Thursday, 20 November 1986 Madam SPEAKER (Hon. Joan Child) took the chair at 10 a.m., and read prayers. Mr YOUNG(Port Adelaide-Leader of the House)(10.01) —I move: That, unless otherwise ordered, the House shall meet for the despatch of business on the following days and at the times specified: Tuesday, 25 November, at 2 p.m. Wednesday, 26 November, at 10 a.m. Thursday, 27 November, at 10 a.m. Friday, 28 November, at 10 a.m. This motion facilitates the meeting of the House next week. Mr TIM FISCHER(Farrer)(10.02) —Before the House determines this motion concerning the sitting pattern for next week it should be made aware of some matters in relation to the Australian War Memorial. I refer to four issues which concern that sacred national institution. Mr Young —What are we doing now? Madam SPEAKER —We are just dealing with the hours of the sitting of the Parliament for next week. Mr TIM FISCHER —Indeed, Madam Speaker. The Leader of the House (Mr Young) has indicated that next week will be the last sitting week, and this motion provides that we sit from Tuesday to Friday. My speech is in the context of next week being the last sitting week, and certain matters being dealt with by the House and the Parliament before we determine this motion. I will not discuss the matter in detail because that would not be proper; I just wish to alert the House that there are four issues associated with the War Memorial. Firstly, in relation to the Minister for Veterans' Affairs (Senator Gietzelt) and the politicisation-- Madam SPEAKER —Order! Is the honourable member opposing the motion? Mr TIM FISCHER —I am speaking to the motion before the House. Madam SPEAKER —The only way you can speak to the motion before the House is to speak in relation to sitting hours. Mr TIM FISCHER —And the fact that in the context of moving this motion the Minister has previously indicated that next week will be the last sitting week of the Federal Parliament for this year. Mr Young —I didn't say that. Mr TIM FISCHER —The Leader of the House has said that repeatedly and he said it again last week, on two occasions. From documents circulated and from the Leader's own words-I do believe him on this occasion-it appears that next week will be the last sitting week. I have only very brief remarks but they are relevant and they do relate to determining an issue before this Parliament rises for the summer recess. All I wish to say is that there are four issues relating to the War Memorial, that of the Minister-- Madam SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member may not debate the War Memorial in the context of this motion. We are simply considering the days and hours of meeting. If the honourable member wishes to debate the War Memorial, I am sure he will find some opportunity during the week to do so. Mr TIM FISCHER —Madam Speaker, I accept your ruling but I also put to the House that there are a number of issues which should be dealt with by the Parliament before it rises for the summer recess. Question resolved in the affirmative. Debate resumed from 19 November, on motion by Mr Holding: That the Bill be now read a second time. Mr WILSON(Sturt)(10.04) —I conclude my remarks in this debate on the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Amendment Bill by reminding the House that in 1982 the Fraser Government and the Northern Territory Go-vernment reached agreement on a legislative package designed, firstly, to improve the Northern Territory Land Rights Act; secondly, to advance the cause of Northern Territory Aborigines; and thirdly, to reduce the manifest community tensions being caused by the Act. It is now three years since the Labor Government came to office. In that period the Australian Labor Party has introduced legislation which achieves much less than the package of proposals agreed to by the Commonwealth with the Northern Territory in 1982. It has taken three years to bring forward a Bill which does less for the Aboriginals than the Fraser Government's proposals. It has taken three years to start to address the pro-blems in the Act which threaten the social harmony between the various groups in Australian society. They have been three years in which the Government has done nothing but damage the cause of Aboriginal people. The Labor Party must take much of the re-sponsibility for the divisiveness on land rights issues and the resulting attitude among many Australians that Aboriginal communities are overprivileged rather than underprivileged. What irony! In Opposition the Labor Party opposed the Fraser Government's proposals. In government it has achieved less for the Aboriginal people, and in the process it has managed to damage badly the goodwill towards the Aboriginal community in Australian society. For anyone concerned-- Madam SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr WILSON —about the future of Australia, and Aboriginal Australians in particular-- Madam SPEAKER —The honourable member's time has expired. Mr WILSON —the past three years provide an illustration of the dangers involved when politics-- Madam SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Would you please resume your seat. Mr WILSON —as the art of the possible gives way to the politics of-- Madam SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member for Sturt-- Mr WILSON —partisan and personal self-interest. Madam SPEAKER —The honourable member for Sturt knows that when the Chair tells him that his time has expired he must resume his seat. Mr MAHER(Lowe)(10.07) —Today we are dealing with the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Amendment Bill. It proposes amendments to Aboriginal land rights legislation, particularly as it relates to the Northern Territory. This legislation was introduced, as honourable members know, by the Fraser Government. It was extremely far sighted legislation and gave a veto to the Aboriginal people over their land-the land that they were given-and this is a similar veto to that which exists in North America amongst Indians, Eskimos and such people. The purport of the legislation that is before the House is to try to give the Aboriginal people in the Northern Territory a place where they can live, where they can have their own self-esteem and their own dignity. It will apply particularly to about 4,000 Aboriginals in the Territory who are living literally in Third World conditions. In Australia, all up, according to the 1981 census, there are some 159,000 Aborigines. They are mostly in northern Australia, although there are 36,000 in New South Wales and the Australian Capital Territory. In Western Australia there are 31,000 people who call themselves Aborigines; in the Northern Territory 29,000; and, in Queensland, 44,000. Through the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs (Mr Holding), the Government has been successful in inducing the States to grant land rights-to transfer the Aboriginal reserves and traditional Aboriginal lands to Aboriginal people. I note that in Queensland the titles to an enormous number of reserves and former Aboriginal lands have been transferred in perpetuity to Aboriginal people. This has happened also in New South Wales, and in Western Australia it is starting to happen. I praise the Minister for what he has achieved without cost to the Commonwealth. The Commonwealth is committed to assisting Aborigines who, as Mr Justice Woodward said, were deprived of their land without their consent and without compensation. The Federal Budget this year contains approximately half a billion dollars which will go directly or indirectly to Aborigines. This is meant not only to assist them in improving their housing, water supplies, communications in remote areas and their health but also to be some sort of compensation for what has been taken from them in the past without their consent. In the Northern Territory there is a very big problem finding somewhere for people to live and somewhere that they can call their own land. I have been to the Territory on a number of occasions, but I have not seen groups of Aboriginal Australians who have been dispossessed and who have been wandering around with no place to call their own. I did see such a situation in Western Australia in 1982 when I visited the Kimberleys with the Labor Party Caucus committee on Aborigines. We came upon a community of Aborigines, say 50 people who were wandering around an enormous pastoral property of hundreds of thousands of acres. These people were there by the grace and favour of the manager, because a pastoral company owned by some overseas interests owned the land. The manager let them live on the property and wander around. We visited a school there that was nothing more than a lean-to with some sort of a roof that was made out of wire netting and branches, in which a young teacher from Melbourne was trying to teach the children how to read and write in English, because they did not speak in English; of course, their first language was one of the Aboriginal languages. It distressed me greatly to see Australians who have lived on this site probably for thousands upon thousands of years without any title to it and relying entirely on the good will of the manager of the property, who was a very fair man. But not all pastoralists have such arrangements and such understanding for Aboriginal people. There are stories of black Australians being driven off the enormous grazing properties in the Territory and in Northern Australia where they have lived for perhaps hundreds of thousands of years. It is a very sad indictment of our society to have done so much which has hurt the Aborigines. With the intention of helping them we have brought them together-perhaps missions or governments-for education, for health purposes, and it was possibly the worst thing we could do, because we brought together into settlements groups that were antagonistic to each other, tribes that were natural enemies. As a member of the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs, I found at Aurukun recently that in the school all of these tribal differences and antagonisms come out. The children fight, not because they do not like each other but because their tribes clash and resent each other. The kiddies will not go to school, and the attendance at the Aurukun State School in Queensland on the Gulf of Carpentaria was barely 15 per cent. What hope do children have if they are brought into these settlements and the European way of living if they do not receive any education? They can never take over the jobs of the white advisers; they can never become the doctors, lawyers, surveyors or engineers to do the jobs of and replace the European people who are helping them. I have been encouraged when moving around with the Committee, to see the outstation movement. This is the movement, literally, of the people back to their traditional lands. It is a most encouraging situation because they get away from petrol sniffing amongst young people. They get away from alcohol dependence. They go back to their traditional areas. Even their health is better because there is bush tucker in the country. They can live off the land and do not have to rely on take-away items that they buy in local stores, fast food chain stores and such places in the European settlements. I think there is great hope for our Aboriginal Australians if they get their own communities. Part of this idea of getting land of their own, a place of their own, is dealt with in this legislation before the House today. In the Northern Territory there is a great move to have excisions from pastoral leases. There is a movement to give the Aborigines a small area where they can live on the enormous pastoral leases that exist in the Northern Territory. But this has not moved very quickly and in the legislation before us today there is a measure to have the excisions move quickly. There are under 100 claims outstanding for the 3,000 or 4,000 people in the Territory who have nowhere to call their own. These are largely tribalised Aboriginals who just want somewhere about which they can say: `Well, that is our land and we control it'. We are talking about part of the land where they have lived since time immemorial but to which they have no claim. Should some antagonistic pastoralist take over the lease, they could be evicted tomorrow without any rights or redress. The overriding problem in the Territory is to achieve a fair system of land rights peacefully and by agreement, because the pastoralists and the Aborigines have to live together. For many, many years the pastoralist received the labours of the Aborigines-the Aboriginal stockmen-for virtually nothing. They gave them sugar, tea and flour and the Aborigines worked hard for those provisions. Now they feel that it is their turn and they want title to some place that they can call their own. I do not think that that is an unfair demand. I think that is the least possible thing that the Aboriginal people in our nation can ask. The Aborigines have been looking at making land claims through their three land councils in the Northern Territory on the stock routes which go right through the Territory. These routes are literally vacant land-or everyone thought that they were until a land commissioner in the Territory held otherwise. That has complicated the issue. The Government will clarify the situation over the stock routes because, although they are only a mile wide, they may go for hundreds of miles-or should I say kilometres-through the Territory. If the Government can obtain agreement with the pastoralists and the Northern Territory Government to push ahead with excisions to give black Australians a site of their own where they can live in peace and harmony with their families, the Government will co-operate with the pastoralists, and clarify the law which is in this Bill, to exclude claims from stock routes. The situation is worrying the pastoralists. It appears to me from the evidence that we have received in committee hearings that the pastoralists are holding back. Many of these people are great people, good Australians just like the Aborigines in the area. They are fair, honest business people who are trying to run their pastoral property with integrity and make enough profit to make a living to feed themselves. They do not want to fight with their Aboriginal neighbours, who are, perhaps, living on their property on a grace and favour basis with no rights. The pastoralists want to make