largely be at the expense of those other craft. The other proposed amendments in this Bill have no direct financial implications. I commend the Bill to the House. I present the explanatory memorandum to the Bill. Debate (on motion by Mr Tuckey) adjourned. Mr BARRY JONES(Lalor-Minister for Science and Minister Assisting the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce)(9.45) —I move: Customs Tariff Proposals No. 5 (1986). The proposals which I have just tabled relate to proposed alterations to the Customs Tariff Act 1982. The changes, which will operate on and from tomorrow, implement the Government's decisions on the Industries Assistance Commission's report on electric motors and generating sets. The Government has accepted the Industries Assistance Commission's recommendation that the long term general tariff rate of duty for alternating current and universal electric motors should remain at 25 per cent and that interim assistance at a general tariff rate of 30 per cent for certain motors should revert to the long term rate of 25 per cent. The Government has also accepted the Industries Assistance Commission's recommendations in respect of the long term rate to apply to alternating current generating sets, except in respect of sets having a rating exceeding 500 kVA. An alternating current generating set comprises an alternating current generator coupled to a motor which may be a petrol engine, diesel engine or, in the case of larger units, a water, steam or gas turbine. From tomorrow alternating current generating sets having a rating not exceeding 5 kVA will be subject to a general tariff rate of 25 per cent phasing after one year to 20 per cent and to 15 per cent after a further year. Alternating current generating sets having a rating exceeding 5 kVA but not exceeding 25 kVA will be subject to a general tariff rate of 20 per cent phasing to 15 per cent after one year. Other alternating current generating sets not exceeding 500 kVA will be subject to a general tariff rate of 15 per cent from tomorrow. The Industries Assistance Commission recommended a long term rate of 15 per cent for all alternating current generating sets. However, alternating current generating sets having a rating exceeding 500 kVA are currently bound at a rate of free under the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade. As there would be significant adverse trade implications should the Government seek release from this binding, it has been decided that alternating current generating sets exceeding 500 kVA should remain at a rate of free. A summary of the alterations contained in these proposals has been prepared and is being circulated for the information of honourable members. I commend the proposals to the House. Debate (on motion by Mr Tuckey) adjourned. Bill presented by Mr Cohen, and read a first time. Mr COHEN(Robertson-Minister for Arts, Heritage and Environment)(9.50) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. The purpose of this Bill is to give effect to improved arrangements for administering the Environment Protection (Impact of Proposals) Act 1974 and to provide greater emphasis on public involvement in carrying out environmental assessment under the Act. The object of the Act, which came into force in 1974, is to ensure that to the greatest extent practicable matters affecting the environment to a significant extent are fully examined and taken into account in relation to actions and decisions of the Commonwealth Government and its authorities. The administrative procedures under the Act provide a means of achieving this objective through a process of environmental assessment which includes provision for the preparation and public review of environmental impact statements. The Act is a cornerstone of the Government's environment protection legislation. Under its provisions the environmental implications of a wide range of proposals have been examined. These include airports, railways, ports, highways, buildings, and coal, iron ore, uranium and woodchip export projects. The amendments proposed by this Bill are the result of a comprehensive review of the Act by the Government. In carrying out the review, the Government has taken into account key elements in the Australian Labor Party platform on the environment and has benefited from several reports from parliamentary committees. On 11 October 1984 I tabled a statement in this House which provided a response to 19 recommendations in reports by the House of Representatives Standing Committee on environment and Conservation, and two recommendations in a report of the Senate Standing Committee on National Resources, all dealing with various aspects of the legislation and related matters. Earlier today I tabled the Government's response to the recommendations of the May 1985 report from the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Environment and Conservation entitled `Administration of the Environment Protection (Impact of Proposals) Act 1974'. I would like to comment on one recommendation in this report that the Government has decided not to adopt. That recommendation calls for an amendment to the Act to enable the environment Minister to initiate action under the Act. As honourable members will be aware, the current procedure is for the Minister responsible for making the decision on a proposal-known as the action Minister-to make a decision on the environmental significance of a proposal and, by designating a proponent, formally initiate action under the Act. After giving this matter long and careful consideration, the Government has decided not to change the current procedure. However, in reaching a decision, the Government took into account two important procedures. The first is that memoranda of understanding are to be agreed between the environment Department and other Commonwealth departments and authorities. These memoranda will provide a clear basis for identifying proposals that are environmentally significant. The second is that, in the rare event that there is a difference of opinion between Ministers on the environmental significance of a particular proposal, the matter would be resolved by the normal process of referral to the Prime Minister and Cabinet. The Act will continue to provide for the preparation, public review and submission to the Commonwealth environment Minister, of environmental impact statements-EISs for proposals of major environmental significance. Amendments will provide, however, for the preparation of public environment reports-PERs-for proposals with less complex or less important environmental implications. Experience has shown that many proposals of a localised nature, or involving only one or two issues of environmental significance, arouse considerable public interest. Such proposals may not warrant the preparation of an EIS, which is normally a comprehensive document requiring considerable time and resources to prepare in draft and then final form. However, under current procedures there is no provision for obtaining public comment on the environmental aspects of proposals, except through the procedures associated with an EIS. A PER, however, will be a simpler and less costly document than an EIS, but will still provide a sound basis for public comment and government consideration. The Act currently places an obligation for a proponent to provide the environment Minister or his department with sufficient information to enable the Minister to decide whether an EIS should be prepared. Experience has shown that this obligation is not sufficiently clearly expressed, so an amendment of the Act will permit the Minister to require the supply of information to enable him to consider the need for an EIS or a PER. Section 10 of the Act enables any person to write to the Minister asking what action has been taken, or is proposed, to assess a proposal under the provisions of the Act. The Minister is required to respond promptly to such requests. This provision is consistent with Government policy on freedom of information and has been frequently utilised. However, the requirement for the Minister to respond promptly was considered too vague by the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Environment and Conservation, which recommended that a period of three months be specified. The Government accepts this recommendation, and the Act will be amended accordingly. The Act enables the Minister to direct an inquiry on any environmentally significant matter for which a Commonwealth action or decision will be required. The inquiry process calls for the convening of a commission to conduct the inquiry and for the commission to report its findings and recommendations to the Minister. However, there is no provision in the Act for a commission to report within a specified time. This could lead to practical difficulties. Accordingly, the Act will be amended to enable the Minister to direct a commission to report its findings and recommendations by a specified date. The Government's intentions to improve the administration of the environmental assessment process and to provide scope for wider public consultation are largely reflected by amendments which will be made to the administrative procedures under the Act. These amendments respond to many of the recommendations made by the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Environment and Conservation and will be presented to the Governor-General-in-Council for approval in due course. I would like briefly to touch on the more significant of these amendments. A number of the amendments will improve the current mechanism for the preparation, public review and reporting on EISs. The amendments include making public the decision of the Minister to direct an EIS on a proposal and, on written request, to require the Minister to make public the reasons for not directing an EIS on a proposal. Provision will be made, following the direction of an EIS, for consultation between the Department, other governmental authorities and public interest groups, on the guidelines for the preparation of the EIS. Provision will also be made for consultation between the Department and the proponent during the preparation of an EIS, to ensure that an adequate response is made to the guidelines. Other important amendments will provide for ministerial discretion to extend the period of public review beyond the current 28-day minimum, to direct a round-table discussion on a proposal following public review of an EIS, and to make public the Department's assessment report prepared after examination of a final EIS and the Minister's recommendations following such examination. Two further amendments will relate to Government collaboration with the States and Territories. One will give formal status to the Minister's discretion to take into account any State or Territory environmental assessment action when deciding whether an EIS or a PER is required. The other will provide the Minister with authority to enter into arrangements with the States and Territories to facilitate the operation of the administrative procedures and to require that these arrangements be made public. The Environment Protection (Impact of Proposals) Act 1974 is a major piece of legislation which, since its introduction, has significantly assisted Ministers in taking environmental implications properly into account in Government decision making. The amendments to the Act and administrative procedures which the Government intends to make will further improve the effectiveness of the process. I commend the Bill to the House. I also present the explanatory memorandum. Debate (on motion by Mr Tuckey) adjourned. Debate resumed. Mr CAMPBELL(Kalgoorlie)(10.00) —Before the debate on this statement was interrupted by the demands of the stomach I was saying that it was a pity that the people suffering from the rural crisis are the innovators, the people with initiative, the people who tried to achieve things, often young people, who have failed really through no fault of their own and often through factors imposed on them from outside. I think this is a potential tragedy for industry. It means that, in 10 years time, we will be left with people who essentially did nothing. Let us face it; many of the people who are well off today in the rural areas are simply those who used no innovation, who sat back and who did not try to improve or advance agriculture in any way. They tend to be a moribund lot. Unfortunately, if we allow the threatened innovative group to go out of the industry we will be left with these other people as the leaders in the future, which does not augur well for agriculture. It will be a pity because the Kerin package is a package for change and initiative. It is a package which will allow the necessary innovations to take place in industry. I think we will have to address many problems. Plant variety rights will have to be addressed. We will have to get productivity up. While people lament and say that Australian farmers are the most productive in the world we must question whether this is really true for Europe is getting productivity levels four and five times as high as we are getting. If one were to reduce the levels of protection there the farmers would simply plant more crops to compensate. We must also look at the market potential. One of the things we have not attacked is the common agricultural policy. There is a weak link in the common agricultural policy and I believe that that weak link is the United Kingdom. When we go to France and Germany we find that the folk memory there is one of starvation. The people there all defend their common agricultural policy. But in the United Kingdom the folk memory is of good quality Australian products at a cheap price and there is a lot of goodwill there for us. So we should be looking to re-establishing industrial trade links with the United Kingdom. Unfortunately, it seems to be a habit these days that one proves one is a macho Australian by kicking a Pom. One can grovel to a Yank or a Jap, but as long as one kicks a Pom one can be seen as a macho Australian. I think this has been seen a lot in the area of defence purchasing. We could get better stuff cheaper from the United Kingdom but other decisions have been taken. The right wing of the Conservative Party in the United Kingdom is opposed to the Common Market and the left wing of the Labour Party is opposed to the Common Market. There is room there for development and room for us to advance our cause. I am very pleased that the Minister for Trade (Mr Dawkins) has seen fit to start a program of advertising in Europe which will tell people how cheap their food could be. I certainly endorse that program. I think the money will be better spent in the United Kingdom than in most other places. In lamenting the position of these people who are in dire straits in the agricultural industry it must be said that, while this package does not do much for these people, neither has the National Farmers Federation. It has totally ignored them. It has put forward demands which do not recognise the plight of these people. It has demanded that any assistance for farmers be across the board. Essentially, it has put forward what the Government has seen fit to do. There is nothing in this package that we are debating tonight that the NFF should object to. The NFF has asked for most things and the Government has gone a long way towards giving it what it wants. I have a telex of a Press release which states that the NFF is going to set up a fighting fund to raise $10m. When I look at some of the luminaries in this organisation I realise just what a political body the NFF is. It is going to raise $10m. In Western Australia Jim Sampson, the ex-president of the Liberal Party of Australia will lead the team. In South Australia Hughie McLachlan, a cousin of Ian McLachlan and heir to the largest pastoral empire in Australia, will lead the team. These silver-spoonfed silvertails do not know what hardship is; they do not know what the rural crisis is because they have never had to face it. Mr Deputy Speaker, I can tell you because I have the advantage of having worked for the McLachlan empire and it has never done anything innovative or anything that has advanced the industry. It just sits there and uses its great wealth to obtain long term gains. The NFF is not an innovator and, as I have said, it has not felt the pangs of economic policy. The NFF is purely and simply a fund raising device for the Liberal Party, and the farmers and people of Australia should be quite clear as to what it is about. If the NFF is genuinely concerned about the plight of these people it could raise the $10m it wants to raise on the market today at about 14 1/2 per cent and, with the 6 per cent subsidy, it could apply over $100m to restructuring the debts of those people who are called non-viable. Will the NFF do this? Of course not. The farmers never were its concern. It is concerned about its own selfish interests and not the future of Australia as a whole. I am sure that every honourable member in this House would subscribe to the `vision splendid of the sunlit plains extended'. But the reality of that falls far short of this because we do not address the real problems. The real problem we have in Australia today is that we spend too much time on myths. Both political parties in this country talk in glib terms of a multicultural Australia. Australia is not a multicultural society. It is overwhelmingly an Anglo-Celtic society-the most Anglo-Celtic society in the world. The real danger to Australia is that that society is dividing against itself on a city-country basis. It is people of the ilk of those in the NFF who are helping to drive wedges in that division. Mr Downer —Yes, that is- Mr CAMPBELL —Do not worry, sonny; you are one of the silver-spoonfed silvertails who have never had to battle. If we are to seek that `vision splendid of the sunlit plains extended', we have to realise that we must do something about industrialising Australia. We too must have an industry base to back up our agriculture. It must be an industry that is based on manufacturing that is economical and viable in world terms. We have that potential in Australia. We need to give some thought to re-establishing in Australia industries that do not need subsidies. It is nonsense for people to say that we should cut out tariffs and put people on the dole. The money that they would save on tariffs they would simply then pay out in community welfare and social benefits. We need scope in this country. We need a Snowy Mountains scheme for industry so that we can use our natural innovation, our inventiveness and the ability of our people to adapt and modify so that we can go out and seek those market niches which will keep our kids employed, for without those there is no future. Any party or any group that tends to see things in isolation is doomed to failure. The future of agriculture cannot lie simply in the microcosm of agriculture; it must be decided by the community as a whole. We must have a balanced development whereby everyone benefits and we work as a whole towards a more equitable and a fairer society. Within that framework there is a future for agriculture. Those people in the industry who seek to divide or seek to achieve their own selfish ends will do enormous damage for this cause in the end. Mr IAN CAMERON(Maranoa)(10.09) —It is my pleasure to speak to the statement-what I call the bolshie bull and socialist claptrap that was delivered in this House, 42 pages of it, by the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Kerin) a few days ago. I am sure that there is not a farmer in Australia who felt any better after it was delivered because there is absolutely nothing in it. There is page after page of socialist rhetoric but not one dollar is available. A miserly $60m to $70m is being given to primary industry in Australia. We have been carrying this country on our backs for years. The Primary Industry Minister blamed everything on world prices. He said that world prices were causing the great problems that were facing primary industry. I would just like to say, as a farmer living in the electorate of Maranoa and representing all the good farmers in that area, that it is not just world prices. Mr Hand —Send them a cheerio. Mr IAN CAMERON —I guess the worst problem we have right now is drought. I do not know whether many farmers would be up at this time of the night for me to send them a cheerio; but, if there are any, I wish them all well. I will be in there fighting for them against this socialist Government. Of course, the drought is settling in slowly but surely. But there is not only drought throughout the land. I just hope that those blokes on the Government side see fit to give some money as did the previous Prime Minister, Malcolm Fraser, who gave us $100m to save the breeding stock of this country. I expect those blokes opposite to do the same and be fair dinkum. We are not only suffering from world prices. We have some of the highest wages in the world. We have to compete against the United States of America. In this country we pay our employees four weeks annual leave. In America there is none of that nonsense. We have some of the highest freight costs in the world. Canada's freight costs are half the Australian freight costs. We have the highest dole payments in the world. They ought to be scrapped. The dole is an absolute enigma today. The only other country left in this part of the world that is paying the dole is New Zealand. It is time we cut it out. Mr Hand —I take a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. I suggest that the question of the unemployment rate is not relevant. I ask you to ask the honourable member to come back to the topic before the House. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) —The debate before the House is a wide ranging debate. There is no point of order. Mr IAN CAMERON —There is a large problem in increasing the work force in rural Australia. The dole is so high that we cannot get people to work for us out in the bush. The dole ought to be scrapped. Inflation is twice the rate- Mr Staples —Too many women working! Mr IAN CAMERON —I will tell honourable members about the women. The inflation rate in this country is twice the rate of the countries with which we have to compete in other parts of the world. I will also tell honourable members about our interest rates. Interest rates are at the highest real rate that we have ever paid in this nation. We have some of the highest fuel prices. We are totally self-sufficient in fuel. We are one of the biggest energy exporters in the world and yet we charge ourselves one of the highest fuel prices in the world. How are farmers expected to compete? I have been saying quite a bit about women and social justice and the enormous movement of funds from the private to the public sector and the enormous effect this is having on the ability of farmers throughout Australia to get some help. I have said a few things and I will continue to say them. We are spending $25m a week on pensions for unmarried mothers. But what are those blokes opposite prepared to give the farmers of this country? A lousy $60m extra a year-- Mr Hand —I take a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. The rate of money paid to single parents has nothing to do-- Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! There is no point of order. Mr IAN CAMERON —I also want to point out to the farmers throughout Australia who are listening to this broadcast tonight that the Labor Government since it has been in office has withdrawn $55m on fuel excise, $89m on depreciation and $55m on tax averaging. The grain harvester tariff cost us $28m. Inspection charges have cost us an extra $36m. The rural adjustment scheme has cost us $27m. Sales tax on oils and grease has cost us $6.5m. Taxation concessions for land clearance and drainage, which have been taken away, have cost us $3m. The petroleum freight subsidy scheme has been totally done away with which has cost primary producers throughout Australia $100m. Government members interjecting- Mr IAN CAMERON —Government members should listen. They have taken away $440m since they have been here in government. Kerin comes in here and gives us back a rotten $60m and expects us to survive. The Government is giving away all that money on pensions. It is spending over $1 billion a year. Not only that, but there are 750 unmarried mothers living overseas to whom we are paying a damned pension, if those opposite can imagine that. We are paying more fuel taxes than we ever have. This Government says that we are getting 18c a litre discount on diesel. But 40 per cent of the fuel we use on our farms is petrol. Unfortunately, I have to terminate my mind boggling address. I move: That the question be now put. Question resolved in the affirmative. Question put: That the words proposed to be omitted (Mr Sinclair's amendment) stand part of the question. The House divided. (Mr Deputy Speaker-Mr Leo McLeay) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 67 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 44 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 23 —— Baldwin, P. J. Jacobi, R. Beazley, K. C. Jakobsen, C. A. Beddall, D. P. Jenkins, H. A. Bilney, G. N. Jones, BarryBlanchard, C. A. Kelly, R. J. Blewett, N. Keogh, L. J. Brown, John Kerin, J. C. Brown, Robert Klugman, R. E. Brumby, J. M. Lamb, A. H. Campbell, G. Langmore, J. V. Charlesworth, R. I. Lee, M. Chynoweth, R. L. Lindsay, E. J. Cleeland, P. R. McHugh, J. Cohen, B. Mayer, H. Cross, M. D. Morris, AlanCunningham, B. T. (Teller) Morris, PeterDawkins, J. S. Mountford, J. G. Dubois, S. G. O'Keefe, N. P. Duffy, M. J. Price, L. R. S. Duncan, P. Punch, G. F. Edwards, Ronald Saunderson, J. Fatin, W. F. Scholes, G. G. D. Free, R. V. Scott, J. L. Gayler, J. Simmons, D. W. Gear, G. Snow, J. H. Gorman, R. N. J. Staples, P. R. Grace, E. L. Theophanous, A. C. Griffiths, A. G. Tickner, R. E. Hand, G. L. Uren, T. Hayden, W. G. West, S. J. Holding, A. C. Willis, R. Hollis, C. Wright, K. W. Humphreys, B. C. (Teller) Young, M. J. Hurford, C. J. Aldred, K. J. Hodgman, W. M. Beale, J. H. Lloyd, B. Blunt, C. W. MacKellar, M. J. R. Braithwaite, R. A. Macphee, I. M. Brown, N. A. Miles, C. G. Burr, M. A. Moore, J. C. Cadman, A. G. Peacock, A. S. Cameron, Donald Porter, J. R. Cameron, Ewen (Teller) Reith, P. K. Cameron, Ian Rocher, A. C. Carlton, J. J. Ruddock, P. M. Cobb, M. R. Shack, P. D. Conquest, B. J. Sharp, J. Downer, A. J. G. Sinclair, I. McC. Drummond, P. H. Slipper, P. N. Edwards, Harry Smith, W. Fife, W. C. Spender, J. M. Fischer, Tim Sullivan, K. J. Halverson, R. G. Tuckey, C. W. Hawker, D. P. M. Watson, DavidHicks, N. J. (Teller) Webster, A. P. Hodges, J. C. White, P. N. D. Fitzgibbon, E. J. Jull. D. J. Milton, P. Cowan, D. B. Keating, P. J. Nehl, G. B. Darling, E. E. Andrew, J. N. Bowen, L. F. Howard, J. W. Question so resolved in the affirmative. Amendment negatived. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) —Order! It being past 10.15 p.m., I propose the question: That the House do now adjourn. Mr DOWNER(Mayo)(10.25) —We have heard quite a lot recently about the rural package. Debate on it has been adjourned to permit the introduction by the Government of a large number of Bills. I make just a couple of brief points about that package, which can only be regarded as vacuous verbiage-42 pages of party political badinage which will do nothing to assist Australian farmers at a time when there is a direct need for that assistance. If one wishes to assess the value the Government places on the rural community, one only has to look at the package in terms of dollars and cents. The net result of this rural package for Australia's primary producers is a payment of about $108m to those primary producers. That $108m compares very unfavourably with the amount of money the Government has spent in recent weeks on a whole lot of other projects. For instance, today the Government introduced a Bill which will provide payments of $124m to oil companies. Those payments may or may not be justified, but that the Government spends $108m on farmers and $124m on oil companies gives some sense of the Government's true priorities. The Government has also spent $120m on subsidies to banks so that they can provide additional housing loans. So we have $120m to the banks and $108m to the farmers. Over the past 12 months, the Government has spent $157m on workers' compensation payments to public servants. That compares with the $108m it will spend on this so-called rural package for Australia's primary producers. When one adds up all of those additional expenditures by the Government and compares them with what it has done for our farmers, one can see what its sense of priorities is. In my State of South Australia our hard-pressed farmers will get approximately $8m from this rural package, compared with the $157m that has been paid to public servants for workers' compensation over the past 12 months. The additional $108m that the primary producers will get compares with the $442m that the Government has taken out of the primary industry budget since 1983. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) —Order! There is far too much noise in the chamber. Will honourable members please come to order. Mr DOWNER —I can understand members on the other side trying to avoid the hard realities of these facts. They want to run for cover behind their own conversations. The simple truth is that the Government has been exposed, by this list of priorities, for the total disregard it pays to primary producers. Apparently the Government does not care that the average farm incomes of wheat growers have fallen by 143 per cent over the past year; the incomes of sheep farmers have fallen by 51 per cent; and dairy farmers, many of whom live in my electorate, have had their incomes reduced by 42 per cent. Those incomes have been reduced largely as a result of the Government's policies, such as new taxes-the capital gains tax, the fringe benefits tax that has just been introduced and all those additional fuel costs which the Government has imposed on the Australian community. It has cheated the community out of the full reduction in oil prices which other parts of the world are getting. The community has been cheated also by the productivity deal that has come out of the Australian Council of Trade Unions-Australian Labor Party accord which will impose further hardships on rural communities. The Government has wound up the cost structure for our primary producers and wound back their incomes so far that a third of our primary producers this year will have negative incomes-not according to me but according to the Bureau of Agricultural Economics. The Government has decided that it is more important to help the oil companies, banks and public servants through workers' compensation payments-that great bonus, that great lotto win that so many people look to get-than it is to help the primary producers, particularly that one-third who are on negative incomes. The Labor Party pleads that it is the party of compassion. I would have thought that these statistics demonstrate beyond doubt that the Labor Party is a party with no compassion, but has been paying out hundreds of millions of dollars of taxpayers' money to big business. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr GRIFFITHS(Maribyrnong)(10.30) —Before I make my comments in this debate, I express my thanks to the members of the Opposition who made all this possible. Today I raised in this House certain allegations concerning an individual holding himself out as, or purporting to be, a member of parliament. I did not then, nor do I now, intend to name the individual concerned. During a personal explanation the Deputy Leader of the Liberal Party, the honourable member for Menzies (Mr N.A. Brown), sought to cloud the issue by indicating that the officer held a first class ticket in accordance with the Remuneration Tribunal provisions. The fundamental issues involved went far beyond the status of the ticket involved. The issue is a possible offence against this Parliament and, at the very minimum, an arrogant abuse of power. The circumstances are as follows: A staff member was allocated, to his apparent great embarrassment, an economy class seat on a Trans-Australia Airlines flight from Canberra to Melbourne on 15 November last. The individual became abusive and belligerent towards a flight attendant and this was witnessed by a large number of passengers. The individual concerned allegedly demanded a first class seat on the basis of his being a member of parliament. The attendant sought clarification of his status by way of a request to a member of this chamber who also happened to be travelling on that aircraft, indicating the abuse and rudeness by the officer concerned and what else had transpired. The honourable member did not know the name given as the person who was alleged to be a member of parliament. The attendant was suspicious of his claimed status and requested the member to identify the individual when he made the great sacrifice of moving from economy to first class. The member of parliament informed the attendant that in fact the individual was a staff member but may be entitled to first class travel and apologised for his offensive behaviour. Passengers were embarrassed and inconvenienced by his disruptive behaviour. The reality is that the individual could well have obtained a first class seat via the normal method of a sensible and polite request. I think every honourable member will agree that abusing power or masquerading as a member of parliament is a serious matter. To be offensive and abusive to a flight attendant who is simply trying to discharge his duty is something which every honourable member would find totally unacceptable and it reflects the attitude of the school yard bully. Mr Tuckey —Do you want to cost him his job? Just answer that question. Do you want him sacked. Mr GRIFFITHS —While I am talking about the attitudes of a school yard bully, I should respond to some of the absurd interjections from the other side of the House. If anyone in this chamber seriously believes that purporting to be a member of parliament to effect a real or implied advantage is not a serious matter he should not be sitting in this chamber. No employee should be the victim of such deception nor the target of such gratuitous bad behaviour. The mind boggles when one thinks that this is the Opposition that has set up the Waste Watch Committee. What a reversal! It was a mad scramble to claw his way, by subterfuge and deception, from an economy class seat to the first class section. It just so happens that the individual concerned was a staff member of the Deputy Leader of the Liberal Party, who waxed so philosophical in his personal explanations about the rights of an individual. Of course, nothing was said by anyone on this side of the House when another member of staff of a member on this side of the chamber was subject to such criticism and abuse during Question Time today. Most of the abuse came from the disreputable member who is sitting at the table, the honourable member for O'Connor (Mr Tuckey). These allegations are not made lightly. As I have indicated, my sources are impeccable. They emanate, surprisingly enough, from a staff member of an honourable member on the other side of the chamber. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr CONQUEST(Hinkler)(10.35) —Earlier this week in the House I listened incredulously with members of the Opposition to a speech by the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Kerin) as he delivered the verdict of the Australian Labor Party Caucus jury. In sentence after sentence he progressively condemned our rural producers to a bondage of debt, frustration and hardship. The statement was not about reality; it displayed poor analysis and its directions were wrong. Once again the Minister has tried to blame overseas factors alone for the problems facing Australian agriculture instead of giving some credence to the cry from rural constituents that Labor's economic, monetary, wages and industrial relations policies are problems of major cost significance over which the Government has control. Tonight I wish to raise the position of the sugar industry. This is something that the honourable member for Herbert (Mr Lindsay) and the honourable member for Leichhardt (Mr Gayler) will not be able to dispute. This Government has offered $54m in price support for the sugar industry, conditional on the State Government producing $1 for each dollar of Commonwealth funding. Let us analyse this and see what that $54m really means. The forward estimates for the 1985 crop returns are $220m- Mr Gayler —How much? Mr CONQUEST —It is $220m to $225m, and the maximum Commonwealth contribution will be only $15m, honourable members opposite can sit there and laugh about it because they spend so much time fishing in the Torres Strait Islands that they do not know what is going on in the sugar industry. That is the Government's whole problem. Returns for the 1986-87 season, according to the forward estimates of the sugar producers, will be such that there will be no support required from the Federal Government. So the total of $54m that the Federal Government is claiming to be giving to the sugar industry will boil down to only $15m over those three years. The Government will have a surplus from that offer. What I am saying, and the honourable member for Leichhardt and the honourable member for Herbert (Mr Lindsay) should agree, is that the Federal Government should provide $240 tonne as a floor support price. The sugar producers know this, and the Government should be supporting them. If it does not support them it is a disgrace. I refer also to interest rates because this is worth repeating on every possible occasion. The prime interest rate in Australia is about 19.6 per cent. We are competing with the United States of America, which has a prime interest rate of only 9 per cent; West Germany, which has a rate of 7.5 per cent; Japan with 4.5 per cent; and the United Kingdom with 12.5 per cent. That is one of the costs that our producers have to face up to, and it is purely through the monetary policies of this Hawke Labor Government that they have to put up with such high interest rates. Producers have to put up not only with the vagaries of drought but also with the vagaries of this Government. I think that that is disgraceful, and every honourable member on the other side who represents sugar constituents should ensure that he looks after them instead of just going along with what the Caucus says. They should have a little integrity and look after their own constituents. Today farmers and small businessmen in many cities and towns throughout Australia have been on the streets complaining about the action taken by this Government. They are incensed at its action and its attitude. It is all right for the Government, but the polls in the metropolitan areas are now showing that support is coming for the rural producers. So the Government should not say anything about the National Farmers Federation because it is doing its job and getting its message across to urban dwellers and the people in metropolitan areas. They are starting to recognise that much of their affluence is dependent on the export income that is derived from rural and primary producers. Every member of this chamber should take note of the crisis in the farm area and ensure that something is done about it because the effect will be felt in the whole of Australia. Mr LINDSAY(Herbert)(10.40) —In the mid 1970s the World Health Organisation designated six diseases as major unsolved illnesses that affect man. These included river blindness, malaria, leprosy and bilharzia. A research project is now under way at the Graduate School of Tropical Veterinary Science at Townsville's James Cook University of North Queensland to produce a vaccine against River Blindness, a disease also known to scientists as onchocerciasis. Researchers at the school have been studying a very similar disease in cattle since 1975. Beef industry interest in onchocerciacis had been awakened by notification from United States importers that beef shipments would be rejected if onchocerca nodules were present and the realisation that little was known about bovine onchocerciasis in Australia. Most of the previous Australian research was prompted by a ban on shipments of beef which contained nodules. On that occasion, just prior to the First World War, the ban lasted for over 12 months. It was finally settled by an agreement that all nodules would be trimmed from the meat prior to shipment. This practice is still continued and is the origin of boneless cartoned meat for export. This research in bovine onchocerciasis coincided with a decision by the World Health Organisation to support research on treatment and control of human onchocerciasis then estimated to infect about 40 million people in equatorial regions of Africa and America and to cause river blindness in about one million of them. The only two drugs then available to treat the disease-suramin and diethylcarbamazine-had serious and sometimes fatal side effects. The problem was compounded because the disease occurred in rural communities with a subsistence economy which could not afford to support unproductive blind members, and they were denied use of the most fertile land along the rivers because rivers are the breeding sites of the black flies-simulium species-which are vectors of the disease in man. In man, the disease, also known as onchocerca volvulus, is caused by a round worm parasite. Nodules form underneath the skin and, if microfilariae invade the eyes during the larval stage of the disease, blindness results. Onchocerca volvulus is very similar to onchocerca gibsoni in cattle in that both are encapsulated by the host into a nodule and they have a similar anatomical appearance. The usefulness of cattle infected with onchocerca gibsoni as a model for screening drugs against human onchocerciasis was evaluated in 1979. The model was highly predictive of results against onchocerca volvulvus and has become the final screen in a series of screens co-ordinated by the World Health Organisation before drugs are passed to man for further testing. Since the work began, thousands of compounds have been screened in primary-mainly rodent-screens in Europe, the United States and Japan. Of these, 68 looked promising enough to be tested in cattle against onchocerca gibsoni and five were passed from this screen to clinical trials in man in West Africa and Central America. One of these is showing considerable promise for the control of onchocerciasis in man. A great deal has been discovered over the past 10 years about the epidemiology, life cycle, metabolism, pathology and response to drugs of onchocerca gibsoni. This information has provided valuable clues to an understanding of onchoerca volvulvus. Similarities between these two parasites are being further exploited by current work to develop a vaccine against onchocerca gibsoni with the hope that the same or a similar vaccine can be used in man against onchocerca volvulus. The work was commenced only recently and it is expected to be three to five years before candidate vaccines will be ready for trial evaluation against onchocerca volvulus. The work is largely funded by the World Health Organisation, the latest grant being $180,000. The school was recently approached by a United States medical research foundation for details of its work into the disease, also the school is working in collaboration with laboratories in the United States and England. The Graduate School of Tropical Veterinary Science at James Cook University is the world centre for research in this disease. The development of an effective vaccine against this terrible disease will further enhance the reputation for excellence of the internationally renowned Graduate School of Tropical Veterinary Science. Mr HALVERSON(Casey)(10.44) —I take this opportunity to speak briefly in defence of one of the most misunderstood, misrepresented, maligned and, indeed, threatened, groups in our community. I refer, of course-with the notable exception of the honourable member for Leichhardt (Mr Gayler)-to men. It is my unbiased observation that men really are not all that bad. We have our faults and idiosyncrasies, but as a general rule most of us try, most of the time, to be responsible, reasonable, reliable representatives of the human race. It was once considered by those who come into the `ignorance is bliss' category that being male was some sort of advantage. In recent times, however, it has become an enormous embarrassment-almost a social liability-so much so that there is an increasing tendency for some men to pretend that they are not men at all. This is an alarming development, although under the circumstances perhaps an understandable one. I noted with interest during the recent community employment program debate that men who want to be women are now actively encouraged by the Government. They are the fortunate recipients of substantial financial support from the long-suffering Australian taxpayers to assist them in the pursuit and promotion of their particular paranoia. On the other hand, men who want to be men do not even rate a mention-much less a government hand-out. Not so long ago our Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) delivered a long treatise on the Government's determination to defend the rights of women-a worthy objective indeed. I was very impressed by the apparent commitment of the Government to the concept of equality and therefore anxiously awaited a similar ministerial statement outlining plans for legislation to preserve the rights of men. Unfortunately, so far, nothing has been forthcoming. If the Prime Minister will not rise to the defence of his own kind in this House, where can we turn for support? To the Speaker? To the Sergeant-at-Arms? Furthermore, every major political party in Australia has a policy devoted to women and women's issues, but there are no specific policies for men. We have an Office of the Status of Women, and the Prime Minister has a Minister assisting him on the status of women, but there is no office of, or Minister assisting on, the status of men. Evidently we do not have any status-something most of us have suspected for some time, and are not really surprised to have officially confirmed. We are becoming increasingly vulnerable and increasingly ignored, and I must confess that I am probably just as guilty as the next man when it comes to encouraging our vulnerability. I have knowingly allowed myself to be surrounded by women. All my electorate staff are women. Even my wife and daughter are women! I am under the influence of women day and night, at work and at play, as the saying goes. However, amidst my gloom and despondency a ray of hope has appeared. It has been suggested to me that I could perhaps take some comfort from the old adage `the hand that rocks the cradle rules the nation'. And on reflection, I find that I can, because the hand that rocks the cradle is increasingly a male hand. In the foreseeable future, if current trends continue, men may well be within reach of being able legitimately to claim that they have achieved almost equal input into the decision-making processes that really count-those that take place within the homes of the nation. Madam Speaker, with due deference, I conclude my plea on behalf of the endangered male species with a proposal-a sincere and serious proposal-which I believe may overcome some of the negative divisiveness that is emerging throughout the community in response to what many perceive to be an unwinnable war, the age-old and continuing battle of the sexes. This futile conflict is being vigorously waged by the opposing sides, and there is little indication of it abating. Whilst it remains unsolved, it is responsible for diverting both valuable resources and government and community attention from the more critical issues facing this world and this nation. I urge everyone, irrespective of sex, age, religion, political allegiance or any of the other factors which are used as a basis for dividing our community into separate categories, at least to give this proposal some consideration. Is it not time we tried to negotiate a peace settlement so that this absurd and pointless battle can be brought to an honourable and lasting conclusion? Could we not perhaps start our search for the common ground by starting to refer, not to men and women or to males and females, but to people. If we persist in talking about rights, issues, affairs or policies which relate to one sex only, we are in fact, giving credence to the very concept of inequality and discrimination which we are endeavouring to remedy. Madam SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr HOLLIS(Throsby)(10.49) —How can one really follow the two preceding speeches? However, I will do my best. Last weekend it was my pleasure to open the first Jamberoo Valley Folk Festival. I offer my congratulations to all from the Illawarra Folk Club who worked so hard to make the three-day festival such a success. As well as concerts, a bush dance and folk sessions in the pub there were a number of workshops which explored many aspects of Australia's folk music and general folk traditions. The general consensus of those who participated over the weekend was that the workshops were one of the most interesting and valuable features of the festival. They certainly made us more aware of the significance of the Australian folk tradition in celebrating and enriching our uniquely Australian culture. This same tradition can do so much to give Australians a broader view of their own history. For example, it is one thing to read accounts of retrenchments in the Illawarra coal mining and steel industries a few years ago. It is quite another matter to listen to Kevin Baker, a friend of mine, who led one of the workshops, sing his stirring song The Men of Kemira, which celebrates the heroic efforts of local miners and steel-workers in fighting the Big Australian. This is an excellent example of how the Australian folk tradition can do so much to put flesh and blood on the historical skeleton. In this sense, The Men of Kemira is part of an unbroken Australian folk tradition that reached back behind songs such as The Sandy Hollow Line to early songs such as Botany Bay. Folk music in the Illawarra is flowering, and the fact that so many people could come together to organise, perform at and participate in such a festival is indeed evidence of its fine state of health. I know that the success of this inaugural festival ensures that it will become an annual event. Earlier this year, the Minister for Arts, Heritage and Environment (Mr Cohen) announced the establishment of a Committee of Inquiry into Folklife in Australia. Australia, as honourable members would be aware, has a unique folk heritage. We have inherited a rich and diverse body of folk traditions, songs, dances, stories, crafts, poems, ceremonies, food and games not only from earlier generations of Australians but also from our forebears in other parts of the world. Included in this heritage are those many wonderful things which the Aboriginal people of Australia have cared to share with the rest of us. These traditions run deep, giving each of us our own sense of cultural identity, yet binding us together as Australians and giving us a basis of sharing. The Government has a responsibility to ensure this heritage of folklife is safeguarded for the enjoyment and enrichment of present and future generations of Australians. This Committee of Inquiry will provide properly considered advice on what needs to be done and on priorities for Government action. Many dedicated people in Australia over the years have collected and recorded parts of our folklife, but as is, I suppose, inevitable much of our folk history has been lost or destroyed. It is important that all honourable members make the Committee of Inquiry into Folklife in Australia as widely known as possible. I hope personally to put in a submission, and I am sure the Illawarra Folk Club, of which I am very proud to be a member, will also be making a submission to this important inquiry. Mr WEBSTER(Macquarie)(10.53) —On 25 March the Bulletin ran a headline `How Hawke will silence the toothless rural revolt'. Questions were asked whether the threat by Australia's noisiest political agitators, our nation's farmers, that they get help or else, was anything more than hot air. Were they a threat to the Hawke Government? The general view held by political correspondent Richard Farmer, who based his opinion on a detailed assessment made by electoral analyst Malcolm Mackerras, was that the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) could `keep them at bay simply with soothing talk'. Mackerras reasoned that farmers do not have clout where it matters-in individual electorates. Nobody could be blamed for feeling that such an attitude was adopted by the Prime Minister, his Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Kerin) and his Caucus rural committee when they produced their economic and rural policy. Economists, farmers' organisations and especially farmers themselves are shocked and shattered that such minimal help has been given to an industry in great crisis, indeed a clear national economic crisis. My criticism today is levelled at, not what the package offers, but what it does not offer and what it offers with a question mark. With regard to offers with a question mark, I refer again to the decision in the policy not to proceed with quarantining of farm losses and the statement to the contrary by the Minister for Finance (Senator Walsh). We all heard the Special Minister of State (Mr Young) reaffirm yesterday that it would not be proceeded with. His words were interesting and went something like this: `Let me say it quite clearly and slowly enough so that members on the other side hear it clearly and understand. Farm quarantining will not be proceeded with'. I ask honourable members on this side of the House: `Can you remember hearing similar words before?' Let me remind them that during the 1983 campaign the Prime Minister said similar words in a campaign speech to the nation: Let me make it quite clear so that even the Opposition will understand. There will be no capital gains tax. On 17 April 1986, today, do we have a capital gains tax? Opposition members-Yes! Mr WEBSTER —The answer is yes. The message to farmers is clear: They should believe it when they do not see it. I said before that the farming crisis is a clear national economic crisis. One only has to visit farms at random to find this to be the case. I recently spent several long days visiting farms in my electorate and came away thoroughly dismayed at their plight. Farms had been left unsuperphosphated for three and more years because of costs, there were low returns and almost drought conditions. Farmers are at their wit's end, totally frustrated, many having to work six months and more off their farms to make ends meet. Farmers are unable to employ vital assistance because they have to pay tax on any fringe benefits they are forced to provide for such employees. I refer to compulsory accommodation and conditions. I was stunned this week to learn of yet another nail being hammered into the coffins of many of our farmers. The capable owner of one farm I visited recently who has to work off his farm six months a year to make ends meet and who is already affected by a new drought rang me this week and almost cried the following confirmed information over the phone. Because of the drought he had begun hand feeding his sheep. He went to the Australian Wheat Board silos and was told that wheat bought from the wheat farmers at $60 a tonne was now being offered at $190 a tonne. Mr Cobb —What a rip-off! Mr WEBSTER —It is a rip-off. I ask the Minister to please investigate this seeming rip-off, this very unfair and unnecessary burden on farmers already on their desperation knees, in most cases through no fault of their own. Madam SPEAKER —I call the honourable member for Fisher. Government members interjecting- Madam SPEAKER —I am so sorry. I call the honourable member for Dobell. Mr LEE(Dobell)(10.57) —It is certainly a double bonus to be able to take the call away from the honourable member for Fisher (Mr Slipper). It is certainly a pleasure to be able to speak in this debate tonight. As members of the Opposition obviously do not realise it, although we on this side represent mainly metropolitan and urban areas, some of us also represent country areas and farmers who have problems. Some of us have sympathy with the problems that have been addressed tonight. I want to address my comments to a few of the ridiculous remarks that were made earlier. The honourable member for Hinkler (Mr Conquest) suggested that the sugar industry was collapsing because this Government had not made a big enough effort, when all of us on this side of the House know very well that for more than six months this Government has had an offer ready to go. The only person who has been holding it up is the National Party Premier, Sir Joh Bjelke-Petersen, who refuses to put another cent into the sugar industry. Through his actions in refusing to assist the sugar industry he is stopping the Federal Government's assistance package from being implemented. The honour- able member for Mayo (Mr Downer) suggested that this Government, in imposing a new capital gains tax and a fringe benefits tax, was hurting the rural sector. I put some questions to the honourable member for Mayo. If he is opposed to those taxes is he also opposed to the income tax cuts which this Government is granting on 1 September this year? He is suddenly silent. Is he opposed to the second round of income tax cuts on 1 July 1987? Is he opposed to the extra money that pensioners will be getting in November this year. He is very silent when it comes to us providing income tax cuts to pay as you earn taxpayers but he screams and whinges when all his mates have to pay their fair share of tax. Madam SPEAKER —Order! It being 11 p.m. the House stands adjourned until Tuesday, 29 April 1986 at 2 p.m. in accordance with the resolution agreed to this day. House adjourned at 11 p.m. The following answers to questions were circulated: (Question No. 1173) Mr Price asked the Minister for Local Government and Administrative Services, upon notice, on 16 May 1985: (1) Do formal procedures exist for the handling of Ministerial representations in the Minister's Department and statutory authorities for which the Minister is responsible; if so, (a) what are the titles of the instructions and when were they issued and (b) are target times provided (i) formally or (ii) informally; if so, what are they. (2) Is the performance with which representations are dealt with monitored; if so what was the percentage of representations that met their targets in 1985, to 16 May. Mr Uren —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) No formal instructions for handling Ministerial representations currently exist in the Department, the Albury-Wodonga Development Corporation or the Commonwealth Accommodation and Catering Services Limited. From time to time I have informed the Department of my preferences in relation to particular aspects of processing and drafting. Departmental procedures contemplate wherever possible representations being acknowledged within three working days and finalised within thirty working days from the date of receipt in the Department. Where this is not practicable, interim replies are usually sent. (2) Ministerial representations are recorded centrally and outstanding responses are followed up each month. Functional areas of the Department provide status reports and explanations for delays in finalising replies. Performance is regularly reported to senior Departmental management. The percentage of representations that met the target response time in 1985, to 30 September was approximately 40%. Of 1392 representations requiring a response during that period, 1147 concerned either local government or property matters. Severe resource constraints in these functional areas is the main reason why the percentage of representations finalised within the target response time is not higher. (Question No. 1256) Mr Blunt asked the Minister for Communications, upon notice, on 23 May 1985: Has the Minister's Department, or any statutory authority or organisation for which the Minister is responsible, employed consultants since March 1983; if so, (a) who has been employed, (b) for what purpose, (c) what working plan was given to them, (d) what was the cost of their services, (e) when did their services commence and finish, and (f) was any fee in excess of the initial quote; if so, by what amount. Mr Duffy —The answer to the honourable member's question, based in part on information provided by the statutory authorities in the Communications portfolio, is as follows: DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNICATIONS March 1983-June 1984 * NOTE: This is a short description, detailed briefs were prepared for each consultancy. (a) (b) (c)* (d) (e) (f) Name of Consultant Purpose Working Plan Cost Duration of Service Extra Fee $ 1. Siromath Pty Ltd Development of Department's data base systems. To write detailed brief for (a) Broadcasting Data Analysis Project, and (b the Radiated Subscription Television Market Study. 500 26.4.83 (2 days) Nil 2. Computer People Provide Computer software. Software for radio propagation profile digital path plotting. 8,400 10.5.1983 (240 hrs) Nil 3. Koranya Data Base Intelligence Computer Evaluation. Assist the Department evaluate submissions associated with the supply of a medium scale computing system. 15,923 Over a period from 4.8.83 (308 hrs) Nil 4. Data Science Pty Ltd Data modelling and systems analysis. To undertake the design, data modelling and implementation of broadcasting data base systems. 40,000 21.11.83 (100 days) Nil 5. Assoc. Prof. P. Yetton Management Development. Executive Development needs analysis and development program. 3,000 1.12.83 (6 days) Nil 1983-84 6. Mr M. J. Thompson Consultancy advice on Special Broadcasting Service. Provide professional policy advice and research assistance to the Committee of Review of the SBS. 30,000 13.2.84 (140 days) Nil 7. Ms E. Cox Survey questionnaire design. Design survey of ethnic community attitudes to SBS Services. 500 18.3.84 (2 days) Nil 8. Mr G. Brewer Forms design. Design a structured submission form for distribution to ethnic Aboriginal and Islander community groups. 600 8.4.84 Nil 9. Siromath Pty Ltd Mapping and Graphics. Develop an automatic contour mapping and graphics system. 34,000 16.6.84 31.10.84 Nil 1984-85 (July-June) 1. Arthur Young and Associates System development life cycle audit of on line licensing system. Examine and advise on the adequacy by the internal controls by the licensing system. Ensure that provision is made for organising audits after implementation. Monitor development of the system and prepare and review audit methodology. 25,000 22.8.84 continuing Nil 2. The Radio Research Board DOF component for research projects supported by the RRB. This expenditure was spread over a number of post graduate research projects. 10,000 N/A N/A 3. Professor Limmerick Organisational design consultancy. Discuss with senior management the reorganisation necessary to accommodate the changed broadcasting arrangements. 1,750 12.10.84 24.10.84 8.11.85 Nil 4. Richard Rowe and Associates Review of Broadcasting Planning Guidelines. To revise the draft broadcasting planning guidelines and bring them to a final publication status. 36,800 24.7.84 continuing Nil 5. Priestly and Shearman Update coverage information on several existing broadcasting stations. Conduct field strength surveys and document results. 28,720 4.10.84 continuing Nil 1984-85 6. Handley Walker Co. Update coverage information on several existing broadcasting stations. Conduct field strength surveys and document results. 10,150 21.9.84- 30.11.84 Nil 8. Connell Trippett To assist planning for Remote or Underserved Communities Scheme (RUCS). Conduct field surveys and undertake planning proposals and site selection. 89,020.62 19.12.84 continuing Nil 9. Tom O'Donohue and Associates To assist planning for Remote or Underserved Communities Scheme (RUCS). Conduct field surveys and undertake planning proposals and site selection. 79,879.37 10.12.84 continuing Nil 10. Amos Aked To assist planning for Remote or Underserved Communities Scheme (RUCS). Conduct field surveys and undertake planning proposals and site selection. 124,238.87 6.12.84 continuing Nil 11. CSIRO TV antennas testing. Conduct of cross-polarisation discrimination measurements on a range of UHF antennas. 8,750 3.6.85 continuing Nil 12. Aspect Commuting Review of the database design for the Spectrum Management Information System (SMIS). To review data base design and the development of the prototype of SMIS. 4,375 1.3.85 (10 days) Nil 13. Peter Barnes Microwave Band Planning. Examine and report on band planning options for radio communication services operating above 15 GHz (in Australia) 6,708 26.4.85 continuing Nil 14. Preece Ewbank Microwave Band Planning. Examine and report on band planning options for radio communication services operating above 15 GHz (overseas) 7,275 2.5.85 continuing Nil 15. Trippett Alan and Associates Provide the Department with information on viable options for distribution of the Homestead and Community Broadcasting Satellite Service (HACBSS) signals. Undertake an economic analysis of system alternatives for the delivery and distribution of HACBSS signals including a report providing information that is readily adaptable as a consumer guide. 