excisions but they are being held back. A cooling of passions and calm negotiations are needed in the Territory. I am afraid, judging by some of the speeches in the House last night, there is not much evidence that Opposition members are encouraging this process. Unless we have a peaceful settlement of the issue of Aboriginal land rights in the Territory, Australia will have to hang its head in shame. I believe very strongly in this matter. I was never prepared to vote in favour of watering down the existing legislation which gives the veto to Aborigines in the Northern Territory. I was not prepared to do that and I am delighted that the Government has not gone along that track. It has honoured the existing legislation and ALP policy and allowed the Aborigines to have the veto over their own land. I do not wish to delay the House any longer. I commend this legislation and I praise the Minister and the Labor Caucus committee, which have both worked very hard in conducting consultations with the Aboriginal land councils on this Bill. I also commend the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs, which also works efficiently in educating members on both sides of the House about the problems of Aboriginal communities. Mr COBB(Parkes)(10.18) —Today we are discussing the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Amendment Bill 1986, the purpose of which is to make a number of administrative changes to the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act 1976. Unfortunately, the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs (Mr Holding) has ignored many of the areas in which change is needed most and in which decisions need to be made with some urgency-for example, exploration and mining on Aboriginal land, including calculating royalty payments and the removal of certain land from claim under the Act, such as public purpose land and pastoral property land owned by the Aborigines themselves. The Bill also ignores a number of reforms not only promised by the Minister but actually demanded by him when he was in opposition. It appears that the left wing of the Australian Labor Party has rolled the Minister yet again despite three years of negotiations and assurances between the Minister and interested parties in the Northern Territory. The present Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act was legislated in 1976 following the investigations and reports of Mr Justice Woodward in 1973 and 1974. The present Act provides for grants of Aboriginal reserve land to Aboriginal land trusts and, as well, Aboriginal groups who have a traditional affiliation with crown land and can claim this land and have the titles to this land vested with Aboriginal land trusts. The 1976 Act also established land councils to manage Aboriginal land and protect the interests of the traditional owners. Where claims existed a special land commissioner was appointed to hear them, and such claims have been proceeding apace. Already 33 per cent of the total Northern Territory land area has been granted to Aborigines in the form of inalienable freehold title. A further 18 per cent is under claim. If all this is granted it will add up to over half the land mass of the Northern Territory and an area in the Northern Territory alone which is some hundreds of per cent greater than the land granted to Indians in Canada or the United States. There is now virtually no vacant Crown land left in the Northern Territory that has not been claimed by Aborigines. The Northern Territory is 1,346,200 square kilometres in size. An area close to 686,000 square kilometres will be Aboriginal land to be shared amongst some of the 29,000 Aborigines who live in the Northern Territory. The Northern Territory also has several thousand kilometres of coastline, about two-thirds of which is under the control of the Aboriginal people. I mention these figures so that we can compare them, for example, with Canadian native Indians, who number 491,460, and the Eskimos, who number 25,390. Those people live on 2,251 reserves which take up an area of 260,000 square kilometres. So the Northern Territory alone have three times the land mass of that group. American native Indians, who I am told number 1.4 million, live on an area of 172,528 square kilometres. So the Northern Territory is four times larger than that. What is happening in the Northern Territory now is that other land is being claimed, land that was not envisaged could or would be claimed under the original 1976 Act. I am referring to public purpose land and pastoral lease land. In theory all pastoral land is claimable now. There are something like 235 pastoral leases in the Northern Territory ranging from about 3,000 square kilometres up to 12,000 square kilometres. The coalition has no objection whatsoever to individual Aborigines or Aboriginal groups purchasing these properties on the open market like anyone else. What we do object to is what happens to these properties afterwards. The pastoral leases are converted into inalienable freehold title. Put simply, this means that the land is locked up forever. It can never, for example, be sold. In practice that means that the Aborigines who own the land cannot borrow money against it for development because if the loan goes bad the banks cannot foreclose to recover their money. So no one will lend the Aborigines money and that obviously disadvantages the Aborigines themselves. It also means that what is done or is not done to the land is not subject to the same rules that apply to the white neighbouring properties. The resources of this country that we have been blessed with should have responsibilities equally applicable to all citizens of Australia regardless of creed or colour. To exempt certain people from full responsibilities has only led to their long term detriment and the country's detriment in the past. The jurisdiction over these pastoral areas when the claims are successful also passes from the Northern Territory Government to the Commonwealth Government. Surely that is wrong, and is a further example of the undesirable centralisation of power in Canberra. In recent years Aborigines have also been claiming stock routes and stock reserves, which come under the broader title of public purpose land. Most stock routes in the Northern Territory are a mile wide and cover the Territory in spider web fashion. The reserves vary in size from something like 10 to 500 square kilometres in area. To have the threat of these areas being claimed hanging over the pastoral people of the Northern Territory has been intolerable and I believe that the Federal Minister to some extent has appreciated this point. These areas should not be eligible for claim at all and the Minister should have no overriding say to grant exemptions. Repeat claims on land that has already been subject to unsuccessful claim should also not be allowed. To permit land to be claimed over and over again is quite ridiculous. We have been having Aboriginal land claims in the Northern Territory for some 10 years now and I believe that the time has come for a cut-off point. I see that the Minister has recommended 10 years. The coalition believes that 12 months is ample time and the cut-off for future claims should be applied then. Let us remember that many of the current land claims will not be finalised for three or four years, so to have the present position drag on past that for 10 more years would be very destabilising for the Northern Territory. I note that the Minister wants the Land Commissioners who hear those claims to be selected not just from the Northern Territory Supreme Court but also from the bench of the Federal Court of Australia. Why does the Minister propose this? Does he not trust the Northern Territory judges? They have certainly been sympathetic to the Aboriginal land claims so far. Does the Minister intend to stack the Commission with a bunch of trendy judges from the south who might be on side with the Minister but know nothing of the Northern Territory situation? I would oppose this proposal. At the very least, the Northern Territory Government should have veto powers over judges appointed from outside the Northern Territory. The Minister proposes also to extend the powers of the land councils to control land in the Northern Territory. There are three land councils in the Northern Territory; the small Tiwi Land Council with jurisdiction over Bathurst Island and Melville Island and the two main councils, the Northern Land Council and the Central Land Council. There is considerable concern as to whether they have adequately represented the traditional Aboriginal owners of the land in all cases. In many cases they have become obstructive bureaucracies stacked with solicitors, a whole range of technical and legal people and white advisers. I believe that in many instances they have lost sight of the original goals for which they were appointed. The legislation will remove the obligation to compile a register of the traditional owners of an area. This appears to be a move to remove control from the traditional owners to a more centralised control by the land councils. This move should be opposed. How can the interests of the traditional owners be met, or claims properly judged, if we do not know who the traditional owners are? Perhaps this provision has been included because so-called traditional owners are sometimes recent arrivals. That certainly seemed to be the case when control of the Uluru National Park was handed to the Aboriginal people. If any land is handed over, the responsibility to look after it should go with it, and that is best supervised from Darwin, not Canberra. I take just one example of the maintenance, or rather non-maintenance, of the road at Uluru from Ayers Rock to the Olgas. Since the park was handed over there has been almost zero maintenance on that road and it has now become almost impassable. I believe that the bus and hire companies have banned travel of their vehicles there because of the damage done to those vehicles. The Government has announced that a grader is on the way to do some maintenance on that road, but I do not think that is good enough. It will probably only deepen the road by another six inches which will make the problem worse in the long run. The Northern Territory Government was planning to seal that road just before the park was handed over, but control was taken away from that Government. We have had an increase in the number of tourists arriving at the park by air. In the past 12 months there has been an increase of approximately 60 per cent, which would contain a high proportion of overseas tourists whom we have been trying to get into this country. If these people cannot go out to see one of the great attractions of Australia, the Olgas, they will not be very pleased and will be less inclined to come back here. The coalition also opposes the Aboriginal land councils being given control over sacred sites on non-Aboriginal land. This proposal is crazy. The Northern Territory Government already has jurisdiction over these sacred sites and has managed this area well. To now also give control to the land councils under Commonwealth law is unnecessary duplication of the worst kind and is a further example of shifting more power to Canberra. The land councils will only frustrate the Northern Territory Government in its satisfactory management of this area. The Minister has also not properly considered the issue of excisions in the Bill. Excisions, for those who do not know, are living areas on pastoral leases that are set aside for resident Aboriginal communities. The Northern Territory has had 134 applications for excisions on its books, of which 124 have some merit. However, when the proposals were put up no substantial detail was submitted with 59 cases which, of course, leaves 65. Of the 65, 14 have had their titles registered, 27 are in various stages of conveyancing, et cetera, and others are under serious negotiation. I mention these figures to demonstrate that the Northern Territory is getting on with the job in this area. The question of excision is a very difficult area because most Aborigines, not just in the Northern Territory but across Australia, live in towns. I guess the long term future for most Aborigines, as it is for most white people in Australia, is in the towns. To put people permanently on those areas and grant permanent title to these areas I do not think is a long term solution for the Aboriginal people because employment opportunities do not exist in these remote areas, certainly for large numbers of people. Once the excisions are made, the Northern Territory Government is obliged to provide the infrastructure for these areas, which includes access to the areas; fencing in some cases; water, which is very costly and very difficult to provide; and also standard housing. I do think that the Commonwealth should take into account the substantial cost to the Northern Territory Government. The Minister also wishes to incorporate Aboriginal organisations which receive moneys through royalties under the Commonwealth's Aboriginal Councils and Associations Act. However, the organisations which are presently receiving the greatest proportion of royalty equivalent which are under Northern Territory law are to be excluded. This includes the Gagudju Association, which receives its royalty from the Ranger mine; the Kunwinjku Association from Nabarlek; and the Djabilukju Association from Pancontinental Mining Ltd. I believe all these organisations should be treated equally and should not be split between the Commonwealth and the Northern Territory. I believe the jurisdiction of all these organisations should be left under the Northern Territory Government and we should have no further centralisation of power in this area moved to Canberra. The Aboriginals Benefit Trust Fund-the ABTA-has been paid over $20m a year in recent times in royalties. Since it was instituted in 1978 it has received $95,325,814. I seek leave to incorporate a table in Hansard showing the royalties that have been paid since 1978 until 1985-86. I showed the table to the Minister last night and he has approved it. Leave granted. The table read as follows- MINING ROYALTY EQUIVALENTS PAID TO THE ABTA, IN RESPECT OF MINING ACTIVITY ON ABORIGINAL LAND, 1978-79 TO 1985-86 Uranium QML ERA Non-Uranium Nabalco Gemco Palm V Mereenie Total $ 1978-79... 855,548 1,118,184 1,973,732 1979-80... 