24,721 21.6.85 continuing Nil 16. Mr H. Ergas Assess the macro-economic implications for Australia of investment in the telecommunications network. Review the methodological and statistical problems involved in quantifying the costs and benefits to the Australian economy of telecommunications investment. Prepare an overview of recent investment levels. 15,500 15.5.85 (64 days) Nil 18. The Consultancy Pty Ltd Report on the demographic composition of the hearing impaired market and television closed captioning in Australia. Status report, bringing together existing available information and providing analysis where appropriate on closed captioning including: history and nature, the role of the ACC, captioned television programs, a number of other issues. 15,500 16.4.85- 18.6.85 Nil 19. Mrs A. Cursley Occupational Therapy.RSI Prevention Program. 3,480 Ongoing 1984/85- 1985/86 Nil 20. Nigel Dick and Associates Pty Ltd Advice to the FDU project on the restructure of commercial broadcasting. To establish a notional benchmark figure of what is the minimum viable market area for the provision of three commercial television services. 5,142 28.4.85 continuing Nil 21. Mr M. Thompson Consultancy advice on remote area television developments. Monitor developments in the area of Remote Commercial Television Service licences and provide an assessment of the implications for the remote area television study being conducted by the Forward Development Unit of the DOC. 10,972 28.3.85 continuing Nil 22. Hart, Frankel and Co. Impact Statement on Equalisation. Conduct a Study on the likely impact of Equalisation in the Australian program production industry. . . 28.5.85 continuing Nil 23. Garbron Enterprises Economic Analysis. Conduct an economic analysis of the impact upon existing and new licences of various options for the equalisation of commercial radio services in regional areas of Australia. . . 5.6.85 continuing Nil 24. Coopers and Lybrand and W. Scott Economic Survey. Conduct a survey of the economic advantages of mobile radio systems, particularly with respect to despatch, delivery and selling. 10,760 6.6.85 continuing Nil 25. Connel Trippett Investigation of active deflectors. Study the suitability, operational requirement and limitations of multi-channel active reflective and adjacent channel translators for future application in Australia. 16,738 7.11.84-18.4.85 Nil AUSTRALIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION 1. Sandy Brown and Associates, London Review acoustic tests on sites for new ABC Radio Centre in Sydney. To review the results of the acoustic testing conducted by Wilkinson, Murray Pty Ltd, and make recommendations on comparative site suitabilities and identify the extent of acoustic isolation that would be required. 10,289.26 Late October 1984 for six weeks Nil 2. Jackson, Teese, Chesterman, Willis and Partners Advise on site for new ABC Radio Centre, Sydney. Using previous studies and briefs prepared by Department of Housing and Construction, identify potential sites and prepare short list of preferred options. 15,000 May 1984 for eight weeks Nil 3. Jackson, Teese, Chesterman, Willis and Partners Evaluate sites for new ABC Radio Centre, Sydney. To evaluate short-listed sites for new ABC Radio Centre, including financial evaluation, in accordance with briefs from Department of Housing and Construction. 60,565 September 1984 for 16 weeks Nil 4. Robin Dyke and Associates Evaluation of ABC Gore Hill Site. Evaluate the potential for development of existing ABC site, Gore Hill, in order to justify acquisition of an adjacent site. 17,585 December 1983 for ten weeks Nil 5. Professor Graham Brown, University of Melbourne Advice on ABC property plan for Sydney Demonstrate method of preparing functional briefs for planning purposes, aimed at rationalising the ABC's accommodation needs in Sydney. 3,133 December 1983 for ten weeks Nil 6. Wilkinson, Murray Pty Ltd Noise and vibration tests of sites for new Radio and Music Centre in Sydney. Test proposed sites according to noise criteria established by ABC for its radio and orchestral studios. 4,180 September 1983 for four weeks Nil 7. Wilkinson, Murray Pty Ltd Analysis of noise and vibration tests of sites for Radio and Music Centre, Sydney. Analyse and present findings of noise and vibration tests of sites for Radio, Music Centre, Sydney. Additional sites were tested at this stage. 14,013 October 1984 for 20 weeks Nil 8. Ms M. Paull, Internal Audit Implementation To advise on Audit Control Techniques for new computerised finance systems. As for (b). 800 August 1984 for two days Nil 9. Heyede Pty Ltd Develop and document a model for the licences for the sale of production services to independent producers. Take special account of production budget, method of program payments, warranties for protection of ABC and control over its personnel and resources. 17,000 June 1984 Nil 10. Computer People Provide programmer for a variety of projects, mainly payroll and other finance Systems in Victorian Branch. Allocated to projects on an as required basis. 34,580 30 June 1984- 30 June 1985 Nil 11. DATEC Pty Ltd Provide advice, project management and programmers for a variety of tasks including payroll, Finance, Inventory and Assets control systems. On same occasions, working on a project basis, and on other occasions, working directly to ABC staff as part of a team. 327,478 June 1984 continuing Nil 12. Sigma Management To advise on how the computer needs of Audience Research Department can best be solved in the ABC environment. As for (b). 4,000 April- May 1985 Nil 13. Digital Equipment Corporation To assist with implementation of new hardware and associated software. Working to ABC staff on an as required basis. 75,000 May 1985 continuing Nil 14. PRAXA Pty Ltd Assist with implementation of licensed software, setting up suitable environment for computer systems etc. Working to ABC staff. 3,000 May 1985 continuing Nil 15. DMR and Associates Advise on introduction of satellite system. To advice the ABC with strategic advice on the uses of the AUSSAT satellite system, and in the development of contractual arrangements between the ABC and AUSSAT. 13,453 1 March 1985-not formally concluded; available for further work N/A 16. Coopers and Lybrand Services To design and implement new financial systems for the introduction of accrual accounting. Design systems required, prepare statements of user requirements, liaise with EDP for technical specifications and software selection, assist in the implementation of systems, procedures and documentation and training of staff. Fees: Sept 1983-June 1984 $193,608. Expenses: Sept 1983-June 1984 $5,140. Fees: July 1984-June 1985 $346,430. Expenses: July 1984-June 1985 $3,680. Provision for 1985/86 $327,000 September 1983 continuing to June 1986 Additional services to develop computer models for facilities and resources planning and control; $105,060 additional services re tax matters accounting problems in production and marketing divisions $73,721 17. Baillieu Valuations Valuation of Plant and Equipment at Gore Hill Television Studios. To attest to the valuation of plant and equipment at Gore Hill Television Complex, and to pilot the provision of certificates of evaluation using ABC computer resources and Assets Clerks. 26,103 September- November 1984 Nil 18. Coopers and Lybrand W D Scott Marketing and Organisation Study for ABC concert Music Department. To develop strategic marketing options, to develop and recommend organisational strategies to achieve artistic and revenue objectives of ABC concert division. 34,700 8 July 1985 continuing Nil 19. Reark Research Pty Ltd Marketing and Social Research Consultants Study of Concert Audience. 1. To define target audience for orchestral and recital concerts in fine music and adult contemporary music. 2. To assess the audience perception of current ABC concert services. 3. To establish mechanism by which the ABC can monitor the extent to which it is satisfying audience needs. 24,200 21 June- 30 August 1985 Nil 20. Applied Psychology Unit To devise and carry out 10 tests for production operations trainees. As for (b). 8,520 Design of tests: November 1983 Conducting tests 29.5.84- 21.6.84 Nil 21. J Robertson New Zealand To advise the ABC on setting staff quotas and controlling staff numbers. To seek information from ABC officers, current methods and problems, and difficulties experienced in controlling staff numbers. 1,500 20.5.85- 31.5.85 Nil 22. Touche Ross Services Career Counselling for Senior Officer To advise on career options available to a senior officer unattached as a result of the ABC reorganisation. 360 per day one day service- April 1985 Nil 23. Spencer Stuart and Associates Recruitment of Managing Director. Draw up specification, conduct extensive search internationally and shortlist applicants for Board's consideration. 86,255 July-November 1984 Nil 24. Noble Lowndes To provide advice re design of superannuation packages for Managing Director and Executive Directors. As for (b). 4,477 January 1984- June 1985 Nil 25. Dr Ben Bartlett, Michael Berl Occupational Health and Safety, Melbourne and Sydney. Identify major health issues confronting ABC and its staff, recommend measures to solve problems and assign priorities from an occupational health point of view. 50,992 Stage 1 Melbourne 11 weeks 21,242 Stage 2 Sydney 17 weeks 29,750 20 May- 16 September 1985 Nil 26. Robert Raymond Associates Consultant to ABC News and Public Affairs Steering Committee. Consultant to Editors and Publishers of `Look and Listen'. 1. To assist the ABC News and Public Affairs Steering Committee in the Planning of `The National'. 2. To assist in the planning and launch of `Look and Listen' magazine. 4,400 January- July 1984 Nil SPECIAL BROADCASTING SERVICE 1. IRT Electronics Consultant Engineers. The plan and install key technical facilities for the extension of SBS TV services. 27,992 June 1983 to completion Nil 2. IRT Electronics Consultant Engineers. To interface record-replay system to SBS's existing system. 12,000 maximum March 1985 for 40 weeks Nil to date 3. Stratton Consultancy Pty Ltd Provision of Services of Mr David Stratton 1. Summarise foreign language films suitable for SBS-TV. 2. Provide continuous review of overseas production. 3. Consult with SBS and provide advice as to suitability of films offered to SBS. 4. Provide SBS with comprehensive reports of film festivals attended in capacity as Director of Sydney Film Festival. 5. Present movies on SBS TV. Yearly retainer of 5,000.00 plus 500.00 for each report plus 200.00 per on-air presentation (period May '83 to June '89). Yearly retainer 6,000.00 plus 600.00 per report 300.00 per week for on-air presentation. May 1983- June 1984 30 January 1985 to 25 January 1986 30 January 1985 to 29 July 1986 Nil Nil to date Nil to date 4. Dr Ronald Forbes Management Consultancy. Conduct executive team development workshop for SBS. 900.00 26 and 27 August 1983 300.00 for supplying books and documentation to participants in course. 5. Television South International (UK) Overseas representative for SBS. 1. Identify master material which it considers suitable for SBS-TV use. 2. Ascertain availability of broadcasting rights of such material. 3. Arrange for SBS to preview such material as required by SBS. st180,000 st105,000 1 July 1983- 30 June 1985 1 July 1985- 30 June 1986 Nil to date 4. Upon request convey to or ascertain from owners of such material terms and conditions of proposed sale or licence of such rights. 5. Ensure owners fulfil contractual obligations to SBS. 6. Supervise any contract entered into by SBS with any other individual or organisation relating to processing or conversion of such material. 7. Appoint local representatives of TVS in countries other than England at request of SBS to perform duties as outlined above. 8. Perform other reasonable services as SBS may require from time to time. 6. Ms Kay Stammers English Language Consultant. Carry out a study into the use of radio and TV programs to assist the learning of English as a second language and develop a policy proposal on the subject. 16,236 5 December 1983 to 4 June 1984 Nil 7. McDonald Wagner and Priddle Pty Ltd Consulting Engineers. Plan and supervise installation of emergency power generator at SBS-TV premises. Obtain local authorities approval for such installation. Ensure installation by suppliers of generator is satisfactory. 7,500 estimated 19 June 1984 to 31 July 1984 $51.54 original cost estimated only 8. McGurren and Company Provision of legal services pending appointment of Legal Officer to SBS. Provide advice to SBS on legal matters with particular reference to: 1. Media Law 2. Copyright 3. Contract Law pertaining to media matters 4. Other matters where necessary $80.00 per hour for work performed 30 June 1983 to 1 August 1983 Nil 9. Aussat Pty Ltd Engineering Consultancy. Supervise installation test and commissioning of a microwave dish and associated electronics for monitoring SBS satellite transmissions and for program interchange purposes (in conjunction with installation of similar facilities at same location for Aussat). 25,750 10 July 1985 to completion Nil to date 10. Hart Frankel and Company Provision of legal services during extended leave-SBS Corporate Solicitor. Provide advice to SBS on legal matters with particular reference to: 1. Media Law 2. Copyright 3. Contract Law pertaining to media matters 4. Administrative Law. $100.00 per hour for work performed 22 July 1985 to mid-November 1985 Nil AUSTRALIAN BROADCASTING TRIBUNAL 1. Dr B Ong Assistance to Research Branch in relation to the study of `Neurophysiological Responses of Children to Television'. Statistical analysis especially concerning any differences in power spectre in the two brain hemispheres and in the interpretation of the results. $525 on ad hoc basis between March and June 1983 Nil 2. Dr A. Brown To assist the Tribunal with its Inquiry into the Proposed Amendment to the Broadcasting Program Standards 1981-Australian Content on Radio Stations. Pre-hearing Economic analysis of material contained in submissions lodged including analysis of, and suggestions for possible lines of questions, arising from, the Industries Assistance Commission's Report: The Music Recording Industry in Australia-15 February 1978. Post-hearing Economic analysis of evidence tendered at the hearing of the inquiry in so far as it may be necessary. Total daily fees: $890 Fares: $276 21-25 November 13-16, 20, 29 December 1983 2-3 February 1984 Nil 3. Dr N. Runge To review and report on economic and financial information, available to and required by the Tribunal. Conduct a pilot study to investigate opportunities available to the Tribunal to undertake economic and financial information collection, analysis and research. Fees: $9,858 Travel: $577.35 30 March- 29 June 1984 No initial quote available 4. Dr A. Brown Assist Tribunal in review of: (a) the provision of financial information by commercial radio and television licensees; and (b) the assessment of amounts payable by commercial licensees as licence fees. Examine current practices and existing application forms and financial statements for the purpose of identifying deficiencies in the Tribunal's collection of financial information and in its assessment of amounts payable in respect of licence fees. 3,021 3-28 September 1984 Nil 5. Software Sciences (Division of Thorn EMI) Assess the efficiency of the Tribunal's present ownership and control ADP system. Assess efficiency of ownership and control system in terms of its cost of operation during file update and interrogation. Assess extent of modification required. Determine whether it would be more cost effective to modify existing system or to re-develop the system. 19,050 28 February- 27 May 1985 Nil 6. Kevin Bourke Associates (Broadcasting and Communications Consultants) Assist and advise Tribunal on technical matters in the preparation of the Report of the Inquiry into the granting of licences for Regional (Remote) Commercial Television Services, West Australian region. To confer as and when required with ABT Members and staff on technical matters arising from the inquiry. To examine licence application documents and to attend conferences and hearings of the inquiry to assist on technical matters. 7,000 10-27 May 1985 Nil 7. Ernest and Whinney Assist the Tribunal on financial matters concerning the TVQ Share. Transaction Inquiry. Analyse financial information relating to several members of the Qintex group of companies, advise counsel assisting the Tribunal on the financial capabilities; provide Tribunal with summary of work undertaken. 7,000 currently approved by Tribunal final cost to be determined at completion of Inquiry commencement 27 March 1985 final fee not yet determined OVERSEAS TELECOMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Management Consulting SIBIS Consulting International Marketing Branch Review Operations Branch Management Structure Review Terms of Reference Terms of Reference 9,652 26,043 July 1983- August 1983 29 June 1983- 23 August 1983 852 Urwick International Organisation and staffing review-Information Systems Branch Terms of Reference 8,750 4 July 1983- 5 August 1983 Nil R. J. Boyle Methodology for Antarctic consultancy Written brief 900 10 July 1984-27 July 1984 Nil Price Waterhouse Urwick Organisation Review Terms of Reference 20,755 July 1984- December 1984 Nil MWP Management (NSW) Pty Ltd Engineering Branch Review Terms of Reference 50,873 August 1984-April 1985 2,873 Touche Ross Organisation and structure review-Finance Branch Written brief 7,500 December 1984- December 1984 Nil Price Waterhouse Urwick Review of Cor- porate Planning Process Terms of Reference 51,950 14 January 1985- 30 April 1985 Nil Mr A. Newstead Strategic Review Terms of Reference 21,000 5 June 1985- 26 June 1985 Nil Dr A. F. Payne Assist in Strategic Review Terms of Reference 6,750 5 June 1985- 13 June 1985 Nil Ove Arup and Partners Civil work Written brief 15,000 17 October 1983- 30 November 1984 3,000 for work not in initial brief John Connell, Mott Hay and Anderson Civil work, Sydney Satellite Earth Station Restricted Tender Specification 408,000 19 April 1985- July 1986 Nil Bates, Smart McCutcheon Proposal for ground Floor Melbourne Outline of requirements 840 21 December 1983- 19 January 1984 Nil Bates, Smart McCutcheon Fire safety upgrade-Melbourne Office Safety deficiencies listed 2,272 18 May 1984- 29 August Nil Norman Disney and Young Air conditioning modifications-Staff cafeteria Floor Plan 1,079 22 June 1982- 31 January 1984 Nil Cable and Wireless PLC, London Suitability Cable landing point-Perth W.A. Outline, charts marine inspection 7,749 3 July 1983- 12 July 1983 Nil Louis A. Challis and Associates Pty Ltd Acoustic problems Floor Plan 123 22 September 1983 Nil Coffey and Partners Pty Ltd Geotechnical testing Written brief 5,674 3 November 1983- 23 November 1983 Nil MacDonald Wagner Review design and budget for Melbourne gateway building Design and costing documentation 1,500 22 June 1984- 19 July 1984 Nil Norman Disney and Young Air conditioning modifications computer area Floor Plan 8,992 18 September 1984- 9 January 1985 Nil Louis A. Challis and Associates Pty Ltd Assess noise levels-Townsville Written brief 4,619 1 March 1985- 24 April 1985 1,019 Jefferey and Katauskas Pty Ltd Geotechnical testing Tender specification 2,915 19 April 1985- July 1985 Nil Hill Samuel Foreign exchange advice Written brief 75,000 November 1982- March 1985 Nil Array Systems Financial Planning Models Oral brief 6,096 May 1983- July 1984 Nil Capel Court Indian Ocean Cable Systems funding Written and oral briefs 39,204 June 1983- July 1984 Nil Coopers and Lybrand Services Financial Management Information Systems Detailed oral and written brief 160,000 December 1983- July 1985 Nil Chemical Bank Foreign Bank Advisory Service Tokyo Foreign exchange advice Written brief 81,809 April 1984- August 1985 Nil Price Waterhouse New York Indian Ocean Cable Systems-financing techniques Written brief 9,009 April 1984- June 1984 Nil Price Waterhouse London Indian Ocean Cable Systems-financing techniques Written brief 3,335 April 1984 Nil PTOW/TPF&C Commonwealth Superannuation Scheme Liabilities Detailed oral and written brief 30,000 September 1984- July 1985 Nil Price Waterhouse Income Tax Policies and Procedures Written brief 4,500 December 1984- January 1985 Nil SRI International Telephone demand Elasticity study Investigate relationship of tariff adjustments and customer demand for international telephone service 125,000 April 1983- September 1983 Nil Economax Short term Econometric Modelling and demand analysis-5 contracts Tender Specification 91,500 October 1983- February 1984 5,700 Elasticity and Economic variables-3 contracts Tender Specification 61,800 October 1983- March 1984 Nil Longterm Demand Forecasting-3 contracts Tender Specification 110,000 October 1983- December 1985 Nil Econometric Training-2 contracts Tender Specification 54,000 May 1984- July 1985 Nil Prime Econometrics Leading and Lagging Indicator Study Tender Specification 98,500 July 1984- November 1984 Nil Product Life Cycle Study Tender Specification 91,000 October 1984- May 1985 Nil Advanced Quantitative Training Program Tender Specification 10,000 June 1985- August 1985 Nil ACS International Review of contingency plans for production and development, processing and security of data Terms of Reference 14,790 20 June 1983- 30 September 1983 3,190 Logica Pty Ltd Review need to develop a Traffic Management Information System Terms of Reference 39,000 8 October 1983- 24 August 1984 Nil Urwick International Review computer hardware requirements, tender specifications and tenders received Terms of Reference 37,100 November 1983- 21 November 1984 Nil W D Scott Study of Payroll requirements preparation and evaluation Terms of Reference 67,688 11 January 1984- 1 April 1985 7,868 Logica Pty Ltd Information System Review Data Processing Strategy Terms of Reference 18,881 25 March 1984-24 August 1984 Nil Parity Computer Services Programming for higher duties to be added to Manpower Planning data-base Defined objectives 8,122 30 April 1984- 22 June 1984 Nil Coopers and Lybrand/W D Scott Study of office automation requirements Terms of Reference In Progress 17 April 1985- Nil LEGAL SERVICES A full listing of payments for legal advice has not been made as some could be classified as day-to-day consultancies. However total payments from March 1983 to March 1985 have been: $ Deputy Crown Solicitor... 236,770 Allen, Allen and Hemsley... 143,430 Spruson and Ferguson, Trade Mark Attorneys... 20,670 Chadbourne, Parke, Whiteside and Wolff-Washington DC... $US10,000 AUSSAT PTY LTD (a) (b) (c) (d) (e) (f) Name of Consultant Purpose Working Plan Cost Duration of Service Extra Fee $ 1. TELESAT Canada Provide consultancy services to AUSSAT in relation to the technical aspects of the construction and development of the three AUSSAT satellites in the USA. In all cases the consultancy services were on specific aspects of AUSSAT's business activities and construction program leading up to the launch of the first satellite in August 1985. During the period March 1983 to the present time, the cost of the above services has been in the order of A$2m of which the major cost has been for Telesat consulting services. 2. Hill Samuel Australia Ltd (Macquarie Bank) Provide initial financial advice in the establishment of bridging finance of means of Australian and Overseas bank loans. Each consultant has been utilised on a number of occasions during the period mentioned and Telesat Canada continues to provide specialised engineering services to AUSSAT in Australia leading up to commercial operations. Telesat services are being used because of the difficulty in recruiting the requisite personnel experienced in space communication engineering from local sources. 3. Cullen Egan Dell (Remuneration and Superannuation Consultants) Provide advice to AUSSAT in respect of remuneration and superannuation arrangements leading up to the recruitment and establishment of permanent staff. All fees payable have been in line with the estimates provided to AUSSAT. Australian Telecommunications Commission and Australian Postal Commission The information sought is not readily available in the form asked for by the Honourable Member. It would require the application of considerable resources in order to collate the information in such a way as to answer each part of this question. However, the following details are provided: For the financial year 1983-84, 189 consultants were engaged by Telecom at a total cost of $3,896,300. For 1984-85, 201 consultants were engaged by Telecom at a total cost of $4,700,300. The broad nature of the consultancies was: staff training and development studies into repetitive strain injuries professional technical consultancies eg. Valuers, Architects, Inspection of Sacred Sites management techniques, work procedures, Telecom customer surveys market research, product evaluations and studies, including contracts with Academic and research Institutions. computer projects and software maintenance specialist advice on legal and financial matters industrial Safety matters development of new corporate strategies and framework reviews, organisation and staffing matters, and materials supply procedures study into interconnection of Royal Flying Doctor and Telecom Networks and investigations into Aboriginal and Islander telecommunications need. directory services studies design work and colour studies for telephone instruments and small switchboards Australia Post engaged 73 consultants in 1983-84 at a total cost of $1,120,000. In 1984-85, 79 consultants were commissioned for the total cost of $858,000. This expenditure relates to payments to consultants for matters such as: advice on policy matters, on technical and professional subjects and on management; advice on and the conduct of, research projects, attitude surveys and fact finding investigations; conducting staff training courses or sessions at courses. (Question No. 1443) Mr Blunt asked the Minister for Trade, upon notice, on 20 August 1985: (1) What advertising campaigns and research studies have been conducted or commissioned by the Minister's Department since March 1983. (2) Did any other Government agencies advise or co-ordinate any of these campaigns or research studies. (3) If an advertising agency or market research firm was used (a) what was its name and (b) what amount was it paid. (4) What was (a) the cost and (b) in the case of advertising campaigns, the split between agency fees and actual campaign costs for each campaign or study. Mr Dawkins —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) No advertising campaigns have been conducted or commissioned in Australia by the Department since March 1983. However, advertisements have been placed in the print media in support of country-related displays held at the International Trade Development Centres (ITDCs) in Sydney and Melbourne. Also, one market research study was commissioned in Australia regarding the attitudes of the Australian business community towards trade with Thailand. Overseas, product advertising has been used to promote Australian manufactured exports and is directed at defined business audiences through business weeklies, trade journals and newspapers. No related market research studies have been commissioned overseas. (2) The Information Co-ordination Branch (ICB) of the Department of Sport, Recreation and Tourism was consulted on the placement of advertising for the ITDCs. (3) and (4) Placement of advertising for the ITDCs was made through advertising agencies appointed to handle government advertising, after consultation with the ICB. Funding of advertising for the ITDC's is the responsibility of the Australian Development Assistance Bureau. Competitive Edge was engaged to produce the Thailand report at a fee of $26,750. Advertising in overseas markets for product campaigns cost approximately $1 million in 1984/85. A large number of advertising agencies have been used but information is not readily available to separately identify agency fees from campaign costs. (Question No. 1471) Mr Blunt asked the Minister for Trade, upon notice, on 20 August 1985: (1) What journals, digests, files, periodicals and the like are produced by instrumentalities within the Minister's portfolio. (2) For each publication (a) when was it established, (b) which section within the Minister's portfolio produces it, (c) how many staff are involved in its production and for what percentage of time are they involved, (d) how often is it produced, (e) by whom is it printed and what is the print run, (f) what is the circulation and to whom, or where is it circulated, (g) who has editorial control, (h) what are its stated objectives and (i) what are the printing, staff and administrative costs associated with its production. Mr Dawkins —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1)The following publications were produced regularly by the Department prior to 6 January 1986 but are now produced by the Australian Trade Commission: Overseas Trading, Australian Trading News and Australia Produces. (2) Overseas Trading (a) 1948 (b) Trade Publicity (c) 100% of one full-time journalist and 70% of a second full-time journalist (d) Monthly (e) Ruskin Press, Melbourne, 17,000 (f) Manufacturers, retail/wholesalers, service/industry consultants, unions/trade associations, edu- cational establishments, the media, Parliamentarians, government departments/statutory bodies, embassies/consulates and miscellaneous overseas recipients (g) Manager, Public Relations (h) To keep Australian industry, commerce and others informed of trade promotion and other government activities available to assist exporters and to provide information on industrial and scientific developments of interest to Australian exporters and potential exporters. (i) Approximately $380,000 in 1984-85 Australian Trading News (a) Established as ``Austral News'' in 1950 (b) Trade Publicity (c) 60% of three full-time journalists in Australia. Editions are printed in Australia and overseas, where production is oversighted by Trade Commissioners (d) Varies according to region (e) Various overseas printers and print runs (f) Circulated by various Trade Commission posts to importers, agents and potential customers of Australian goods and services (g) Director of Trade Publicity (h) To promote Australian goods and services overseas (i) $546,900 in 1984-85 Australia Produces (a) 1982 (b) Trade Publicity (c) 100% of 1 full-time journalist (d), (e) and (f) This publication is distributed throughout North America as an insert in specialist trade publications (circulation depends on type of publication, e.g. 25,000 to over 200,000) (g) Director of Trade Publicity (h) To promote Australian goods and services to buyers in North America (i) $581,000 in 1984-85 (Question No. 1834) Mr McVeigh asked the Minister representing the Minister for Education, upon notice, on 13 September 1985: (1) Has the Minister's attention been drawn to a joint press release issued by the Treasurer and the Minister for Finance concerning the Commonwealth Budget outcome in 1984-85 and containing figures relating to the Minister's Department. (2) If so, is the press release correct in stating that education funding in 1984-85 was $25m or 0.6 per cent less than estimated; if the position is as stated, was this mainly the result of (a) non-government schools capital grants being lower than estimated by some $13m and (b) over-estimation of the number of beneficiaries of the Tertiary Education Assistance Scheme by some $7m. (3) If the figures are correct, how is this reconciled with explanations supplied to schools when their applications for funds are rejected on the grounds that funds are not available. Mr Dawkins —The Minister for Education has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: (1) Yes. (2) (a) The press release stated correctly that education outlays in 1984-85 were $25m or 0.6 per cent less than estimated. The release stated further that this mainly reflected a $13m under-expenditure on Schools Commission programs and that this was largely a result of non-government schools capital grants being $9.1m lower than estimated. Estimated cash flows in the 1984-85 financial year were not achieved for two reasons. First, there was a pause in the processing of capital grant applications in early 1985, to enable the implementation of new capital funding policies consistent with the new recurrent funding procedures for schools introduced on 1 January 1985. Second, there were some unexpected delays in the completion of several major school projects which meant that progress payments to those schools could not be made in accordance with the planned schedule and before 30 June 1985. (2) (b) The Tertiary Education Assistance Scheme (TEAS) was underspent by $6.7m or 2.5 per cent, the majority of this under-expenditure occurring in the January-June 1985 period. The under-expenditure resulted from somewhat fewer students being assisted than expected and a lower average payment per student than estimated. (3) The under-expenditure in 1984-85 for non- government school capital projects does not reflect a surplus of funds that might have been available for allocation to schools whose applications were previously unsuccessful. All capital funds available for 1984 and 1985 have been fully committed to specified school building projects. (Question No. 2050) Mr Blunt asked the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations, upon notice, on 9 October 1985: (1) What sums have been paid to Mr Phillip Adams and Mr Rod Cameron, their companies, or principals of their companies, for services rendered to the Minister's Department or authorities under the Minister's control and for what purposes in each case. (2) What sums have been paid to each of these people or companies for (a) travel allowance, (b) air fares, (c) accommodation costs, (d) hire care expenses and (e) any other expenses incurred. Mr Willis —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: Over the period 11 March 1983 to 31 October 1985, (1) Payments totalling $290,948 were made to the company ``Monahan Dayman Adams Ltd'' for radio and TV advertising and $419.02 for expenses. There were no payments made to Mr Rod Cameron, or the company ``Australian Nationwide Opinion Polls'' by my Department or Authorities under my control. (2) Payments made to `Monohan Dayman Adams Ltd' for expenses were: (a) nil, (b) $214.80, (c) $122.00, (d) nil, (e) $82.22. (Question No. 2307) Mr Blunt asked the Minister representing the Minister for Education, 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 Dawkins —The Minister for Education has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: The following information includes expenditure incurred by the Australian Capital Territory Schools Authority and the Office of Youth Affairs which are no longer part of the Education portfolio. (1) (a) 1983-84, $585,078; (b) 1984-85, $562,292. (2) 1983-84 1984-85 $ $ Staffing... 498,621 518,181 Consultants... 4,583 2,040 Publications... 81,874 40,833 Other... - 1,238 (3) Yes. (a) (i) Robin Owen & Associates; (ii) The Consultancy Pty Ltd. (b) (i) $2,040; (ii) $4,583. (c) (i) Provide public relations expertise in lead-up to International Youth Year; (ii) To obtain advice on how the Australian Capital Territory Schools Authority might present itself publicly. (Question No. 2309) Mr Blunt asked the Minister for Trade, 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 Dawkins —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) (a) $1,108,371, (b) $1,159,406. (2) Public relations activities of the Trade portfolio in Australia are designed to enhance the environment for trade by making export development central to the thinking of business, unions and government. Overseas, public relations activities are principally directed at improving awareness in the market of Australia's capabilities as an exporting nation. (3) Outside assistance was obtained for advertisements in the Australian print media directed at creating an awareness of the Japan Market Strategy and for some advertising conducted in overseas markets directed at the promotion of Australian products. For the Japan Market Strategy, the assistance was provided by Holt Public Relations at a cost of $94,450 (fees plus production of promotional material). Outside assistance was sought to supplement Departmental resources and to ensure that an important initiative was launched as effectively as possible. Overseas, the need for local expertise was the prime factor in seeking outside assistance. Further information has been provided in answers to Questions on Notice Nos 1443 and 2337. (Question No. 2337) Mr Blunt asked the Minister for Trade, upon notice, on 12 November 1985: (1) What was the expenditure by the Minister's Department and authorities under the Minister's control on advertising (other than classified newspaper advertising) by individual or program in (a) 1983-84 and (b) 1984-85. (2) Who (a) initiated and (b) conducted each campaign. (3) Why was each campaign necessary. (4) What was the basis of remuneration for each campaign. (5) Was the assistance of the (a) Information Co-ordination Branch or (b) Australian Government Advertising Service obtained. Mr Dawkins —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) No advertising campaigns were conducted in Australia by the Department in 1983-84 and 1984-85. However non-campaign advertisements were placed to announce such matters as annual grant applications for the Export Market Development Grants Scheme, business opportunities under the Australia/New Zealand Closer Economic Relations Trade Agreement, applications for various export performance awards, and the conduct of seminars on specific markets. These cost approximately $20,000 in 1983-84 and $27,000 in 1984-85. In addition, advertisements were placed in support of country-related displays held at the International Trade Development Centres (ITDCs) in Sydney and Melbourne, funding for which is the responsibility of the Australian Development Assistance Bureau. Advertising has been conducted in various overseas markets to promote Australian manufactured exports. During 1983-84 and 1984-85, the expenditure was as follows: 1983-84 1984-85 $A $A United Kingdom... 19,151 46,439 Italy... 7,720 10,060 Germany FR... 16,022 18,000 Kuwait... 18,537 23,868 Bahrain... 13,170 8,660 United Arab Emirates... 2,578 11,999 Saudi Arabia... 5,560 22,478 Middle East-General... 64,096 88,427 Singapore... 21,748 43,179 Indonesia... 24,739 35,355 Malaysia... 1,101 . . Thailand... 3,346 21,914 S.E. Asia-General... 55,128 96,387 Philippines... 11,737 22,988 Hong Kong... 13,256 27,642 Korea... 25,921 24,897 People's Republic of China... 15,274 30,387 New Zealand... 50,500 66,958 Pacific Islands... 14,865 20,000 Pacific-General... 13,780 16,723 Papua New Guinea... 10,270 16,854 Canada... 38,232 65,686 United States (inc. Hawaii)... 131,454 289,599 ASEAN Trade Fair... 3,518 . . TOTAL... 581,703 1,008,500 (2) (a) The Department. (b) Advertising agencies or direct placement with the print media. (3) See 1 above. (4) Nil. (5) The Information Co-ordination Branch (ICB) of the Department of Sport, Recreation and Tourism was consulted on the placement of advertising for the ITDCs. (Question No. 2593) Mr Macphee asked the Minister for Communications, upon notice, on 20 November 1985: (1) Did he have discussions with Australia Post on means of (a) getting around the recent ban by postal workers on mail to and from South Africa or (b) having the ban lifted; if so, what was the result of the discussions. (2) Did Australia Post direct postal workers to process South African mail; if so, what was the result of those directions. (3) Were postal workers fully paid during the time they refused to (a) process South African mail and (b) work as directed. (4) Does section 94 of the Postal Services Act provide for a penalty of up to 12 months imprisonment for anyone who wilfully obstructs or hinders the conveyance of mail by Australia Post; if so, was any action taken under this section as a result of the bans imposed on South African mail. Mr Duffy —The answer to the honourable member's question, based on advice from Australia Post, is as follows: (1) (a) No. However, my Department kept me fully informed on efforts made by Australia Post to have bans lifted. (2) No. (3) (a) Yes. (b) Not applicable (see (2) above). (4) Yes, but it would be a matter for legal advice in each individual case whether action taken by a postal worker was a contravention of section 94. In any event the view of Australia Post is that the application of that section would not have assisted in the lifting of the bans. (Question No. 2594) Mr Macphee asked the Minister for Communications, upon notice, on 20 November 1985: (1) What effect will the devaluation of the Australian dollar have on the level of interest payments on loans taken out by (a) Telecom, (b) Australia Post and (c) the Overseas Telecommunications Commission. (2) Will the devaluation have any effect on (a) the financial results and (b) the charges of those bodies. Mr Duffy —The answer to the honourable member's question, based on advice from Telecom, Australia Post and the Overseas Telecommunications Commission, is as follows: (1a) Telecom does not have a large exposure to exchange rate fluctuations on its foreign borrowing. Currently, total overseas borrowing exposure amounts to $US59m or less than 0.8% of total borrowings. Even after allowing for exchange rate falls, foreign borrowing can be more effective than domestic borrowings when the difference in local and overseas interest rates is large. This has been the case in Telecom to date. In the first half of 1985/86 this continued to be the case, with the greater cost of interest repayments resulting from exchange rate changes since the date of borrowing more than offset by the lower level of overseas interest rates. (1b) The interest payable by Australia Post in 1985/86 on two export credit loans (denominated in French Francs) would increase if the average exchange rate prevailing in November 1985 (5.35 FRF per AUD) were to apply for the balance of the 1985/86 Financial Year. (1c) The devaluation of the Australian dollar since March 1983 until mid-1985 increased the level of interest payable by OTC by $1.1m. As OTC has eliminated the bulk of its foreign currency exposure relating to off-shore borrowings through currency swap agreements, no further increase in interest payments relating to the movements of the Australian dollar will take place. The remaining exposure is offset by investments in international organisations which are denominated in foreign currency. (2a) (i) In 1984/85, changes in exchange rates affected the levels of Telecom's outstanding borrowings in foreign currencies. These changes were treated in the 1984/85 Annual Report as unrealised losses and were reported as $16m as of 30 June 1985. As well as being affected by changes in exchange rates through foreign currency borrowings, Telecom is also affected via its material purchases. Approximately 90% of Telecom's