942,631 1,272,233 2,214,864 1980-81... 2,314,798 1,297,334 1,039,975 4,652,107 1981-82... 620,666 6,185,541 1,696,377 1,300,699 9,803,283 1982-83... 1,410,348 12,369,382 4,793,263 1,189,368 19,762,361 1983-84... 1,762,625 11,981,471 2,241,994 1,281,042 17,267,132 1984-85... 1,696,487 11,454,177 2,377,959 1,835,654 311,499 431,413 18,107,189 1985-86... 2,378,266 11,424,484 2,320,873 2,335,442 141,059 2,945,022 21,545,146 Total $... 10,183,190 53,415,055 16,525,979 11,372,597 452,558 3,376,435 95,325,814 Total Royalty equivalents paid 1978-79 to 1985-86 $95,325,814. Mr COBB —I thank the House. As well as these royalties, there are other negotiable royalties too which, because of time pressures, I will not discuss on this occasion. In summary, I believe the Bill is a great disappointment to all Territorians and, in particular, the Aboriginal people in many aspects. It does not deal with many of the main causes for concern. What it does deal with it does so improperly and inadequately. The Government should be condemned for that and honourable members should vote to amend or reject the clauses in the Bill which are unsatisfactory. Dr THEOPHANOUS(Calwell)(10.34) —The debate on this issue has been a very uneven debate because it is quite clear that on the political aspects of the matter the Government speakers have totally annihilated members of the Opposition and their comments. In fact, there is no question about it that what we have seen from the Opposition is a combination of two things. Some speakers who present a front of respectability in relation to this issue, such as the honourable member for Bradfield (Mr Connolly), are really being manipulated by people such as the honourable member for the Northern Territory (Dr Everingham) and the honourable member for Maranoa (Mr Ian Cameron) whose speeches yesterday were not broadcast. They should have been broadcast because anyone of Aboriginal descent or Aboriginal background hearing those speeches would have seen what a contemptuous contribution they were. They could be described in a number of ways but, in order that I do not have to withdraw certain terms, I will not go into those descriptions. However, let me say that speakers on my side of the House, the honourable member for Leichhardt (Mr Gayler), the honourable member for Moore (Mr Blanchard), the honourable member for Melbourne (Mr Hand) and the honourable member for Lowe (Mr Maher), have all taken up the major points in relation to land rights and have debated all the political aspects in a way which I think has presented an overwhelming case in favour of the legislation. For the edification of some honourable members opposite who still do not understand the fundamental reasons why we speak of Aboriginal land rights, Aboriginal self-determination and the importance for services to be provided to the Aboriginal people, let me say something about the history of this situation and the reasons why all Australians, even those recently arrived to this country, have a moral responsibility of the utmost order to the Aboriginal people. Soon we will be celebrating the 200th anniversary of European colonisation of this country. This was the beginning of the destruction of Aboriginal culture which I will demonstrate indisputably here today was one of the great cultures of the world. It was destroyed through the totally insensitive approach taken by the people who first came to this country. People who come to this country look at Aboriginals now and say: `Look at them, they are just drunks, they are just people on drugs, they are just a lost people'. They fail to recognise and accept the responsibility that the people who came to this country have for what happened to the Aboriginal people and for the destruction of their culture. As I have mentioned, they lose sight of the fact that Aboriginal culture was one of the richest of the world. There is no doubt that, when we get beyond the superficialities of technology-the Aboriginal people did have technology although it was nothing like our modern technology-and we look at the world view, the philosophy and the vision of Aboriginal culture, we see a richness and a wealth which very few cultures have been able to match. It is not insignificant that so many anthropologists around the world still find fascination in the study of Aboriginal culture because of this richness and because of the way in which it represents a complex understanding of the universe and a complex philosophy which we and the average Australian have hardly a clue about. Therefore, we need to ask ourselves: What are the dimensions of the tragedy? What has happened to the Aboriginal people is one of the world tragedies-let us not mince words. Therefore, for us to be insensitive to their need and to their desire to restore some of the culture that has been lost, it is an outrage that we, in this Parliament, should not all be united and immediately push through all forms of legislation which can help and assist those people to restore something of their culture which we have taken away. As I have mentioned, the Aboriginal culture is not merely a culture based on a materialist's view of the world. It is not a culture that looks merely at material things. It is a culture based essentially on a metaphysical approach which is different from the approach of Western man. Mr Blanchard —Something from which we can learn. Dr THEOPHANOUS —It is something from which we can learn, as the honourable member for Moore says. We can learn something from the whole Aboriginal concept of spirituality and of the nature of the universe because we have become very narrow in our conceptions of these philosophical issues in the twentieth century. But, instead of that, what do we find? We find that we take a kind of cultural chauvinistic approach, a pretension that we know everything, that our culture is the dominant one, the supreme one, and that the Aborigines have nothing to contribute; that their approach to the mysteries of the universe must be mistaken as our approach is the one which is sound and concrete. What sort of approach has been taken by Western man to the fundamental concept in Aboriginal culture of the dreamtime? Our approach has been: `Isn't it quaint? Isn't it cute? These Aborigines believe in this dreamtime-a quaint, cute sort of approach'. That is a totally patronising approach to the fundamentals of their culture. The fact is that the approach of the Aborigines has a lot to commend it because it is an approach that looks at man as a totality, not merely as a material being with selfish desires and nothing more. It is time we recognised that we ought to be doing a great deal to restore Aboriginal culture and the wealth of that culture, and in a multicultural society perhaps even to learn something from it-perhaps even to learn something of the Aboriginal approach to the world and to the universe. But all of that is a very difficult task because of the great tragedy that has occurred. If honourable members want to know about that great tragedy and about the dimensions of it, I recommend that they read a book entitled The Other Side of the Frontier by Dr Henry Reynolds, which looks at the colonisation of Australia from the Aboriginal point of view and at what really happened. When most of us went to school we heard about the Aboriginal people and about the colonisation of Australia. But what did we hear? We heard the white man's view. We heard a view that was presented entirely from the European perspective. We did not hear about what really happened. For example, we did not hear about the brave battles fought by the Aborigines in defence of their culture. From some reviews of history, one gets the impression that the Aborigines sold out all of their land immediately. We did not hear about the wars and the battles that they fought, and fought very hard, to defend their land and their culture. It is a disgrace to the academic traditions of this country that only very recently has that side of the story begun to be told. It was a slaughter. Aboriginal people were killed; thousands and thousands of them were killed. Those who were not killed died of diseases brought here by European man. They were virtually wiped out. Of course, they had no rights. For most of the two centuries they have had no rights of citizenship and no rights as people. Honourable members may be surprised to realise how recent a phenomenon is the Aborigines' gain of citizenship in their own land and their own country. We forget all these things. The honourable member for the Northern Territory made a contemptuous and disgraceful speech yesterday. He forgets these moral issues. He forgets the fundamental issues that I have addressed today. European man did not merely come in, kill a lot of Aboriginals, take control of the land and say, `Let bygones be bygones, we will now live together'; the Aboriginals were suppressed and their rights were taken away for most of the 200 years. As I mentioned, only as a recent development were they given some rights. Honourable members may recall the famous Albert Namatjira who, because he became a distinguished artist and person within the context of Western society, was granted honorary citizenship. All Aboriginals could not be given citizenship but one or two, like Albert Namatjira, were given citizenship in the 1950s. That situation was a most extreme form of oppression and paternalism. Albert Namatjira was arrested because he gave some of his relatives liquor to drink. This was against the law because his relatives were not recognised as citizens-they were natives. Namatjira was charged and threatened with imprisonment. Honourable members will be interested to hear the views of the great progressive newspaper, the Northern Territory News, which tries to this day to deny rights to the Aboriginal people. In relation to the Albert Namatjira case in 1958 the Northern Territory News reported: It is important now not only for Namatjira that there be some acceptance of the lessons glaring from the shamble of the artist's rise and fall and that there be a little public understanding of the massive problem besetting the authorities in the full rights program. It must be clear that it was a mistake to give Namatjira his citizenship passport despite the fact that he proved he could walk with kings, earn more than most white people and had dignity and ability. This is what the Northern Territory News said in 1958: Surely an essential measure of whether a native should get full rights must be his proven ability to bring up his family to the acceptable white standards. This was not the case with Namatjira and this very fact probably contributed more to his downfall than anything else. That was in 1958. It was only in 1962 that the Northern Territory granted some voting rights to the black people, and it was not until the referendum of 1966 that we finally got recognition by the Australian people that Aboriginals, at least in principle, ought to be given full rights-in principle, I say, because that principle was not implemented until the Whitlam Government came into power and started, with its inquiries, the movement for the granting of land rights. That movement has gained momentum. One of the reasons why it has gained momentum is that the Aboriginal people have increasingly expressed their rights themselves. They have demanded self-determination as a right-not just in some paternalistic way, but as a right. Since that movement began we have started finally to recognise the rights of Aboriginal people, but there is still a long way to go. As I said at the beginning of my speech, the destruction of 200 years is not easy to restore. We cannot immediately and easily restore the Aboriginal cultures which we have annihilated. We must do everything in our power, firstly, to give the Aboriginal people full land rights wherever possible. We should be not merely generous but, if necessary, overgenerous if we are to make up for our historical sins. Secondly, we must consider making self-determination a real principle, a principle that has meaning, so that the Aboriginal people, with dignity, can come together and can determine the courses of action which they should take. Thirdly, we need to provide them with services in a number of fields-in the field of education and in the field of cultural development to help them come back to their cultural roots and to help them restore those cultures which have been destroyed. Finally, we must all recognise that, unless we are prepared to use the resources of the Commonwealth and the State Governments to help the Aboriginal people in this way, we will never be able to get rid of the guilt which we rightfully should feel in relation to the Aboriginal people. I conclude by saying that we have very little understanding of the richness and the wealth of Aboriginal cultures. Those cultures need to be restored into the whole context of our society, especially if we really mean what we say in relation to being a multicultural nation. As I said at the beginning of my speech, we can learn from those cultures. We can all look forward to a future, provided that we do something to restore those rights for those people. This legislation is a further step in that direction. Not only should it not be opposed but also it should be enthusiastically supported by this Parliament. I conclude by thanking the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs (Mr Holding), the chairman of the committee and all those involved in doing the hard work, especially the consultations with the Aboriginal communities, in bringing forward this legislation. Mr SLIPPER(Fisher)(10.57) —The honourable member for Calwell (Dr Theophanous), who was the previous speaker in this debate on the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Amendment Bill, had so many finales or conclusions that I suspected for a moment he was trying to outdo Dame Nellie Melba. It is a pity that his performance was nowhere near as good as that of Dame Nellie Melba on the stage. The National Party of Australia believes in equality for all Australians, whether they happen to be Aboriginal or otherwise. One of the most significant aspects of the Federal Aboriginal policy in the last 15 years has been its complete and utter failure. We have seen a handout mentality and attempts by various governments to salve the Australian community's collective conscience with an open cheque-book policy. This is sad. It does not meet the needs of Aboriginal people or, indeed, the wider community. Let us look at some examples of this open cheque-book policy. All Aboriginals have access to general health, education and welfare services that are available to all Australians. Nobody would deny that this is proper. Aboriginals are also eligible, subject to normal conditions, to receive social security benefits and are entitled to the same employment conditions and industrial protection which are afforded to the rest of the country. Again, no one would object to this. Aboriginals can claim assistance under government programs to eliminate the disadvantages which they have in common from time to time with other members of the general community. Again, we would have no objection whatsoever to this. That is fair and reasonable. Many Australians are however, concerned about the Government benefits which are earmarked for Aboriginals because they are Aboriginals. A number of benefits, schemes and services are available specifically for Aboriginal people. These should be taken into account, with the current land rights policy, to ascertain whether Labor's handout mentality is a disaster. In education we have the Aboriginal secondary grants scheme. It assists parents of students of Aboriginal descent who are undertaking secondary schooling. The allowances are not income tested. I seek the leave of the House to incorporate in Hansard a table that sets out benefits under ABSEG. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) -Is leave granted? The honourable member for Fisher might provide the document to the Leader of the House (Mr Young) and, if it meets the Speaker's guidelines for the incorporation of tables, it may be incorporated. Mr SLIPPER —There is also the Aboriginal study grants scheme which assists people of Aboriginal descent to undertake further study after leaving school. Allowances are not income tested. Mr Hand —I raise a point of order. Mr Deputy Speaker, a lot of licence has been given in this debate, but I think education is a bit further away from the Bill than those areas about which most other speakers have spoken. I would suggest that we stick with the legislation. We have all had to do it, and I guess this speaker should do the same. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —The honourable member for Fisher is illustrating his point. I call the honourable member for Fisher. Mr SLIPPER —Benefits payable or given to Aboriginals are relevant when considering the level of land rights, if any, which are appropriate for Aborigines in the Northern Territory. A higher level of financial assistance, whether through educational help or not, could seriously impact on what land rights should be given. A substantial pecuniary benefit might mean that many people would consider that the level of land rights is outrageous. I was referring to the Aboriginal study grants scheme. I seek leave to incorporate in Hansard a table setting out benefits given under that scheme. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Is leave granted? Mr Hand —Leave is not granted. Mr SLIPPER —I will leave the people of Australia to judge the pathetic effort of the honourable member for Melbourne in obstructing information being given in relation to this scheme in this debate. Mr Hand —As a point of order, I ask that that be withdrawn. Under the Standing Orders I have the right to object. My point is that education is not relevant to this legislation. If I have to abide by the rules of the Parliament, the honourable member who is speaking also ought to do so. I know that the National Party is separate from everybody else in our society, but at least it ought to follow the rules of the Parliament. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! There is no point of order. What the honourable member for Fisher said was not disorderly or unparliamentary, but the Chair has drawn the honourable member's attention to the fact that the Bill is about Aboriginal land rights. The Chair indicated that he thought the honourable member was illustrating at the beginning of his speech and that he was getting to the subject of Aboriginal land rights. The honourable member had better hurry up and get there. Mr SLIPPER —That is perfectly correct, Mr Deputy Speaker. I am just outlining some preliminary matters. It has been a wide ranging debate. Extreme latitude had been given to honourable members on the other side of the House, particularly the previous speaker. It is interesting to see the way in which a member of the Government wishes to muzzle a member of the Opposition in trying to bring forward in this House facts that are relevant to this debate. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! Leave has been granted for the incorporation of table 1, and it meets Madam Speaker's guidelines. The table read as follows- Table I ABSC BENEFITS UNDER ABSEG 1986 $ Living allowances senior secondary... 636.90 p.a. junior secondary... 445.94 p.a. Boarding allowance school and hostel... 2318 p.a. private... 32.15 p.w. Books and clothing allowances senior secondary... 400 p.a. junior secondary... 330 p.a. Personal allowances... 1.50-4 p.w. Maximum excursion allowances remote school... 280 p.a. non-remote school... 180 p.a. Mr SLIPPER —I thank the House. Needless to say, table 2 which the honourable member for Melbourne does not want incorporated in Hansard sets out very substantial payments that are made under the Abstudy scheme. Also under the Abstudy scheme is a special category of 100 awards which are available for Aboriginal mature age students-that is, students aged 25 and over-who wish to take up full time study leading to a formal teaching qualification. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member for Fisher shall come to the discussion on the Bill before the House, which is the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Amendment Bill. The Aboriginal study grants scheme is not mentioned in this legislation. Mr SLIPPER —I mentioned before that the levels of payments in various areas which are made to Aboriginals are relevant when considering the level of land rights which should be given. Many people perceive that land rights are a form of compensation to Aboriginal people. The other benefits, pecuniary or otherwise, which are paid by the Government, and therefore by the taxpayers of Australia, to the Aborigines are relevant when ascertaining the appropriate level of land rights, whether in the Northern Territory or otherwise. I will, however, defer to your ruling, Mr Deputy Speaker, by saying briefly that a number of other payments are made specifically to Aboriginal people, and the average Australian does not have access to them. We in the Opposition have no objection to assistance being given to those who are underprivileged-- Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member is standing to debate the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Amendment Bill. He has not touched on it yet and he has been speaking for seven minutes. I ask the honourable member to come to the discussion on the legislation before the House. Mr White —I raise a point of order. I seek your guidance in this matter. It seems to me that the honourable member for Fisher, in discussing this Bill, is indicating that Aboriginal land rights are one way in which to assist the Aboriginal people, and at the same time-- Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —What is your point of order? Mr White —My point of order is that I ask that latitude be given to the honourable member for Fisher-- Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —That is not a point of order. The honourable member will resume his seat. The Chair has been providing a fair amount of latitude to the honourable member for Fisher, but it would just help the discussion if he touched on the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Amendment Bill 1986. Mr Connolly —Mr Deputy Speaker, in the debate which, as you know, commenced last night, there has been a very-- Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Does the honourable member have a point of order? Mr Connolly —Yes. I wish to make an observation, as the Opposition spokesman responsible for this legislation. I just point out to the House that we have had a wide-ranging debate on all sides from all speakers up to now, and I do not think it is reasonable at this stage in the piece, in the last moments of the debate, to determine that one member of the Opposition somehow or other has to limit his response and his comments to the context imposed by others. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —If the honourable member for Fisher would somehow or other get to touch upon the legislation it might be satisfactory. Mr Hand —In respect of the point of order taken by the shadow Minister, I just make the observation that, going through all of the other speakers, from the shadow Minister himself and the honourable member for the Northern Territory to the speakers on this side, it can be seen that they in fact dealt with the legislation in some detail. The honourable member currently speaking is talking either about another Bill or about some other piece of legislation that he has been researching, because he has not, as yet, touched on the Bill before the House. In trying to help him get to that point, I ask you, Mr Deputy Speaker, to rule that he should talk about the legislation that we are all debating and leave the education section, which he has been researching, to another day, when we will be happy to debate it with him. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member for Melbourne will resume his seat. I call the honourable member for Fisher. Mr SLIPPER —Unfortunately, I suppose with the previous occupants of the chair there appears to be one rule for the Government and another rule for the Opposition. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member for Fisher will withdraw that remark. Mr SLIPPER —I will withdraw it, Mr Deputy Speaker, but there has been a wide-ranging debate, as was pointed out by the honourable member for McPherson (Mr White). I am the only person who has been directed not to deal with various other matters. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member for Fisher will withdraw the reflection on the Chair unreservedly. Mr SLIPPER —I withdrew before, Mr Deputy Speaker. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —The honourable member may continue. Mr SLIPPER —As I mentioned, there are a number of areas where benefits are given to Aboriginals but not to other people. Those benefits include benefits relating to land rights. Many respectable arguments have been brought forward against land rights. I would like to mention some of these. Some people have said that the original Aboriginal inhabitants of this country are dead and that land rights cannot compensate the deceased. The comment has also been made that land rights vest disproportionate power in one section of the community with respect to royalties and the development of mineral resources. Furthermore, it has been said that the principle of Crown title to minerals should apply uniformly throughout Australia. Another point which has been made is that land rights legislation discriminates against the majority of Australians. It has been said land rights institutionalise racial and cultural differences that Aborigines may not want institutionalised forever and that land rights cannot be ascertained according to individual title. Also, it has been said that Australia's mineral resources will not be properly developed with the current level of land rights and that Aboriginal lands would not be farmed or used productively. Most important is the allegation that land rights, especially the land rights which the Australian Labor Party is bringing into this Parliament, ensure that we have in Australia an apartheid system-a system which makes South Africa appear very benign by comparison. We should look at what has happened in the Northern Territory and compare that situation with that of Queensland. Honourable members who have been in this place for some time will recall how the Queensland Parliament and the Queensland Minister were criticised when legislation relating to the deeds of grant in trust was brought in in that State. I might add that some years down the track it is obvious-even those people who have criticised the Queensland Government in the past have admitted this-that the deeds of grant in trust legislation has been an outstanding success in improving the lot of Aborigines in a positive manner. It is a pity that the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Amendment Bill which we are now discussing does not seek to go down the road of the Queensland legislation. The ALP is a party which postures and masquerades as a party of support for the Aboriginal people. Yet in the past, under Queensland Labor Party legislation, we had a situation whereby removal orders could be made to have prominent people taken from their homes at the arbitrary discretion of the local officer in charge. A permit system existed whereby permission had to be obtained before one could enter or leave a reserve area. This permit system presently exists in the Northern Territory. The Government stands condemned because it has not done away with that permit system. In the bad old days of Labor the reserve manager had the power to gaol any person at his arbitrary discretion. Many people were gaoled without charges having been laid for up to ten days on a regimen of bread and water. The reserve manager could administer corporal punishment, once more at his arbitrary discretion. He could issue work orders as he pleased, directing whoever he liked to perform any task and work any hours, and, shockingly, no person of Aboriginal descent was allowed to receive payment for work performed. His wages were always paid directly to the Director of the Department. It was illegal to sell alcohol to people of Aboriginal descent; only Europeans were allowed to consume alcohol. I wonder what honourable members opposite-there are very few of them in the chamber now-would say at Labor's shocking record for the period that it administered Aboriginal affairs in Queensland. Every one of those laws was swept away when the National Party of Australia came into government. The most interesting thing about the current situation in Queensland, unlike that in the Northern Territory, is that the