materials supplies are provided directly from domestic suppliers and its direct exposure is therefore small, although some indirect exposure does result from imports by domestic suppliers. (2a) (ii) Devaluation would have a marginal effect on Australia Post's anticipated profit/loss in 1985/86. This effect must be viewed, however, in light of - the magnitude of Australia Post's revenue and expenditure ($1,300m each in 1985/86) and - Australia Post's other international operating cash flows which result in a net inflow of foreign currency. This net inflow (equivalent to AUD 25m in the 12 months to November 1985) provides a natural hedge against payments overseas, including interest payments, and results in a net financial benefit to Australia Post from devaluation. (2a) (iii) In the financial year ended 31 March 1985 OTC had a net loss of $8.2m arising from currency exchange differences, reduced by hedging gains of $6.1m from $14.3m. This reduced the profit before income taxes by 8.1%, from $101.2m to $93m. In the preceeding financial year OTC had a net gain of $3.7m from currency exchange differences. The principal exposures faced by OTC are payments overseas for international traffic settlements and for acquisition of interests in transmission facilities. Through active foreign exchange management OTC, in the short term, has been able to reduce its losses arising from the devaluation. (2b) (i) Since October 1985, when the Telecommunications Act was changed to allow overseas currency hedging, Telecom has been able to take an active role in reducing unwanted exchange exposure. It is envisaged that this action will minimise, if not eliminate the effects on profits and tariffs from foreign exchange exposures. (2b) (ii) While the financial benefit from devaluation in Australia Post is not sufficient to affect the level of postal charges directly, the overall practical effect is to assist in holding postal charges at existing levels for a longer period. (2b) (iii) To date there has been no effect on the charges imposed by OTC for its major services. Tariffs for automatic telephone and telex services have been reduced during the period of the devaluation. Some minor contractual services, such as television leases, are subject to foreign currency variation as part of the contractual arrangements. (Question No. 2603) Mr Hunt asked the Treasurer, upon notice, on 20 November 1985: Which questions placed on notice within the last (a) month, (b) 6 weeks, (c) 2 months, (d) 3 months, (e) 4 months and (f) 6 months to 19 November 1985 had not received a final answer at that date. Mr Keating —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (a) 2573, 2572, 2571, 2570, 2566, 2556, 2533, 2505, 2444, 2412, 2379, 2354, 2331, 2303. (b) 2283, 2227, 2214, 2184, 2135, 2110, 2051, 2031, 1991 and (a) above. (c) NIL and (b) above. (d) 1961, 1922, 1879, 1862, 1861, 1860, 1839, 1688, 1687, 1675, 1667, 1661, 1632, 1614, 1601, 1573, 1565, 1564, 1551, 1493, 1465, 1437 and (c) above. (e) NIL and (d) above. (f) 1238, 1204 and (e) above. (Question No. 2657) Mr Dubois asked the Treasurer, upon notice, on 21 November 1985: (1) What level of success has been achieved by the Prices Surveillance Authority in promoting price restraint since its establishment in March 1984. (2) What steps does the Authority take to monitor the prices of goods commonly purchased in supermarkets. Mr Keating —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) The Authority maintains surveillance of prices in areas where effective competitive disciplines are not present and where price or wage decisions have pervasive effects throughout the economy. Areas under surveillance comprise wholesale prices of major petroleum products, the principal charges of Australia Post and Telecom, and wholesale prices of packet tea, tea bags, instant coffee, beer, cigarettes, float glass and concrete roofing tiles. Public inquiries have been held into the first three of these areas and into fruit juice prices, cigarette prices and the table chicken industry. The Government believes that the operations of the Prices Surveillance Authority have been an important influence in encouraging price restraint as a counterpart to the wage restraint being exercised under the Prices and Incomes Accord. The Government will continue to use the Authority as necessary to ensure that, in areas of the economy where effective competitive disciplines are absent, companies do not take undue advantage of market power in setting prices. (2) Because of the importance to consumers of prices of food and other goods commonly purchased in supermarkets, the Authority is paying particular attention to this area. It has arranged with the Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) to provide it with more detailed information on food and grocery price movements than is normally available from the published Consumer Price Index. Using this information the Authority publishes a quarterly bulletin called ``Price News'', which examines retail price movements for a selection of approximately 40 commonly purchased supermarket items. ``Price News'' aims to analyse as far as possible the causes of significant price movements and to report them factually and reliably. Information for the publication is obtained from the ABS and from the Authority's own information bases. Major supermarket chains and their suppliers are co-operating in providing explanations of price movements. Analysis of this information will enable the Authority to monitor the more significant changes in food and grocery prices, and consider what further action may be warranted. (Question No. 2661) Mr Downer asked the Treasurer, upon notice, on 21 November 1985: (1) What proportion of the staff of the Minister's Department are employed in international relations work. (2) What are the international policy sections and branches of the Minister's Department. (3) How many staff are employed in each of those sections and branches. Mr Keating —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) (2) and (3) The principal area of the Treasury involved in international relations work is the Overseas Economic Relations Division. The Branches and Sections of this Division are as follows: Overseas Finance Branch-(14 staff members, including the Assistant Secretary) comprising:- International Finance Section (7 staff) Balance of Payments Section (6 staff) Overseas Economic and Trade Branch (11 staff members, including the Assistant Secretary) comprising:- Overseas Trade and Investment Section (4 staff) International Economic Conditions Section (6 staff) International Development Finance Branch (8 staff members, including the Assistant Secretary) comprising:- Development Finance General Section (3 staff) Multilateral Banks Section (4 staff) In addition, there are 8 Treasury staff posted overseas (in London, Paris, Washington, Tokyo and Bonn) attached to the Division. Most other areas of the Department are involved in subject matter with an international dimension. These include the Loans and Debt Management Branch of the Revenue, Loans and Investment Division; the Taxation Policy Division; the Foreign Investment Division; the Financial Institutions Division; and the General Financial and Economic Policy Division. The Secretary and the Deputy Secretaries of the Department are frequently engaged in overseas representational activities in connection with Australia's overseas borrowing and Australia's membership of international organisations. Similarly, they are engaged in Canberra with foreign visitors, official and unofficial, and with Australian preparation for such visits. Because of this widespread but partial involvement of many areas of the department in international economic relations, it is not possible to provide fully quantified estimates. The Overseas Economic Relations Division comprises some 8 per cent of the staff of Central Treasury. (Question No. 2708) Mr Ruddock asked the Minister for Communications, 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 and 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 New Committee, (r) Photo Access, (s) Philippine Action Support Group, (t) Rape Crisis Centre, (u) Reachout, (v) Schools Against the Bomb, (w) Southern Africa 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 purpose 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. Mr Duffy —The answer to the honourable member's question, based in part on advice from the statutory authorities within the Communications portfolio, is as follows: (1) Yes. (2) The listed organisations do not receive financial support or grants from the Department of Communications or any of the statutory authorities within the Communications portfolio. Radio Station 2XXX, as a Public Station, receives some funding from time to time from the Public Broadcasting Foundation (PBF). The PBF receives an annual grant through my Department to assist in its funding support of Public Broadcasting Stations generally. (3) to (7) Not applicable. (Question No. 2767) Mr Simmons asked the Minister for Communications, upon notice, on 27 November, 1985: (1) For how long has Telecom Australia had a recorded message to advise of delays when customers use directory assistance numbers such as 013. (2) Does Telecom maintain a check on possible lengthy delays which may be encountered by customers using directory assistance numbers. (3) If there is evidence of lengthy delays, will Telecom allocate additional staff to directory assistance numbers. Mr Duffy —The answer to the honourable member's question, based on advice from the Australian Telecommunications Commission, is as follows: (1) The recorded message on the Directory Assistance service was introduced progressively throughout Australia during 1985. (2) Yes. (3) The desired standard of service (90% of all calls to be answered within 10 seconds of entering the queue) is not always being achieved. Additional staff are being allocated to improve the service. (Question No. 2794) Mr Tickner asked the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations, upon notice, on 29 November 1985: (1) What action has been taken by the Minister's Department since March 1983 to ensure that career opportunities for Aborigines and Islanders are increased to a level not less than the ratio of the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander population to the non-Aboriginal population. (2) How many Aboriginal and Islander employees were employed in the Minister's Department at (a) 30 November 1985 and (b) 31 March 1983. Mr Willis —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) The Department of Employment and Industrial Relations is committed to ensuring that an appropriate proportion of its staff are Aboriginals and Islanders particularly in view of the extensive programs and services directed to Aboriginal and Islander people for which the Department is responsible. Accordingly, it has adopted a number of strategies which aim to: Increase the number of Aboriginals and Islanders who are appointed to positions identified as requiring the `ability to communicate effectively with Aboriginal people and a knowledge and understanding of Aboriginal culture'; and Increase the number of Aboriginals/Islanders in positions not involved directly in the provision of services to Aboriginal and Islander people by: Encouraging the recruitment of Aboriginals/Islanders through, for example, the Department's annual Assistant Research Officer intake and in keyboard areas; actively encouraging Aboriginal and Islanders staff to participate in internal and external training programs and giving priority for their attendance; and informing supervisors and managers of the priority of implementing on-the-job development programs to ensure Aboriginals and Islander staff undertake a comprehensive range of jobs in all areas of the Department. I am pleased to note that the 218 Aboriginal and Islander people who were employed as permanent and temporary staff by the Department as at 1 October 1985 represented 2.6% of the Department's approved average operative staffing level for 1985-86. (2) Statistics on Aboriginal and Islander staff are collected by the Department in October each year. At 1 October 1983, 133 Aboriginal and Islander people were employed, comprising: permanent staff 108, temporary staff 25. At 1 October 1985, 218 Aboriginals and Islander people were employed, comprising: permanent staff 193, temporary staff 25. (Question No. 2874) Mr Tickner asked the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations, upon notice, on 29 November 1985: What are the details of any application for union amalgamation lodged under the Conciliation and Arbitration Act 1904 since (a) 6 March 1983 and (b) 20 May 1985. Mr Willis —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (a) Since March 1983: Date application filed Organisations involved Status 7.6.1983 The Australian Textile Workers Union AND Federated Felt Hatting AND Allied Trades Employees Union of Australia Approved. Date of effect 31.10.1984. No change of names involved. 7.3.1984 Association of Draughting, Supervisory and Technical Employees AND Australian Public Service Artisans' Association Withdrawn. 19.4.1984 Printing and Kindred Industries Union AND The Federated Photo Engravers, Photo-Lithographers and Photogravure Employees Association of Australia Approved. Date of effect 15.4.1986. 3.12.1984 Association of Draughting, Supervisory and Technical Employees AND Australian Public Service Artisans' Association Still proceeding. 2.1.1985 The Australian Textile Workers Union AND The Australian Boot Trade Employees Federation Still proceeding. (b) Since May 1985: 14.6.1985 Transport Workers' Union of Australia AND The Motor Transport and Chauffeurs' Association Still proceeding. 2.7.1985 The Building Workers' Industrial Union of Australia AND the Operative Plasterers' and Plaster Workers' Federation of Australia AND The Operative Stonemasons' Society of Australia Still proceeding. 17.9.1985 The Federated Ironworkers' Association of Australia AND Australasian Society of Engineers Still proceeding. 16.10.1985 The Australian Workers' Union AND The Undertakers' Assistants and Cemetery Employees Union of Australia Still proceeding. (Question No. 2877) Mr Tickner asked the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations, upon notice, on 29 November 1985: (1) What Commonwealth programs currently exist to promote the formation and development of worker co-operatives. (2) Is the Commonwealth Government providing financial assistance to any worker co-operatives, if so, how many co-operatives are involved and what amount of assistance is being provided in 1985-86 to each of them. (3) Is his Department or any other Commonwealth authority engaged in any work which may lead to the development of new Government programs to assist in the formation and development of worker co-operatives. Mr Willis —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) None. (2) The Work Preparation Program (WPP) is designed to assist individual persons to attain open employment and is aimed specifically at disabled job seekers. Under the WPP a community co-operative has been established, with no worker ownership but with workers sharing in project income. This project, the ``Rural Training and Work Co-operative'', located at Goonellabah near Lismore, received $89,742 as 1985-86 Government funding. Under the Community Employment Program (CEP) a number of projects with either co-operative based sponsors or co-operative type activities have been funded. From its inception until December 1985, the CEP created 605 jobs on 120 such co-operative projects. The definition of funding periods is complex, but $8,097,595 of CEP funds has been provided for co-operative projects from August 1983 until 13 December 1985. In 1985-86, $300,466 has so far been approved under the CEP for co-operative projects. (3) In June 1985 I announced the establishment of the National Advisory Group on Local Employment Initiatives, bringing together experts from all levels of government and the community to advise on the potential and relevance of local employment initiatives as a further option for long term job creation in Australia. Local employment initiatives may be broadly defined as locally developed and controlled initiatives which aim at creating new employment opportunities through the development of economically viable businesses and activities. Some worker co-operatives may come within this category. The Advisory Group will develop strategies and policy options for consideration by the Federal Government, including measures which may complement strategies adopted by State and Local Governments, and agencies in the community sector. Members have recommended that research be undertaken into a variety of areas, concentrating on the development of an infrastructure to support local employment initiatives. This may include worker co-operatives. In addition, the Government is developing a Green Paper on Industrial Democracy which will canvass the options available to it for increasing the level of employee participation in decision making Australian workplaces. Worker co-operatives are one form of employee participation and, as such, will be covered by the Green Paper's considerations. The Green Paper will be released in the near future and followed by an intensive period of consultation and debate. (Question No. 2916) Mr Tickner asked the Minister representing the Minister for Education, upon notice, on 29 November 1985: (1) Has a nationwide campaign to combat illiteracy been established in co-operation with the States and Territories. (2) What is the real increase in funding allocated to combatting adult illiteracy in 1985-86 over 1982-83. Mr Dawkins —The Minister for Education has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: (1) The Commonwealth is actively involved in combatting illiteracy through both school and TAFE systems. During 1984-85 the Commonwealth Government agreed to co-ordinate, nationally, the efforts of State, Catholic and independent education systems which were implementing the Early Literacy Inservice Course. (ELIC was developed by the South Australian Education Department and is an initiative aimed at improving teaching practices in literacy at the first three years of primary schooling.) National co-ordination involved funding a national conference to develop a national plan for implementation; initial training of personnel to train tutors or teachers in each participating system; meetings of a national management committee comprising representatives of participating systems; an evaluation comprising reports of all participating systems. Most Australian educational systems have now implemented ELIC and the program's success has led to Government funding a second year of national co-ordination. Furthermore, the Curriculum Development Council aims to identify, through its Language and Learning Program, other State-based activities which could become further national literacy initiatives at senior primary and secondary levels. Such activities would ensure a comprehensive approach to literacy so that all students in Australian schools achieve the competence in language skills necessary to participate fully in schooling and the community. Steps have already been undertaken in 1985, in co-operation with the States, to identify suitable projects for national co-ordination in the 1986-87 financial year. During 1986, Leaps and Bounds-an English language program for Aborigines and Torres Strait Islanders-will be introduced to schools throughout Australia. This program was developed over several years by the Curriculum Development Centre in conjunction with educators in Queensland, Western Australia, South Australia and the Northern Territory. State TAFE systems and voluntary agencies have the prime responsibility for the provision of adult literacy programs. Such activities are supported by Commonwealth financial assistance, but are not organised on a national basis. However, consultations are at present underway between the Commonwealth Department of Education and the Commonwealth Tertiary Education Commission on the best means of monitoring adult literacy programs. (2) Commonwealth expenditure on tertiary education is made available on a calendar year basis. Estimated 1982 and 1983 expenditure for adult literacy programs is not available. In 1984 it was estimated that of the $5m provided under the Commonwealth Particular Purpose program in TAFE, a total of $0.5m was allocated towards adult literacy schemes. It was estimated that the funds allocated to adult literacy programs doubled in 1985 to approximately $1m. (Question No. 3123) Mr Price asked the Minister for Communications, upon notice, on 11 February 1986: (1) Under the scheme whereby Telecom customers can purchase stamps from Australia Post to help pay their telephone accounts, do procedures exist to record the number of customers who report their stamps lost or stolen; if so how many cards have been reported lost or stolen in each of the last 5 years and in the 6 months to 31 December 1985. (2) What was the value of lost or stolen cards reported in each of those years. (3) How many customers were refunded money and what was the total value of the refunds in each of those years. (4) Are consumer safeguards in the system consistent with (a) State consumer legislation and (b) federal Government consumer protection policy. Mr Duffy —The answer to the honourable member's question, based on advice from Australia Post and Telecom Australia, is as follows: (1) and (2) Neither Telecom nor Australia Post have any record of the number or value of stamp cards lost or stolen over the last five years. These cards are provided by Australia Post so that customers may place purchased stamps on them to help towards paying their telephone