people of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander descent have been introduced to free enterprise society. Far from being oppressive and destructive, as the critics of our legislation have suggested, it has improved the lot of the people to the extent that it is now being presented to other States as a preferred alternative-not by the Queensland Government, but by the former critics of that Government. The commune approach of the other States is destructive of the culture of the people whereas individualism, not centralism, was always the rule. The Northern Territory would benefit from similar legislation. But have we seen such legislation brought into the House? We certainly have not. We have a Bill before the House which does not meet the aspirations of those who wanted the previous Act changed. It does not meet the need for alterations to the present situation. The initial proposals of the Government were infinitely better than those which are before the House today. The Government has ignored the most contentious issues associated with the land rights Act by deferring for discussion and analysis in 1987 such issues as: Exploration and mining on Aboriginal land; the granting of an estate or interest in Aboriginal land to the Northern Territory Government for essential services; the protection of sacred sites; methods for calculating payments of royalty equivalents to the Aboriginals Benefit Trust Account; and the removal from claim of pastoral properties owned by Aboriginals, and of public purpose land. The amendments constitute little more than administrative changes-tokenism again. The Bill does not represent the comprehensive package of reforms promised by the Government and demanded by the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs (Mr Holding) when he was the spokesman in opposition. I think the Government should stand condemned for failing to bring to fruition the promise of proper changes which was made. Referring back to the Queensland situation, as opposed to that of the Northern Territory, it is also interesting that Queensland is the only place where the Government can be said to have delivered unfettered ownership in perpetuity. An area of 7.5 million acres of Queensland which has lain dormant and useless for so long has now seen the doors of opportunity thrown open under the Queensland legislation. I would like to quote the words of the Queensland Minister for Northern Development and Community Services, who, of course, is the son of the honourable member for Kennedy (Mr Katter), an excellent member. The Queensland Minister has said: For those who claim that the Queensland Government had given a massive handout, I would stress again that these areas have traditionally belonged to people of Aboriginal descent. They are areas that have always been reserved for the use of the local residents who are of Aboriginal descent. To have remained in a `reserve area' situation would have meant that people of Aboriginal descent would not have been able to use this land effectively because of the lack of ownership. To own a title deed over an area enables the owner to borrow money, which is after all how the growth of every economy commences. We in the National Party of Australia and the Liberal Party of Australia support the principle of free enterprise, and the Queensland Government, with its legislation, has brought free enterprise into those areas which were previously reserves. We have found that operations which previously made losses are now making profits. We are finding that Aborigines and Torres Strait Islanders are now taking the initiative and reaping the rewards of initiative and hard work. The Queensland Minister, summing up the results of his legislation, said: This encompasses one of the greatest economic success stories in Australia in recent years, and clearly demonstrates what private ownership and private enterprise can achieve when the fetters of government controls are removed. It also clearly delivers to the dungeons forever, the prejudices that people of Aboriginal descent don't work hard and cannot achieve when given the same rights and privileges as other people. We on this side of the House support the principle of the Queensland legislation. The previous critics of the Queensland Government have been saying what a tremendous success this is and, by comparison, the Northern Territory's position is an unmitigated disaster. In that Territory successful or pending land claims have meant that the ordinary citizens-the ordinary man and woman in the street-will or could lose normal access to at least 51 per cent of the land area of the Northern Territory. The area of land under Aboriginal title in the Northern Territory represents 200 per cent more than the total area given to Canadian Indians. The Northern Territory Government is not happy with this legislation. It has made that unhappiness clear to the Government but unfortunately the Government has not been interested. The attitude of the Minister and the Government is typical of the treatment meted out by the Australian Labor Party to the Territory. On the one hand there is a continual demand for increased financial independence, yet on the other legislative schemes are imposed which hamper the development of major resources and prevent such financial independence. As the Northern Territory Chief Minister has said, it is a situation that no State would tolerate. If it is intended that the Territory should move toward statehood, responsibility for Aboriginal affairs should be handed over to the Northern Territory Government. Then Territorians, like people in other parts of Australia, would be able to decide suitable land rights policies for their part of the country without interference from the central Government. Mr HOLDING(Melbourne Ports-Minister for Aboriginal Affairs)(11.14) —in reply-In replying to some of the criticisms voiced about the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Amendment Bill, there are a number of points that I need to make. First, I point out that these amendments are merely the first part of a number of amendments which are being examined by the Government. They were brought into the House on the basis that they were largely non-controversial and were based upon recommendations made by Mr Justice Toohey which resulted from quite extensive discussions that had taken place with Aboriginal land councils, the Northern Territory Government and other interest groups in the Northern Territory. The Opposition's approach is interesting because if we look at the formal position of the shadow spokesman, the honourable member for Bradfield (Mr Connolly), we see that he puts on behalf of the Opposition the view that it will not oppose the Bill on the second reading, but it is critical of the legislation because it feels that it does not go far enough. The Opposition spokesperson also foreshadowed a number of amendments which basically duplicated the provisions of a private member's Bill introduced into the Senate by Senator Kilgariff. That was his position and I suppose, as he is the shadow spokesperson, that represents one position of the Opposition. In the course of the debate, however, it became increasingly clear-as it becomes increasingly clear on a day by day basis in other areas in this Parliament-that there are divisions in the Opposition on a whole range of issues. I will not go into the details of that but will simply say that on an issue such as this one would have thought that the shadow spokesperson's view would represent the broad flow of the debate that would then take place. Not a bit of it! The honourable member for Maranoa (Mr Ian Cameron), the honourable member for the Northern Territory (Mr Everingham) and the honourable member for Fisher (Mr Slipper) all made it perfectly clear, from their utterances and from their general position, that they are opposed in principle to the whole concept and all the concepts that are involved in land rights legislation as it has been passed by this Parliament. Mr Everingham —Hear, hear! Mr HOLDING —The honourable member for the Northern Territory says `Hear, hear'; so I am pleased that I am not misstating his position. As far as those honourable members are concerned, this legislation, which was introduced by the Fraser Government and subsequently amended by the Fraser Government, is mistakenly conceived. They are opposed to it in principle and they make that position perfectly clear. That is the first basic division in the Opposition's ranks and it is fairly fundamental because it erodes the general approach that has been taken by the shadow spokesperson on behalf of the Opposition. He puts the Opposition's case, but as fast as he puts it he is subject to vigorous and in some cases heated dissent from his colleagues. Then we had the interesting contribution of the former Minister, the honourable member for Sturt (Mr Wilson). I am not quite sure what position he was putting but most of his speech was directed at regretting the fact that during the period of the Fraser Government amendments which could have been made were not proceeded with. He admitted that a very interesting and detailed report been had produced by Mr Rowlands, QC. He talked about the amendments prepared by the Northern Territory and Federal governments which were opposed by the Australian Labor Party. I do not know to what extent they were opposed by the Labor Party because, although I was in the Parliament at that time, it is a bit difficult for an Opposition to oppose amendments which were never in fact introduced. The problems encountered in those negotiations are endemic in the approaches which still bedevil the Opposition in this matter. It is all very well for the honourable member for the Northern Territory to say that this is not an area in which there should ever have been Commonwealth jurisdiction. The problem that he has with that approach is that there is very clear Commonwealth jurisdiction in this whole area of Aboriginal affairs. There is a very clear constitutional base for that. Mr Everingham —Where is your national Bill then? Mr HOLDING —Let me deal with that. At the time this legislation was introduced by a Liberal government and at the time it was subject to some further amendments, also by a Liberal government, the Commonwealth was not merely asserting its position in respect of this, which was constitutionally sound, but also doing so on behalf of an Aboriginal population in the Northern Territory, which was some 25 to 30 per cent of the total population there at that time. Mr Everingham —It was 23 per cent. Mr HOLDING —That is the honourable member's figure and he is notoriously wrong with most of his figures. The problem with the honourable member for the Northern Territory is that we can only ever believe half of what he says. The real problem for us is that we can never be quite certain which half. There is also a fundamental flaw in the general proposals of the Opposition-and this is a problem which continues to exist in the Northern Territory. This is not just a matter for discussion between the Northern Territory and Federal governments. The group that is most vitally involved, apart from the non-Aboriginal population, is the Aboriginal population itself. Given the extent to which the Parliament is involved in legislation which affects the rights and the obligations of Aboriginal people, it seems absolutely essential that there be full discussions with the Aboriginal people and leadership on the nature and the purpose of these amendments. Those discussions have been going on between the Government, Aboriginal people and every other vested interest group in the Territory for well over 2 1/2 years. I pay a compliment to the members of the Aboriginal affairs Caucus committee who have not only spent many hours receiving submissions but journeyed to the Northern Territory as a committee to receive evidence on the ground and to make their own assessments of the proposals put forward by the Government. In approaching that I believe they seriously studied, and continue to study, the arguments that have been put. I think one of the prevailing problems-and I have pointed it out to both the Chief Minister and the Deputy Chief Minister of the Northern Territory-which this Government has to deal with, and one of the problems which I believe the Northern Territory Government has to seriously address itself to, is that at almost every level there is unfortunately a basic mistrust amongst Aboriginal people of the intention and the purposes of the Northern Territory Government. In respect of even some of the simpler amendments which are being considered and continue to be the subject of discussion, where Aboriginal people are given a choice as to whether these are areas that ought to be subject to control by the Commonwealth or subject to control by the Northern Territory Government, on every occasion they opt for the Commonwealth Government simply because when it comes down to it they say quite bluntly and quite simply that they do not trust the Government of the Northern Territory. I say that because, as I have said privately to both the Chief Minister and the Deputy Chief Minister, if the Northern Territory is serious about endeavouring to obtain statehood it must seriously address the attitude of something over 20 per cent of its community who do not see that Government as representing their hopes and aspirations. It may well be that it is not possible for any government to deal with all the hopes and all the aspirations, but there is a level of tension in that relationship which I believe, unless it is far more seriously addressed by the Northern Territory Administration, will ultimately be the rock upon which its hopes and aspirations for statehood fail. I want to make another comment in relation to the contribution by the honourable member for the Northern Territory, because it is a very important point to make. He raised in the Parliament the question of the provisions in this legislation which did not make it compulsory for the land councils to keep a register. He waxed long-I would not say eloquently, but certainly at some length-about why this position should not be there: It denies virtually the main function of the land councils. It was an interesting argument and disclosed two things. It disclosed not merely the attitudes and the prejudices of the honourable member for the Northern Territory; it also disclosed