accounts. This service is provided by Australia Post as a convenience, at no cost, for Telecom customers. Telecom pays Australia Post agency fees to operate the facility. No record is kept of the cards issued or the stamps purchased as the administrative costs of recording such information would be very high. (3) and (4) As no records are kept no refunds can be given for lost or stolen cards. The responsibility rests with the customers to keep these items safe as with other items of value. (Question No. 3168) Mr Blunt asked the Minister for Communications, upon notice, on 12 February 1986. (1) Has his attention been drawn to the Australian Telecommunications Employees Association publication `The Great American Telephone Disaster: A Lesson for Australia'. (2) Did (a) the Government or (b) Telecom provide any funds for the production of the publication; if so, what amount. (3) Did (a) the Government or (b) Telecom pay for any advertising in the publication; if so, what was the cost. Mr Duffy —The answer to the honourable member's question, based partly on advice from the Australian Telecommunications Commission, is as follows: (1) Yes. (2) (a) and (b) Neither my Department nor Telecom provided any funds for the production of the publication. (3) (a) and (b) Neither my Department nor Telecom paid for any advertising in the publication. (Question No. 3191) Mr Braithwaite asked the Minister for Trade, upon notice, on 14 February 1986: (1) Has his attention been drawn to an article in Australian Business of 15 January 1986 which asserts that his Department is actively encouraging joint public/private consortiums to sell Australian expertise, hardware and services overseas, especially in Asia. (2) Is his Department involved in promoting overseas sale of Australian goods and services by such consortiums; if so, (a) what public instrumentalities are involved, (b) what services are under consideration for sale, (c) in what countries is it proposed to sell these services, (d) what private companies have been approached, (e) for what services have they been approached and (f) have tenders been called; if not, how have private companies been selected for involvement. Mr Dawkins —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) Yes. (2) Promotion of the sale overseas of Australian goods and services is the responsibility of the Australian Trade Commission whose functions are set out in section 8 of the Australian Trade Commission Act 1985. In particular, sub-section 8 (a) (vi) of the Act lists one of the methods for facilitating and encouraging such trade as ``carrying out, or assisting other persons to carry out, or participating with other persons in carrying out, in whole or in part, overseas development projects, in circumstances where that course of action will benefit Australian organisations''. In situations where the Australian Trade Commission finds it necessary or desirable to participate itself in a consortium, sub-section 29 (1) of the Act provides that ``Subject to this Act, the Commission may form a company, or enter into an agreement with another person to join in the formation of a company, partnership, consortium or other business association- (a) to carry out the whole or a part of an overseas development project; or (b) for any other purpose connected with, or incidental to, the performance of its functions.'' Since its formation on 6 January 1986 the Australian Trade Commission has been pursuing a number of overseas projects which could result in exports of a wide range of Australian goods and services, and which require a consortium approach to have any real chance of success. As the honourable member will appreciate, confidentiality is an essential element of any business negotiation and, therefore, the specific details of proposed arrangements, such as organisations, countries, goods and services involved are commercial-in-confidence and, accordingly, not publicly available. (Question No. 3195) Mr Braithwaite asked the Minister for Trade, upon notice, on 14 February 1986: What is the average length of time between- (a) request for a provision of pre-shipment finance for exporters, and (b) application for and provision of insurance for exporters by the Export Finance and Insurance Corporation? Mr Dawkins —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (a) EFIC does not itself provide pre-shipment finance for exporters but provides guarantees to banks which provide the finance. Therefore EFIC is not in a position to answer the specific question. EFIC's response time to guarantee applications is as follows: Prior to October 1985 when the guarantee facility was operated under the National Interest provisions of the EFIC Act, and Ministerial approval was required for each transaction, the average time between the request for and the issue of guarantees was 31 working days. In the post-October 1985 period, when the EFIC was empowered to issue the guarantees on its own account, the average time has been 6 working days. In the majority of cases components of the time taken are the need to obtain credit information on the overseas buyers and the inadequacy of transaction details provided by applicants. (b) Where the provision of insurance is connected with a pre-shipment finance guarantee the average length of time between the application and issue is the same as in (a). For other transactions the answer depends on what type of insurance facility is required. Assuming it is directed at the comprehensive insurance facility under which the bulk of covers are written the answer is as follows: New comprehensive policies are issued within an average of 10 working days from receipt of proposals, the time being a function of the need for assessments of the payable mechanisms, buyers and markets for which the exporter anticipates seeking cover. For existing comprehensive policyholders where the buyer is known to EFIC and the commitment is within the authority delegated by the Austrade Board cover can normally be given on the day or the day following the receipt of the application. For very large commitments requiring Austrade Board approval and for more specialised insurance facilities (i.e. other than the comprehensive insurance facility) the time between receipt of request and issue of cover depends on the information provided to EFIC at the outset, the complexity of the transaction including the market risk and whether Government approval (in the case of National Interest covers) is required. Specialised covers do not lend themselves to an ``average length of time'' calculation. (Question No. 3382)) Mr Braithwaite asked the Minister for Trade, upon notice, on 13 March 1986: Will colliery employees unions involved in strikes which cost $140m in lost export production be subjected to the education campaign for trade unions on the adverse effects of industrial disputation on international trade. Mr Dawkins —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: The Trade Development Council Secretariat is organising a national seminar for unions in the coal industry, to be held in May or June 1986. The seminar will deal with all relevant issues including the importance of Australia maintaining its reputation as a reliable supplier. (Question No. 3407)) Mr Conquest asked the Minister for Trade, upon notice, on 14 March 1986: (1) Was the dismissal of the Senior Trade Commissioner in Milan, Mr Walton, in late 1985 for Mr Walton's failure to carry out his instructions; if so, did those instructions require Mr Walton to falsify figures relating to the number of Italian tourists likely to visit Australia for the America's Cup. (2) Did he use figures supplied by the Centre for Applied and Business Research of the University of Western Australia, to obtain Government investment of $30 million in America's Cup spending in WA. (3) Did Mr Walton indicate that the figures were a gross overstatement. (4) Did he reappoint Mr Walton to the Milan post; if so, did he then try to have him removed. (5) What Federal Court of Australia costs are to be paid by the Government following Mr Walton's seeking resolution of the matter in that court. Mr Dawkins —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) Mr Walton has not been dismissed. (2) No. The Commonwealth's announcement of a $30 million allocation to Western Australia for community projects associated with the America's Cup was included in the 1984-85 Budget presented to Parliament on 21 August 1984. The Centre for Applied and Business Research was commissioned in April 1985 by Western Australia to prepare a forecast of possible visitor numbers for the America's Cup Defence Series October 1986-February 1987. The results of this study were published in August 1985. (3) The minutes of the meeting of the America's Cup Support and Co-ordination Committee held in Genoa on 14 and 15 October 1985 attribute to the representative of the Western Australian Tourist Commission the statement ``Research in Italy by the University of W.A had shown a total of 14,000 Italian visitors during 1986''. Doubt was expressed on the accuracy of that estimate, apparently by several people present, on the grounds that it was too high. The actual figure arrived at by the Centre for Applied and Business Research (CABR) of the University of Western Australia was 8,200 during the period October 1986 to February 1987. Of these an estimated 7,000 were attri-buted to the America's Cup. (p. 168 of the Report ``Vi-sitor Numbers Study: America's Cup Defence Series, 1986-87''). I have never endorsed that or any other figure, realising full well that the most carefully compiled estimates are in the end only that. Indeed, it was decided at the last meeting of the America's Cup Intergovernmental Committee in February this year that the study by CABR should be repeated on the grounds that the closer the event the more accurate the estimates are likely to be. The report of this study will, like the previous one, be a publicly available document. (4) Mr Walton was appointed and re-appointed as a Trade Commissioner by the Governor-General. All such appointments were made for a fixed term. Prior to 10 October 1985 the Governor-General gave instructions on locations. From that date the location of Trade Commissioners was a matter for the Minister. Mr Walton's term in Milan was due to expire in May 1986 although his appointment continues to August 1986. My reasons for wishing to relocate Mr Walton have been fully explained in papers I have tabled in the Parliament. There was never any question of terminating his appointment. (5) $1,800. (Question No. 3661) Mr Braithwaite asked the Minister for Trade, upon notice, on 20 March 1986: (1) With regard to the investigation of accounting at his Department's overseas post in Milan, reported on in the Auditor-General's March 1986 Report, on what dates was the Auditor-General's inspection conducted. (2) Who decided that the post in Milan would be subject to investigation. (3) When was this decided and who took the decision. (4) When was the post in Milan last inspected. (5) What is the usual or average period between inspections of overseas posts. (6) Did he approve or authorise this inspection; if so, when and was this before or after (a) the meeting of the America's Cup Co-ordination Committee in Rome, (b) the Senior Trade Commissioner and Consul General in Milan received a letter from the Acting Director of the Australian Trade Commissioners Service informing him that the Minister held reservations about his suit-ability and (c) Mr Walton received a letter informing him that the Minister had decided he should be replaced in Milan, with his departure to be effected by the end of January 1986. (7) It is a fact that the administrative and financial systems operating in Milan were found, with few exceptions, to be satisfactory. Mr Dawkins —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) to (7) The timing, extent and scope of audits of overseas posts by officers of the Auditor-General's Office is entirely a matter for the Auditor-General. (Question No. 3662) Mr Braithwaite asked the Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism, upon notice, on 8 April 1986: (1) Have he and a senior member of his staff ever visited Italy together on Government business; if so, what specific contact have they had with the Senior Trade Commissioner in Milan. (2) Did a senior member of his private staff visit Italy during October 1985 with the Minister for Trade; if so, for how long was he away from normal duties. (3) Was this an official trip; if so, (a) why did he accompany the Minister for Trade, (b) did he have a specific brief, (c) what was his itinerary, (d) did he attend a meeting of the America's Cup Support and Co-ordination Committee in Rome on 22 October 1985, (e) what other meetings did he attend and (f) what was the cost of his travel, accommodation and incidental expenses. (4) If this was not an official trip, (a) did the staff member have official leave and (b) was any part of his travel, accommodation or expenses paid for by the Commonwealth. Mr John Brown —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) Yes: None. (2) Yes: He was overseas for 6 days. (3) This was an official trip. As regards the other parts of the question, the Minister for Trade has advised as follows: (a) Mr Klein joined the Minister for Trade in Rome for discussions with Italian Ministers, officials and business representatives in October last year. For these discussions the Minister needed someone and with a good knowledge of both Italian and Australian business communities and fluent in Italian. He had intended that Mr. J. Bayutti, an Italian specialist employed by the Department as consultant, should accompany him for this purpose. Unfortunately at the time Mr Bayutti was ill and therefore unavailable. He then sought advice from the Australian-Italian business community and the strong recommendation he received was to use the services of Mr Klein. (b) Mr Klein's brief was to give the Minister for Trade expert advice on the Australian and Italian business communities insofar as this related to trade between the two countries; suggestions as to initiatives for developing that trade, and to act as his personal interpreter in discussions with Italian Ministers. (c) Canberra/Rome/Canberra. (d) Yes. (e) Meetings between Minister for Trade and Italian Minister for State Holdings (Mr C. Darida), and the Italian Minister for Foreign Trade (Mr N. Capria) and various officials at the two Ministries. Mr Klein also made contact with the state owned IRI and ENI organisations; Lombardy Chamber of Commerce; a business delegation from Vicenza and a number of private sector organisations including: Pirelli, Aitef, TNT/Traco, Italsider, Italtel, Albates Como, Como Export, Lodi Export, Italian Breeders Association and the two Italian America's Cup Syndicates. Mr Klein also accompanied the Minister for Trade on his visit to Molfetta which enjoys a `sister city' relationship with Fremantle. During the meeting in Molfetta questions of tourism, fishing and marble exports from Australia were raised. (f) $6,286. (4) See answer to (3) above. (Question No. 1483) Mr Blunt asked the Minister for Communications, upon notice, on 20 August 1985: (1) What journals, digests, files, periodicals and the like are produced by instrumentalities within the Minister's portfolio. (2) For each publication (a) when was it established (b) which section within the Minister's portfolio produced it, (c) how many staff are involved in its production and for what percentage of time are they involved, (d) how often is it produced, (e) by whom is it printed and what is the print run, (f) what is the circulation and to whom, or where is it circulated, (g) who has editorial control, (h) what are its stated objectives and (i) what are the printing staff and administrative costs associated with its production. Mr Duffy —The answer to the honourable member's question, based partly on information provided by the statutory authorities within the Communications portfolio, is as follows: (1) HACBSS News, COMNEWS, ABTEE, The Postal Guide, The Stamp Bulletin, The Junior Stamp Review, Telecom News, Telegen, On the line, MAC CHAT, Business Communications, 24 Hours, Scan. (2) HACBSS News. (a) March 1983 (b) Information and Public Relations Section, Department of Communications (c) 1 staff member for approximately 30 hours per issue (d) As needed-four produced to date (e) Various Canberra printers, 7,000 printed (f) 7,000 circulated to: Government and private organisations involved or interested in AUSSAT satellite project, especially HACBSS system; general public; media (g) Information and Public Relations Section (h) To provide information about the Homestead and Community Broadcasting Satellite Service (HACBSS) (i) Printing $721 per issue. Staff $500 per issue. Administrative $615 per issue. COMNEWS (a) February 1984 (b) Information and Public Relations Section, Department of Communications (c) 1 staff member for approximately 28 hours per issue (d) Approximately 4 monthly (e) Various Canberra printers, 1,000 printed (f) 1,000 circulated to media, tertiary education institutions, industry, libraries, government and public interest groups (g) Information and Public Relations Section (h) To provide information about communications activities (i) Printing $115 per issue. Staff $465 per issue. Administrative $280 per issue. ABTEE (a) July 1982 (b) Australian Broadcasting Tribunal (c) One-for 25% of the time (d) Fortnightly (e) Rank Xerox Australia, 1320 printed (f) 1300 copies circulated to members of the public, politicians, academics, licensees of radio and television stations, industry bodies, public interest groups and public libraries (g) ABT Public Relations Officer (h) To provide information about the Tribunal, its functions and its activities, and to promote informed debate of broadcasting issues in Australia (i) $1000 per fortnight. The Postal Guide (a) 1910 (b) Australia Post (c) Two; both for 70% of the time (d) Amendments to this loose-leaf manual are issued at least quarterly (e) Work and Turner; 14,000 (on average, 40 leaves are issued each print). (f) Distribution is made to all post offices and approximately 2000 paying subscribers (g) Manager, Postal Information, Marketing Department, Australia Post Headquarters (h) To outline the conditions for most services offered by Australia Post (i) $109,000 per annum The Stamp Bulletin (a) 1953 (b) Australia Post (c) Three, 65%, 30% and 25%. (d) Bi-monthly (e) Cambec Press, 430,000 printed (f) 380,000 are distributed to Australian stamp collectors and 50,000 to overseas collectors (g) Manager, Stamps and Philatelic, Australia Post Headquarters (h) To advise stamp collectors of new stamp issues and philatelic information (i) $108,896 per issue. The Junior Stamp Bulletin (a) 1977 (b) Australia Post (c) One; 35% of the time (d) Bi-monthly (e) Cambec Press, 190,000 printed (f) 180,000 are distributed to Australian junior stamp collectors and 10,000 to overseas junior collectors (g) Manager, Stamps and Philatelic, Australia Post Headquarters (h) To advise junior stamp collectors of philatelic information and new Australian stamp issues (i) $31,000 per issue Telecom News (a) 1975 (b) Telecom Secretariat (c) 1 person full time (d) Monthly (e) Standard Newspapers, 90,000 printed (f) Parliamentarians, staff and selected international, national and special interest mailings (g) Secretary, Telecom (h) Communicate Commission activities to staff and the public. (i) Printing $200,000 p.a. Staff/administration $32,000 p.m. Telegen (a) 1975 (b) Telecom Secretariat (c) 1 part-time (50%) (d) Quarterly (e) Sands & McDougall; 30,000 printed (f) Internal Plant (Technical staff) (g) Network Eng. Department (h) Provide Technical Staff with information on new technologies and procedures (i) Printing $25,000 p.a. Staff/Administration $14,000 p.a. On the Line (a) 1975 (b) Telecom Secretariat (c) 1 part-time 50% (d) Quarterly (e) Sands & McDougall; 30,000 printed (f) External Plant (Lines) Staff (g) Network Eng. Department (h) Provide Lines Staff with information on new technologies and procedures (i) Printing $25,000 p.a. Staff/Administration $14,000 p.a. Mac Chat (a) 1984 (b) Telecom Secretariat (c) 1 part-time (50%) (d) Bi-monthly (e) A.P.L. Printers; 5,000 printed (f) Manual Assistance Operators (g) Network Eng. Department (h) Operator Services staff information (i) Printing $15,000 p.a. Staff/Administration $14,000 p.a. Business Communications (a) 1984 (b) Commercial Services Department, Telecom (c) 1 part-time (50%) (d) 3 issues p.a. (e) Colour Offset Co. 13,000 printed (f) Australian Business Community (g) Commercial Services Department (h) Keep the business community informed of networks, product and service development (i) Printing $27,000 p.a. Staff/Administration $14,000 p.a. 24 Hours (a) 1976 (b) ABC-Radio Publications (c) 2 x 100% + 2 x 90% approx. (d) Monthly (e) Cumberland Newspapers Ltd Print Run-37,000 (f) Paid circulation-24,386 Available to the general public through newsagents, some book and record shops, the ABC shops by subscription and to the press and some ABC staff (g) The ABC's Editor of Radio Publication, Peter Tranter (h) To publish details of ABC FM programs, stories about the programs and program makers, broadcasting and the media, music, reviews (i) Printing costs are approximately $15,000 per issue and other costs approximately $8,000. The magazine is operating at a trading profit. Scan (a) 1977 (b) ABC-Media and Information Department (c) 2 x 50% (d) Monthly (e) Cumberland Press Ltd Print run-8,000 (f) 8,000 circulation to all ABC staff, retired staff, Members of Parliament and Senators and some media (g) The Managing Director of the ABC (h) To inform staff of activities within the Corporation, including policy initiatives, staff training opportunities and general staff news (i) Printing costs are $25,000 per annum. To extract staff and other related costs would be an unreasonable commitment of resources. (Question No. 1571) Mr Smith asked the Minister representing the Minister for Community Services, upon notice, on 23 August 1985: (1) Will the Minister provide details of all expenditure within his Department in 1984-85 for compensation and legal expenses as outlined in Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 1985-86. (2) What was the (a) amount and (b) nature of the expenditure in each case for (i) compensation and (ii) legal expenses. (3) What was the name of each recipient of payment for legal expenses. Mr Howe —The Minister for Community Services has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: (1) The total expenditure on compensation and legal expenses relating to personnel associated with the Department of Community Services in 1984-85 is made up of payments made by the Department of Social Security until the 12 December 1984 and by the Department of Community Services from the 13 December 1984. There were no compensation and legal payments in respect of personnel of the Department of Community Services who were with the Department of Health prior to 13 December 1984. Compensation and legal expenses in 1984-85 were $215,548. This is $49,148 in excess of the notional amount shown in Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 1985-86, and was calculated following a detailed examination of payments made in 1984-85. Details are: Period Department Budget details Actual $ $ 1.7.84 to 12.12.84 Social Security ... 