the fact that he had not taken any time to read the report of Mr Justice Toohey upon which most of these amendments are predicated. If the honourable member were prepared to take some time to look at the arguments on pages 54 and 55 of a judge who had all the evidence and all the arguments before him he would understand that these amendments are based on the very specific recommendations of His Honour. If the honourable member for the Northern Territory, during his speech, had directed himself to the arguments of Mr Justice Toohey and then brought forward arguments as to why he disagreed with them, he may have had some credibility. But what we got was the usual ranting, the usual raving, on the basis that the honourable gentleman is not going to waste any time reading the recommendations in the report because, if he did, that might substantially interfere with his long-held and preconceived prejudices. It is pointless for the Opposition to assert that there is no constitutional foundation for the actions and responsibilities of the Commonwealth in the field of Aboriginal affairs. It is pointless to say that the responsibility ought to be the sole and exclusive responsibility of the Northern Territory Administration. The Northern Territory Administration, like most States, is more than prepared to accept from the Commonwealth very large sums of public funding in order to carry out necessary improvements in areas which are traditional areas of State responsibility. Housing is a State responsibility. Education is a State responsibility. The provision of roads and services is a State responsibility. But when it comes to dealing with Aboriginal people, State after State-and the Northern Territory Government is no exception-says: `We look to the Commonwealth to fund these because this is a Commonwealth responsibility'. They cannot expect the Commonwealth to go on providing funds and then say that we will not have any say in the policy decisions which affect the lives of thousands of Aboriginal people. Again I commend those views not merely to the honourable-- Mr Everingham —That's all baloney. Mr HOLDING —That I think is a statement which reflects more on the honourable gentleman than upon me, because, as I pointed out to him, had he been prepared to read the evidence of Mr Justice Toohey, he would not have made some of the thoroughly unsupportable statements that he has made to the Parliament. Quite frankly, the honourable gentleman has developed a method of dealing with many of these issues which does not involve seriously canvassing them in the Parliament or asking questions about them. He develops his positions by a series of Press releases to the Northern Territory News and that is the last we hear about those arguments. We certainly do not hear them being seriously canvassed in the Parliament although I must say that on this occasion the honourable gentleman was prepared to give us the benefit of his thoughts, and of course that displayed his lack of capacity or his unwillingness to look at the arguments that have been brought forward by Mr Justice Toohey in his recommendations. I will not take up the time of the House because we have dealt with the attitudes of the honourable member for Maranoa (Mr Ian Cameron) and those others who simply-- Mr Everingham —Take out your left foot and put in your right. Mr HOLDING —If the honourable member is going to interject he should raise his standards because the kinds of stupid utterances which characterised his performance in the Northern Territory Parliament simply make him look like a totally inadequate representative of the Northern Territory in this Parliament. He should lift his game. I turn to the other arguments put by members of the Opposition. The honourable member for Fisher (Mr Slipper) reiterated his opposition to any kind of Federal legislation and of course was very laudatory of the approach of the Queensland Government. I invite the honourable member for Fisher to look at the level of the contribution made by the Commonwealth Government in encouraging the Queensland Government to proceed with its deeds of grant in trust legislation and to look at the close working co-operation which has emerged between the two governments in getting those programs into place. That illustrates that, despite differences of approach and differences of political philosophy, it is possible for governments to work together for the mutual benefit of Aboriginal citizens by pooling resources. That has occurred in Queensland and the record is there. That record, I do not think, would be seriously denied in any way by the Queensland Minister. Of course, we had the old argument trotted out-we always get it-that land rights legislation in the Northern Territory is an exercise in apartheid. That is a stupid argument. The view that, because this legislation exists to the benefit of Aboriginal citizens, somehow that creates apartheid similar to what is occurring in South Africa has been dealt with not merely by me but by the High Court of Australia. I commend to the honourable member for Fisher the utterances of Mr Justice Brennan in dealing with that very argument in respect of this legislation when he pointed out that the difference between apartheid and land rights is the difference between having a prison and having a home. The purpose of this legislation and the amendments which are now prepared and are before the House is to give effect largely to the recommendations of Mr Justice Toohey. I concede that many of the amendments are machinery amendments and are of a non-controversial type. Some of the more difficult problems, for example, questions of mining on Aboriginal land and some of the other matters that have been adverted to, are still being considered by the Government. We hope to introduce further legislation which will deal with those more complex issues by early next year. The Government has addressed and continues to address the concerns of all interest groups. The first and most obvious interest group is Aboriginal people. The report of Mr Justice Woodward made it perfectly clear that if miners are given an unfettered right to mine Aboriginal land, it would negate the whole purpose of land rights legislation, because of the special relationship which he recognised, which was the whole basis of the legislation enacted by the Fraser Government. There are miners who are aware of the sensitivities of Aboriginal people on this issue, but equally, fairly aggressive attitudes are shown by bodies such as the Australian Mining Industry Council. That Council takes the view of miners as an interest group in the community, which it is perfectly entitled to put to the Government; namely, that if there is a mineral there-it does not matter whether it is on private land or land which might be sacred to the Aboriginal community-it has an intrinsic right to get it up. It does not matter whether there is a mineral under the shrine of St Patrick's Cathedral, or wherever it is; the Australian Mining Industry Council believes its interests transcend every other interest in the community. That is not a new argument; it is a deeply held position. It is a position which was put to the Fraser Government by the Australian Mining Industry Council on no fewer than 18 occasions and rejected on no fewer than 18 occasions. It has been put to us and I equally reject it. We are endeavouring to find and work towards a balance of what are essentially conflicting attitudes. There is a real difference and it is a problem for a government and a Minister when a group representing mining interests says: `It does not matter where the mineral is; our rights transcend every other right'. On the other hand, we have a situation where I, as Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, have a responsibility to traditional people who, for quite legitimate and proper reasons, say that they do not want their lifestyle destroyed or enveloped by mining interests. That is not necessarily a universal position. As the honourable member for the Northern Territory and other honourable members know, a whole range of agreements between land councils and mining interests have been put into place in the Northern Territory, many of which are working well and positively. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Rocher) —Order! The Minister's time has expired. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. Message from the Governor-General recommending appropriation announced. Clause 1 (Short title, &c.) Progress reported. Debate resumed from 23 October, on motion by Mr Kerin: That the Bill be now read a second time. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Rocher) —Order! I understand that it is the wish of the House to debate the Pig Industry Bill concurrently with the Pig Industry (Transitional Provisions) Bill and the Pig Slaughter Levy Amendment Bill (No. 2). If there is no objection, the Chair will allow that course to be followed. Mr HUNT(Gwydir)(11.35) —The growth of the Australian pig and pigmeat industry to over 3,000 producers during the past decade has been one of the more encouraging developments in the rural scene. The gross value of production, which stood at $197m in 1974-75, is now about to break through the $500m barrier. Domestic pigmeat consumption has risen over this period from 12.9 kilograms per capita to an estimated 17.2 kilograms this year. It is important that producers, regardless of the size of their operation, should be able to make a fair living. Smaller scale producers, with perhaps 25 to 50 sows, have shown a very high degree of efficiency and have played a crucial role in the recent expansion of the industry. Their profitability in operations, of course, must not be compromised by the present mix of fiscal, wages and monetary policies. I will say more about that later. I just mention the structure of the industry because I think that we will see it change considerably. A number of smaller producers will come into the industry because of their surplus wheat and grain production. I predict that next year will be an absolute disaster year for many of the cereal producers. It will not pay a great number of farmers to deliver their grain to the silos. Many of them would be much wiser to try to consume much of that grain on the farm. Pigs will be one of the big consumers of grain, therefore I hope that we will see a lot of very good and efficient producers coming into the industry. It is now appropriate that the industry has made representations to the Government seeking to bring its promotional and developmental activities under the umbrella of statutory marketing reforms which have taken place in a range of farm industries. I give the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Kerin) some credit for having undertaken a number of reforms in relation to statutory marketing bodies. I am sure that those reforms will facilitate a much more efficient operation of those statutory marketing bodies. Some reforms were under way when we went out of government. The Minister has carried on a number of those initiatives and has even taken the reforms a step or two further. The Pig Industry Bill and its two associated Bills, the Pig Industry (Transitional Provisions) Bill and the Pig Slaughter Levy Amendment Bill (No. 2), will replace the existing Pork Promotion Committee with a more contemporary Australian Pork Corporation. I want to make it clear that the Bills will not establish a new statutory authority but will replace one which is perhaps not relevant to the demands of today. The promotional activities will be widened to enable pig producers, for example, to participate in such meat industry initiatives as computer aided livestock marketing-CALM-in the new stock language, Ausmeat. The computer aided livestock marketing scheme is very much part of the new technology available to industries generally. It is heartening to see that the meat industry has taken an initiative to try to encourage a greater use of this technology in marketing its products. I give some credit to Mr David Wright of Wollomombi, Armidale, for the amount of time and effort he has put into trying to adapt this technology to the livestock industry. He has done an enormous job in his own time and at his own expense. I am sure that ultimately it will be a great success and it will be widely used by the industry in the next few years. Of course, there are teething problems at present, but I am absolutely positive that they will be overcome. A new formal statutory basis was considered to be necessary for pig producers to contribute financially to these promotion initiatives if they elect to do so. Associated with the legislation is a proposed increase in slaughter levies from 80c to $1 per head for promotion and from 20c to 30c for research. Further increases may occur as the Bills set a maximum promotion levy of $1.50. The new corporation will not be a trading body, nor will it become involved in any form of price setting mechanism which would restrict competition in the market-place. I think this is a very important aspect of this Corporation. It will not adopt any forms of price setting. I think that is a welcome decision by the industry because if it gets into that act ultimately there will be price setting arrangements that probably do not reflect the market-place requirement at all. It will comprise seven members with an independent chairperson, a Commonwealth Government member and, five nominees of a new Selection Committee chosen for its expertise in such matters as pig production, processing, marketing or other appropriate skills. The legislation also establishes an Australian Pig Industry Policy Council, comprising representatives from the producer, processor and selling links along the industry chain. The Council will advise the Minister on topics of importance and will develop pricing recommendations for Federal Government consider- ation. The Opposition supports passage of these Bills, but as with other similar legislation we will be concerned to ensure that the new body continues adequately to respond to the interests and the wishes of the producers. It would be unacceptable to accede to the industry's request for a new corporation and to wrench control of these levy funds away from the growers at the same time. The industry has endorsed the structure of both the Corporation and its Selection Committee. While there appears to be general satisfaction with the