50,000 99,148 13.12.84 to 30.6.85 Community Services ... 116,400 116,400 Total ... 166,400 215,548 (2) (a) and (b) (i) Compensation. Expenditure in 1984-85 totalled $213,742.48 and included $127,647.06 to 14 former employees and $49,083.52 to 84 rehabilitation trainees. The balance of expenditure ($37,011.90) was for payments to medical practitioners, hospitals, chemists, related medical expenses and damage to personal property in respect of 132 officers. (2) (a) and (b) (ii) Legal Expenses. Expenditure on legal expenses in 1984-85 totalled $1,805.50 as set out in the reply to part 3 of this question. (3) - Amount Recipient Nature of Expenditure $ 180 Mr J. Riordan ... Counsel fees 140 Dr M. Ingpen ... Fee, Medical report and consultation 49.50 Dr P. J. Steg ... Fee for X-rays 120 Mr I. McVey ... Fee, Medical report and consultation 35 Mr E. Faulkner ... Solicitor's fee attending call over 120 Mr W. McDonald ... Medical examination and report 121 Dr Bell ... Fee for X-rays 150 Dr J. Bedi ... Medical examination and report 160 Mr J. Lenczner ... Counsel fees for answers and interrogatories 310 Australian Government Solicitor ... Memorandum of fees: Mr J. Middleton. Advice in conference, Harrit Nominees Pty Ltd v Blewett 420 Australian Government Solicitor ... Memorandum of fees: Mr P. Dwyer. Conference and examination of rehabilitation files Medical fees were case related to legal matters. (Question No. 2300) Mr Blunt asked the Minister representing the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce, 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 Barry Jones —The Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: (1) (a) $178,062; (b) $333,538. (2) The nature of the public relations expenditure in both years was salaries and overtime for Public Relations Staff, publications, displays, equipment, advertising and radio and TV transcripts. (3) No outside assistance was obtained. (Question No. 2663) Mr Downer asked the Minister for Trade, upon notice, on 21 November 1985: (1) What proportion of the staff of the Minister's Department in Australia are employed in policy-making divisions. (2) What are the main policy sections and branches of the Minister's Department. (3) How many staff are employed in each of those policy sections and branches. Mr Dawkins —The honourable member will be aware that the Australian Trade Commission Act 1985 established the Australian Trade Commission on 6 January 1985. The Commission incorporates the former Export Development Grants Board, the Australian Overseas Projects Corporation, the Export Finance and Insurance Corporation, and certain elements of the Department. The Department's main concern is with the policy aspects of the Trade portfolio, whereas the Commission is primarily responsible for the marketing and promotional aspects. The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) All Divisions in the Department have policy making responsibilities. (2) and (3)- Branches (includes Section) Staff numbers Agricultural A (Dairy, Horticulture) (Meat and Livestock)... 10 Agricultural B (Grains, Fibres, Oilseed, Food Aid) (Sugar, Tropical Products)... 10 Europe, Middle East, South Asia, Africa... 11 SE Asia, South Pacific, New Zealand... 14 North Asia, Americas... 21 Services, Investment and Trade Law... 9 Manufactures Branch (Commercial Policy, DC Preferences and Offsets) (Manufactures Export Policy)... 10 Research Branch (Research) (Foreign Investment and Finance)... 7 Economic Branch (Economic Analysis and Forecasting) (International Economic Analysis) (Central Statistics (20 Staff))... 9 Minerals A (Coal, Petroleum)... 20 Minerals B (Bauxite, Alumina, Uranium) (Minerals Sands, Nickel)... 18 Minerals C (Iron Ore, Non-ferrous Metals, Gemstones)... 17 Commercial (GATT) (Trade Obligations)... 13 International Organisations (UN) (OECD, International Financial and Other)... 10 Analysis and Negotiations... 11 (Question No. 2867) Mr Tickner asked the Minister representing the Minister for Community Services, upon notice, on 20 November 1989: (1) Do any private organisations run for commercial profit and providing community services receive Commonwealth subsidies; if so, which organisations. (2) What is the value, or subsidies to such organisations in 1985/86. Mr Howe —The Minister for Community Services has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: (1) Yes. (a) As at 1 January 1986 there were 753 nursing homes conducted as commercial enterprises for profit, which had been approved to receive Commonwealth nursing home benefits on behalf of qualified nursing home patients residing in these homes. (b) Judith Hirst and Associates, a private consultancy firm, also received subsidy in 1985/86 for a booklet on `life skills through leisure' as part of the Handicapped Persons Welfare Program Upgrading. (2) (a) It is estimated that total expenditure in 1985/86 on nursing home benefits for all non-Government nursing homes (ie. commercial enterprise and charitable/ religious homes receiving benefits) will be $542m. Until all accounts are finalised at the end of the financial year, it is not practicable to put a figure on the value of benefit payments to commercial enterprise nursing homes. (b) The total subsidy was $16,785. (Question No. 3125) Mr Macphee asked the Minister for Communications, upon notice, on 11 February 1986: (1) Is it a fact that Plessey Australia holds the exclusive licence for the manufacture of the B-MAC decoders necessary to enable television signals sent via AUSSAT to be received in outback homesteads. (2) Is he able to say whether Plessey Australia is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Plessey (UK). (3) Has the monopoly which Plessey has on the manufacture of B-MAC decoders resulted in the expected price of installed ground-stations being 3 times the original cost of $1000. (4) Why did the Government not insist that, in turn for adopting the untested B-MAC system (a) there should be some competition in manufacturing the system and (b) manufacture should involve an Australian company under licence. (5) Has Plessey asked the Government for a $25 million subsidy to reduce the cost of systems to remote residents; if so, what was the Government's response. (6) Was the Government's decision to exempt satellite TV earth-stations from sales tax prompted by the increased cost of those stations caused by the Plessey monopoly. (7) What will be the cost to the taxpayer, in terms of revenue forgone, of the sales tax exemption over the next 10 years. Mr Duffy —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) Although Plessey has an exclusive licence to manufacture the Scientific-Atlanta B-MAC decoder in Australia this is only one part of the satellite receiver. Plessey has been required by the Government and has expressed its willingness to make these decoders available to other manufacturers for incorporation in their own receivers. (2) Plessey Australia is a wholly owned subsidiary of The Plessey Company plc of the UK. Plessey has been a major electronic equipment manufacturer in Australia for over 25 years and currently employs about 1000 people throughout Australia. (3) No. The figure of $1000 stems from an estimate of cost made originally in the Task Force Report on a National Communications Satellite System in 1978. Given the general rise in prices since then it is not unreasonable to expect that the price today would be considerably greater than the original estimate. (4) The remote area market in Australia is very small compared with the usual markets for consumer electronics. If manufacture of the decoder was spread over a number of companies the very substantial investment in manufacturing and testing plant would have to be amortised over a lower volume and this could well result in a more costly product. (5) No. (6) People in remote areas have long been deprived of radio and television services taken for granted by and freely available to most Australians. The Government wished to ensure that these services were made possible to remote dwellers at the lowest available price. The Government's decision to waive sales tax on earth stations for non-business use was in recognition of that wish. (7) Changes in technology are likely to lead to a different environment over a 10 year period. The revenue forgone is thus difficult to estimate. The exemption, however, equates around $500 per earth station. (Question No. 3188) Mr Braithwaite asked the Minister representing the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce, upon notice, on 14 February 1986: (1) What procedures exist for validating dumping claims against companies in countries which Australia does not recognise diplomatically. (2) How many claims of dumping have been made against these companies and what were the (a) companies and (b) countries involved. (3) Are officers of the Australian Customs Service sent to these countries as private citizens to investigate dumping claims; if so, (a) on how many occasions has this been necessary, (b) who pays for the officer's trip, (c) is the officer considered to be working or on leave, (d) to what extent is his or her effectiveness limited by travelling as a private citizen and (e) who bears the cost of the officer's travel insurance. Mr Barry Jones —The Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: (1) The normal procedure for investigation of dumping claims against companies in countries which Australia does not recognise diplomatically is for dumping inquiries to be conducted by the Australian Customs Service based on investigations utilising price/cost information for like goods from a comparable third country. At the present time the only country which Australia does not recognise diplomatically and against which dumping complaints have been lodged is Taiwan and prior to November 1985 these dumping inquiries were conducted in a comparable third country. Since November 1985 the Australian Customs Service has been conducting dumping investigations in Taiwan. These inquiries have been conducted by overseas staff of the Australian Customs Service stationed in Tokyo and staff from the Dumping Operations Branch of the Australian Customs Service stationed in Canberra. Information regarding each visit is provided to the Department of Foreign Affairs in Canberra prior to the visit taking place. Also, notification of the proposed visit is provided to the Australian Consul-General in Hong Kong. (2) Since 1 January 1978, 53 claims have been accepted against companies in Taiwan. (a) There have been many companies involved. The names of the companies are published in the reports released publicly by the Australian Customs Service after final findings have been reached. The following table sets out particulars of dumping cases concerning imports from Taiwan. (i) Commodities from Taiwan Subject to Anti-Dumping Action (as at 14.3.86) Date Gazetted Date Reviewed Commodity 3.11.82 6/85 Combed Cotton and Polyester Cotton Yarns 8.6.82 12/85 Electric Motors 19.9.85 Fluorescent Lamps 13.9.85 Phthalic Anhydride 4.8.78 1/83 Polypropylene Copolymer 4.8.78 1/83 Polypropylene Homopolymer 4.4.84 10/84 Polyvinyl Chloride General Purpose Homopolymer 8.2.81 8/84 Power Hacksaws 29.6.84 Power Transformers 24.9.84 9/85 Small Diameter Welded Carbon Steel Pipe and Tube 8.4.81 12/83 Sodium Tripolyphosphate 8.6.82 1/85 Woven Polyolefin Bags (ii) Commodities from Taiwan Under Current Investigation (as at 14.3.86) Cold Rolled Steel Sheet and Coil, initiated 22.4.85, preliminary finding 13.8.85. Diethylene Glycol, initiated 23.8.85, preliminary finding 6.11.85. Linear Alkylbenzene Sulphonic Acid initiated 21.2.86. Passenger Car Tyres initiated 7.2.86. Electric Motors AC Three Phase initiated 13.2.85, preliminary finding 22.8.85. (iii) Commodities from Taiwan for which Anti-Dumping Action Discontinued Date Gazetted Commodity Revoked 7.1.83 Nylon Textured Yarns 20.2.86 Initiated Pre- liminary Finding Commodity Terminated 8.7.85 6.9.85 Bright steel bars 24.2.86 (b) As indicated in the answer to question one, Taiwan is the only country presently not recognised diplomatically against which dumping complaints have been lodged. (3) In conformity with Department of Foreign Affairs guidelines, officers travel on ordinary passports. (a) To date, four visits to Taiwan have been conducted-one in November, and two in December 1985, and one in February 1986. (b) Costs have been met by the Australian Customs Service. (c) The officer is considered to be on duty. (d) Their effectiveness has not been limited by travelling as a private citizen. The Australian Commerce and Industry office in Taipei has assisted in ensuring that the trips are effective. (e) Officers of the Australian Customs Service travelling on duty to Taiwan are covered by the service conditions normally applicable to persons employed by the Commonwealth. (Question No. 3364) Mr Donald Cameron asked the Minister representing the Minister for Community Services, upon notice, on 13 March 1986: (1) How many federally funded child care places are there in the Electoral Division of Moreton. (2) What grants were made to each child care centre in (a) 1982-83, (b) 1983-84, (c) 1984-85 and (d) 1985-86 to date. Mr Howe —The Minister for Community Services has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: (1) There are 105 child care places funded by the Federal government in the Electoral Division of Moreton. Of these 60 places are funded at the St Marks Lutheran Child Care Centre in Mount Gravatt and 50 places are funded at the Mount Gravatt East State School Parents and Citizens Association After School Care. (2) The grants made to the St Marks Lutheran Child Care Centre in 1982-83 were $89,184, in 1983-84 $115,078, in 1984-85 $124,192, and grants made in 1985-86 to date are $104,651. The grants made to the Mount Gravatt East State School Parents and Citizens Association After School Care in 1982-83 were $6,301, in 1983-84 $8,151, in 1984-85 $9,658, and grants made in 1985-86 to date are $7,620. (Question No. 3365) Mr Donald Cameron asked the Minister representing the Minister for Community Services, upon notice, on 13 March 1986. (1) What sum will be allocated for domiciliary nursing care in the electoral division of Moreton in 1985-86 (2) How many persons in the division receive the benefit. Mr Howe —The Minister for Community Services has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: (1) The sum allocated for domiciliary nursing care in the electoral division of Moreton for 1985-86 is $309,036. (2) The number of persons receiving the benefit is 283. (Question No. 3366) Mr Donald Cameron asked the Minister representing the Minister for Community Services, upon notice, on 13 March 1986: (1) What subsidy did each nursing home in the electoral division of Moreton receive in 1984-85? (2) What subsidy is each nursing home to receive in 1985-86? (3) How is the subsidy determined? Mr Howe —The Minister for Community Services has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: Nursing home Part (1) Amount received during 1984-85 Part (2) Estimated subsidy to be received during 1985-86 $ $ National Health Act (Nursing Home Benefits) Annerley Nursing Centre, 421 Annerley Road, Annerley 4103... 1,199,983 1,193,400 Autumn Lodge, 691 Logan Road, Greenslopes... 1,047,641 1,100,600 Carindale Nursing Home, 1121 Cavendish Road, Mt Gravatt 4122... 739,266 789,300 Coorparoo Nursing Centre, 45 Shakespeare Street, Coorparoo 4151... 644,682 634,700 Huntingtower Nursing Centre, 62 Dudley Street, Annerley 4103... 731,812 757,300 Janolma Nursing Home, 10 Holland Street, Greenslopes 4120... 366,790 392,200 Marian-Illa, 80 Lade Street, Coorparoo 4151... 233,613 236,100 Brig-O-Doon, 117 Park Road, Yeronga 4104... 346,742 349,800 Lochiel Nursing Home, 7 Mclay Street, Coorparoo 4151... 362,713 342,200 The Archbishop Duhig Nursing Home, 85 Seville Street, Holland Park 4121... 402,690 414,900 Nursing Homes Assistance Act (Deficit Financing) Hillcrest Nursing Home, 37-43 Dudley Street, Annerley 4103... 1,071,456 1,132,050 Salvin Park Blue Nursing Home, 840 Creek Road, Carina 4152... 1,485,940 1,528,140 Xavier Hospital for Children, 388 Cavendish Road, Coorparoo 4151... 1,265,242 1,399,260 (3) Commonwealth nursing home payments are made under the following arrangements: (a) Under the National Health Act, Commonwealth benefits are paid to nursing home proprietors on behalf of patients. Benefit rates are reviewed each year, normally in November, on the basis that they should be set at a level in each State which, together with the statutory minimum patient contribution, will cover the fees charged for 70 per cent of beds in the State in non-Government nursing homes approved under the National Health Act. The rate of basic benefit in Queensland is currently $32.75 per day. In addition, a benefit of $42 per week is payable for patients approved as being in need of, and receiving, extensive nursing home care. (b) Under the Nursing Homes Assistance Act the Commonwealth funds the approved operating deficits and approved asset replacement incurred by nursing homes conducted by certain non-profit organisations, including charitable or benevolent organisations, and local Government bodies. The Commonwealth in addition, provides for the funding of certain approved specified services provided to patients and members of the community. (Question No. 3424) Mr Hodges asked the Minister for Arts, Heritage and Environment, upon notice, on 18 March 1986: Has the Government received an approach from (a) the Australian Labor Party or (b) the ACTU or (c) any agency of these bodies for funds to establish a national weekly or periodical newspaper or journal; if so, will funds be provided and to what extent. Mr Cohen —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (a), (b) and (c)-I am not aware of any such approach. (Question No. 3426) Mr Aldred asked the Minister representing the Minister for Community Services, upon notice, on 18 March 1986: (1) Have outside vehicles been withdrawn from the list of aids approved for disabled persons as a result of a review of the Program of Aids for Disabled Persons (PADP). (2) Do disabled persons who need to move outside their homes have special need for the aid of a vehicle such as a battery car or Trekkar vehicle. (3) Will he include vehicles such as Trekkar vehicles and battery cars on the approved list of aids available through the PADP scheme. Mr Howe —The Minister for Community Services has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: (1) Outside vehicles have never been included in the list of aids available under PADP. (2) This would depend on the nature of a person's disability and whether he or she has access to other forms of transport. (3) At present it is not envisaged that vehicles such as Trekkar vehicles and battery cars will be included in the list of aids available under PADP. (Question No. 3652) Mr Hunt asked the Minister representing the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce, upon notice, on 20 March 1986: (1) Did the Government introduce changes to the diesel fuel rebate scheme for off-road primary production use which rendered all claims more than 12 months old invalid after 8 July 1985. (2) What formal advice of these changes was forwarded to the (a) National Farmers' Federation, (b) the Livestock Grain Producers Association of NSW, (c) the Victorian Farmers' and Graziers' Association, (d) the Cattlemen's Union (Qld), (e) the United Graziers' Association of Queensland, (f) the United Farmers and Stockowners of South Australia Inc., (g) the Primary Industry Association of Western Australia, (h) the Pastoralists' and Graziers' Association of Western Australia, and (i) the Tasmanian Farmers and Graziers Association. Mr Barry Jones —The Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: (1) Yes. (2) No advice was forwarded to these associations. Individual information letters were sent to some 150,000 registered claimants many of whom would no doubt be members of these organisations. To ensure that any future claimants were informed of the time limit, oil companies were also specifically advised of the change. The extent and manner by which they passed on the advice to their customers was a matter for the particular companies concerned.