initial arrangements the producers and their executive want to be sure they will retain authority over the expenditure of their funds in the longer term future. This year's slaughter rate is expected to reach 4.7 million head of pigs and so the levies of $1 rising to $1.30 a head are a substantial contribution to research and promotion. The Opposition considers it essential that those who provide the funds should, in turn, have control over expenditure. This legislation imposes no cost to the taxpayers. I am sure the taxpayers listening will be pleased to hear this. All changes are funded directly by the industry. I think that is very important. In view of its financial independence, there should be no opposition to the Australian Pork Producers Federation's wish to exercise its right to seek an independent statutory body to improve its research and promotion marketing programs. A suggestion was put to the Federation and discussed at length that it consider merging the Pork Promotion Committee into the structure of the Australian Meat and Live-stock Corporation. However, the Australian Pork Producers Federation elected to pursue its own course and the Opposition does not oppose its decision to do so. Promotion has been a crucial element in pork, ham and bacon consumption growth over the past decade. The Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism (Mr John Brown), who is at the table, is very closely associated with the meat industry. He will know how important that is. Mr McGauran —He has made a fortune. Mr HUNT —It is good to have people in this place who have made a fortune out of something or other. I think that they do bring a bit of business expertise into the place. We should not knock him for it. We have not got enough people in this place who have made a fortune out of anything. Mr Hodgman —What about Hawke? Mr HUNT —Well, everything he touched went broke-Bourke's store, ACTU-Solo-and, when he left the Australian Council of Trade Unions it was in a hell of a mess. By the time he leaves his job as Prime Minister, I think Australia will be in a mess. Let me return to the Bill. Mr John Brown —He won't be talking to me now. Mr HUNT —I think the Minister will make a better Prime Minister because of his great background. Regular activities of the Committee have included television, radio and Press advertising, magazine cookery supplements and regular contact with the retail trade. Among events on the industry's calendar this year has been the pork and bacon fair at Gunnedah in the electorate of Gwydir. My wife, Miriam, and I were delighted to perform the official opening and take part in many of the activities, as well as observing the innovations and technology on display. In fact, my wife-I hope she is listening-was one of the judges of the Miss Pork Princess. I was very impressed with the decision that the judges made. She was a delightful girl actually. The annual conference is really a tremendous occasion. Honourable members will do well if they get an invitation to it. I hope I am there next year. The promotional activities by the industry have been of an excellent standard. The changes introduced by this legislation should help producers, processors and others to maintain this standard and to make use of the latest technology in marketing. There are two innovations of special note in which the pork industry may participate as a result of this legislation. First, the national meat industries are developing a new market system, which I mentioned earlier, known as CALM. By providing a statutory basis for the collection and distribution of levy funds the industry will be able to become fully involved in CALM if it wishes to do so. Technology is already bringing major changes to some areas of livestock marketing, notably the video livestock auction system, which is enjoying strong support in a growing number of country centres. It is worth recalling the comment by the President of the Intensive Pig Producers of Australia, Mr Leslie Tonkin, to the 1986 Farm Outlook Conference. He stated: CALM is moving marketing several steps into the future-but a facility without throughput will be as stationary as a Ferrari without petrol. I think that is a very good quotation. The move to a statutory corporation will give the industry a sound footing on which to participate in CALM if it elects to do so. Secondly, the new Corporation will have the option of joining Ausmeat, a meat classification monitoring scheme set up by the Australian Meat and Live-stock Corporation. I am aware that there has been some opposition by sections of the industry to participation in Ausmeat. In his second reading speech the Minister for Primary Industry said the industry would have a choice to do so-in fact in September the Australian Pork Producers Federation determined it would take part. It is anticipated a levy per head of 6.7c will be earmarked for this purpose. I ask the Minister for Primary Industry to make every effort to smooth the industry's path into Ausmeat, and to ensure that officers of his Department do all in their power to assist the pork producers during this transitional period. I raise a further matter of specific interest to pork producers with a warning that any laxity of attitude on the part of the Government could spell disaster for the Australian industry. I refer to the threat of premature change to the quarantine regulations governing the importation of uncooked pig meat from Canada. Mr Ian Robinson —Very important. Mr HUNT —It is very important, as the honourable member for Page has made clear. He has a lot of pig producers in his electorate. On 20 March this year I put a series of questions on the parliamentary Notice Paper to the Minister seeking information on the present regulations and advice as to the precautions being taken by the Government to ensure Australian herds are not exposed to such diseases as transmissible gastro-enteritis or Aujeszky's disease. In his response the Minister assured me that no changes would occur until exhaustive trials had been conducted by Agriculture Canada to prove these imports would not carry TGE. Subsequently we have learned that these trials are not being carried out. In turn, the Minister has now agreed to the industry proposal that trials be conducted by our own experts at the high security Australian National Animal Health Laboratory in Geelong. This is to be commended. It was a very commendable decision by the Minister. The trials, to be carried out over the next 12 months, should provide detailed information upon which the risks to Australian herds may be assessed. TGE is a deadly virus with mortality rates of up to 100 per cent for piglets aged to four weeks. Once introduced to a herd it becomes endemic and cannot be slaughtered out. There would be no excuse for risking the importation of this disease without the most thorough trial results being known. One aspect of this issue remains unclear. Why is the Minister risking the entry of uncooked pig meat by changing the import regulations when we have an efficient pig industry of our own? I just wonder where the pressure is coming from. Is it coming from the Canadian Government? We have to be very careful about the introduction of disease into this very important industry. The animals themselves are subject to a number of diseases, this particular disease being one of them. Foot and mouth disease is another about which we have been very concerned for some time. It would be helpful to honourable members on this side of the House and to the industry if the Minister could explain why changes to the quarantine rules are now under active consideration. Whatever progress is made by the industry with technology and innovation, its potential will be stunted while ever it is saddled with anti-investment, monetary, fiscal and wages policies at a Commonwealth government level. Mr Leslie Tonkin, in his keynote address to the 1986 Outlook Conference, said that, while pork producers had indications of improved profitability, four main negative factors came into place. These factors were named as: Increasing labour costs; monetary performance, including the direction of the dollar and interest rates; the threat of fresh pork imports; and the world agricultural trade scene. The first factor, wages policy, is one of the key flaws of Labor policy. Despite the 40 per cent devaluation against the trade weighted index-we are that much poorer as a nation-this Government has persisted with a 3 per cent across the board productivity deal with the Australian Council of Trade Unions; a very bare discounting of wage increases despite an inflation rate, making us totally uncompetitive against our major trading partners; a range of anti-business policies which have further squeezed the capacity of Australian business to make a profit and, therefore, pay higher wages, leaving them little or no funds for essential capital reinvestment; and it has made little more than a few noises over outdated and costly work practices entrenched by certain unions, particularly those on the waterfront. The wages pause in 1982 showed that all Australians are willing to share our economic burdens so long as governments deal with these problems in an even-handed fashion. Not only do we need wage restraint but also we must have restraints on government spending and a flatter, more equitable tax scale to encourage initiative and to encourage people to produce and to work. Flexibility must be built into the system to cope with changes in the external economy. Nowhere is this more important than in the export industries which are directly tied to world market returns and, of course, this involves the pig industry which is seeking to establish greater export outlets for its products. Pork is one farm industry with tremendous export potential but that potential will never be realised while governments fail to create the right investment and export climate. The Outlook Conference was also told that pork producers must have relief from the near record interest rates. But, of course, no such action has been taken by the Government. Earlier this week, the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce (Senator Button) said, during Question Time in another place, that monetary policy would remain as tight as it is now `until a change is deemed appropriate'; in other words, when the Government feels like changing things. The Primary Industry Minister gave the matter a better perspective recently when he said in Narrabri, New South Wales, that interest rates threatened to damage seriously not only our long term economic prospects but also the electoral prospects of the Labor Party. Nothing will save Labor at the next election, whenever the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) wishes to call it. But it should be made clear that interest rates cannot stay at present levels without causing a deep and extended recession. If the Australian prime rate dropped from 18.5 per cent to, say, 11 per cent, which is the highest end of the European scale, the interest bill for Australian farmers would be reduced by $15.4m every week. Net farm incomes would be doubled and the farm crisis would be eased. There is a need for a crisis plan for those Australian farmers carrying high debt loads. According to a survey that I have completed, 30 per cent of farmers are at risk. There is a need for a larger injection of funds into the rural assistance boards for debt reconstruction through interest rate assistance. Certainly, there is a need to try to get the Primary Industry Bank of Australia into some program to see whether it will assist those bigger and larger operators with very heavy debt loads by extending the length of their borrowing. I will be talking to the bank in the near future about some propositions that I think ought to be looked at. I have had a deputation representing pork producers and a great number of farmers in New South Wales and I just want to quote from a very interesting commentary by them. The first thing that I wish to quote from is a paper that has been prepared by Mr John Chudleigh who is the Head of the School of Rural Management at the Orange Agricultural College. He said: Australia faces the prospect of losing the expertise and services of a large proportion of competent rural producers and their support services if current commercial developments are allowed to continue. The number at risk at the start of 1986 as estimated by BAE was 12,000 producers. With high interest rates for all of 1986, this number is now substantially higher and could be in the vicinity of 30,000 producers. These producers cannot meet their interest and/or lease or hire purchase commitments and consequently are losing equity as well as suffering extreme stress. The lenders to these producers will face many difficult decisions during the next 12 months if there is little change in interest rates of commodity prices during that period. That is a very serious summary of the situation by that noted expert. Another paper that was produced on this very real problem, by a group of people representing the Livestock and Grain Producers Association, sets out a view that I think ought to be heard. Mr Hand —Are they the people who were here yesterday? Mr HUNT —I think the honourable member would be interested in this paper. Mr Hand —Are they the people who were here yesterday? Mr HUNT —Yes, indeed. The paper states: The best way for Australia to improve its balance of payments and reduce the current account deficit (currently fluctuating about the $1.5 billion/month mark) is to increase agricultural output-manufacturing industry would take far too long to mobilise and deliver a return! The paper goes on: The rural sector needs only an incentive as the infra- structure is already in place for an immediate start. However, with the millstone of exorbitant interest rates about their necks, most farmers carrying a debt burden, will be flat out surviving without increasing or even carrying on production. e.g. Fertilizer in the grazing industry is all but a thing of the past. There is no doubt that any saving in interest rates would pass into the general economy immediately, with the usual multiplier effect and subsequent increase in government revenue. The main benefit of reduced interest rates in the rural sector would be to maintain present farm ownership and therefore, the expertise in the rural sector. If ownership changed dramatically to overseas or corporate ownership- corporate ownership is a very doubtful prospect because so many of the corporate groups have got out of farming- Australia's ability to raise the level of agricultural exports may well be permanently disadvantaged. Finally, the paper states: By assisting Australian farmers to retain ownership of their farms, we will be ensuring that ownership of our most important export potential is held by Australians for future generations and not sold off wantonly to Japanese or other foreign interests. So, it is a very serious problem. That problem must be faced up to. I think we will have a major crisis in 1987. On the one hand, we have falling commodity prices. We have an increasing trade deficit. Nothing will overcome the trade deficit problem quickly. Manufacturing probably offers hope if the right policies are implemented down the line, but it will take some time. We also face a massive overseas debt. The burden of interest rates and of inflation on this productive sector of the economy is crippling. A further likely fall in grain prices of 20 to 30 per cent next year-that was the forecast of the Australian Wheat Board yesterday-will undoubtedly aggravate the critical problem facing us even now. The Government is desperately pursuing policies of propping up the exchange rate, which it is doing by this enormous interest rate burden and by Reserve Bank of Australia intervention; there is no doubt that that is going on. What happens to our foreign exchanges in the ultimate? It is a catch 22 situation for the Government; I realise that. Mr Hand —What would you do? Mr HUNT —Clearly, the first thing that one must do is to reduce the deficit or to hold it at least in this year and to try to get more flexibility into the wages system to make it more reflective of our current account difficulties. The unions will not like that; of course they will not like it. But other people in the community have had-- Mr Hand —What does that mean? Mr HUNT —That means that our standard of living will fall. It is falling, and that has to be recognised. We cannot have a debt burden of the extent that we have and we cannot have balance of trade difficulties without people being prepared to recognise that they cannot go on asking for more and more when the system just cannot give it. The only way it can be given is by borrowing more money and putting future generations further into debt. That is something of which we need to be mindful in this country. We will not overcome the problem that we are facing while ever interest rates are as high as they are and while ever the farm sector in Australia, which is fundamental to our standard of living-- Mr John Brown —The banks are going crook. They say that they are not making enough profit. Mr HUNT —It is not so much the fault of the banks, surely, in this deregulated financial system that everybody acclaims. We have a market situation determined by Government policy, by economic policy, by the macroeconomic policy that this Government has implemented. There is no denial that world commodity prices are depressed. But this should not be the linchpin upon which this Government develops its agricultural policies. It is no good constantly blaming the world market price. We have no alternative but to sell 70 per cent of our agricultural production at the world market price. If the Government cannot bring interest rates down to a more competitive level within a reasonable time, it will have to face the implementation of a Keith Wright plan or some other plan to overcome the great interest rate burden that farmers are carrying at present. We are facing a crisis of great magnitude and the pork industry is not quarantined from it. Measures such as those contained in this legislation will be of little long term benefit to the people in the industry unless the Government is prepared to implement measures that reduce their cost burden. The Government should take some of the pressure off their transportation costs. It should rely less on fuel as a source of revenue. It should replace those tariff burdens with bounties, as has been done already to some extent, and also make an earnest effort to reduce the interest rate burden which is killing Australia. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Rocher) — Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr SNOW(Eden-Monaro)(12.05) —The latter part of the speech by the honourable member for Gwydir (Mr Hunt) was mainly a filler; I can understand that. It included suggestions as to what the Government should do but not as to how the Government should do it. That is characteristic of all Opposition policies. Opposition members have been unable to tell us how we, or they, could fill their prescriptions. The honourable member for Gwydir talked about this Government propping up the exchange rate. For 7 1/2 years Fraser-Howard Budgets propped up the exchange rate. He talked to us about interest rates. Our interest rates have not reached the heights that interest rates reached in the 7 1/2 years of the Fraser-Howard Governments. He asked us to reduce our deficit. The last Howard deficit was headed for $9.6 billion, but the deficit is now down to $3.5 billion. What is the Government doing? It is doing exactly what the honourable member prescribed. He has not told us how he would reduce the deficit further. He has not suggested any ways in which the various government departments should reduce their expenditure. He has not suggested how cuts should be made. He has not said whether the Government should discontinue its action on rural poverty and other welfare measures. The honourable member for Gwydir talked about a flatter tax scale. To some extent we are doing that. But we are not doing what is suggested by the Opposition. One tax suggestion from the Opposition would mean that a farmer on $10,000 a year would pay the same percentage in tax as a corporate producer executive earning $100,000 a year. Surely the farmer on a family income of $7,500 a year after tax who has to bring up a family, educate the children and buy petrol, and who has done the hard work of production, is worth more than 10 per cent of the income of an executive on $100,000 a year. The Pig Industry Bill 1986, the Pig Industry (Transitional Provisions) Bill 1986 and the Pig Slaughter Levy Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1986 are an important development, following many years of work and consultation between the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Kerin), the Department of Primary Industry, the pig meat industry and the Pork Promotion Committee. In 10 years the number of pigs slaughtered has increased by 1.1 million to an estimated 4 1/2 million in 1985-86. The Bills take account of the need for the industry to become heavily involved in computer-aided livestock marketing and in the development of a national livestock language, Ausmeat. They also take account of the unique nature of the pig industry, which wanted to be independent of the Australian Meat and Livestock Corporation in both computer marketing and Ausmeat development. The legislation provides for a new Australian Pork Corporation which will have wider functions than the existing Pork Promotion Committee. It will have expertise in pig production, pig meat processing and promotion and marketing. Let us look briefly at the industry. Since 1981 exports have increased by about $9m, from $4m in 1981 to an estimated $13m in 1986. Looking through the history of the industry, we see that there were some very significant events, particularly in 1983 when there was a slide in prices. The cost of feed was high, there were high sales expectations and yet there was a levelling off in demand for pig meat, which was unexpected. In the same year Australia was coming closer to the beginning of corporate ownership of pigs and the pig meat industry. The Adelaide Steamship Co. Ltd had control of about 15,000 breeding sows, producing 200,000 piglets. Its firm, Australian Bacon Ltd, with its Dandy range, processed and marketed the pig meat. Naturally, 8,000 independent farmers were worried. They did not want to find themselves in the same situation as the poultry industry had found itself in, wherein growers were locked into the same corporation supplying chicks, supplying feed, supplying medication and then buying the broilers that were produced. This led to a control over the charges for inputs to the farmer as well as a control of the prices paid for the outputs of that farmer. This has led, in the broiler industry, to a squeeze on family incomes and in some cases devastation, especially when there have been untimely events. I recall some 20 years ago a broiler grower having a power failure and the deaths of birds in his sheds devastated his family. It was economically crippling. In 1983 Elders IXL Ltd was also entering the pig industry. It was called vertical integration, but that really means control right down the line. In the same year a wide range of research grants were made available by the newly elected Hawke Labor Government. The Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Kerin) announced Government funding for 26 continuing and 25 new projects covering breeding, welfare, nutrition, accommodation and disease. Just a few examples include: At the University of Melbourne, a pro- ject on the motivation of pigs to perform behaviour patterns frustrated by an intensive environment; at the University of Sydney, a project on gastric ulceration and digestive function; at the University of Western Australia, a project on reproductive studies in commercial pigs; in the Victorian Department of Agriculture, a project on the influence of intensive housing and stress responsiveness on the welfare status and productivity of breeding sows and a project on the effects of sex and level of feeding on the protein requirements of finisher pigs; and the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation undertook a project on the technical appraisal and development of pig accommodation. All these matters are of significance in the breeding, welfare, nutrition, accommodation and disease of pigs and are important to a wide range of people-not just the producers and processors but also those concerned with the welfare of livestock. With the new Minister for Primary Industry in 1983 a useful and productive period of consultation with the industry began. Discussion centred on electronic auction and the national livestock language. By 1985 imports had become a controversy. The honourable member for Gwydir mentioned that and I do not propose to enlarge on what he said. In that year the industry also rejected bringing the marketing of pigs and pig meat under the Australian Meat and Livestock Corporation. In 1986 we find a quite different scene. The recent Bureau of Agricultural Economics report on the rural economy, issued in November 1986, showed pig saleyard prices up 4 per cent and yet retail prices are up 6.8 per cent. Once again the middle operator soaks up funds at the expense of both the independent producer and the consumer. In 1986 concentration of the industry into fewer businesses has continued. Adsteam now has 30,000 breeding sows, double the 1983 number, and, as well as Dandy, controls Mayfair and Presto. Today around 15 large firms control about 35 per cent of pig numbers. It is nothing like the chicken industry, but it is more structured than before. We find, as is the case with the crisis in the wheat industry, that not the same number of people are diversifying into pigs. Such diversification is not as striking as it was a few years ago. Under this legislation a new Australian Pork Corporation will have the power to contribute financially to marketing arrangements, for example, computer aided livestock marketing and the development of a national livestock language, called Ausmeat. I hope this means that independent producers will be able to strengthen their position as against that of corporations, through access to these modern marketing techniques. We do not want the agony of the broiler grower industry to be reflected in the pig industry. I support the Bill and wish the industry and the Corporation well. Mr DRUMMOND(Forrest)(12.15) —Today we are discussing legislation to replace and improve upon the Pig Industry Research Act 1971. The legislation is at the request of the Australian Pork Producers Federation and is generally in line with the Government's attitude in changing the structure of primary produce marketing authorities. In contrast to a number of other primary industries which are going through times of crisis, the pig industry is providing reasonable returns. A combination of events, such as the industry being based within the domestic market-only 2 per cent of the whole production is exported-a rise in domestic consumption and a collapse in the cost of grain prices have meant that returns have been maintained. The margins, however, are slim, and the profitability is reliant on intensive and efficient production techniques. For the farmer to keep up the pace, high capital costs are involved in setting up the piggery. These farmers would be paying around 18 per cent interest on their borrowed capital; meanwhile their own capital which is tied up in their farms would be returning more in the order of 8 per cent. Interest rates at these levels have the same effect as a tax on the productive sector. It must be understood that pig production is mostly carried out in conjunction with other forms of agriculture. In Western Australia, for instance, there are over 350 pig producers with 20 sows or more. Recent Bureau of Agricultural Economics statistics indicate that approximately 6 per cent of farms based on mixed livestock and crops will be at risk this year-that is, they will have difficulty meeting their debt commitments. The main problem is that interest rates have increased by about half since the Labor Government took office, when at the same time interest rates paid by our major trading partners have been steadily falling. Our annual inflation rate is now around 9 per cent, compared to rates for our trading partners of, in the United States, 1.6 per cent; in Japan, 0.5 per cent, and West Germany, which has deflation, of 0.5 per cent. The Government's measures of increasing indirect taxes on basic consumer goods such as wines, fruit juice and flavoured milk, as well as the hike in petrol prices, contribute directly to inflation. Whatever the arguments the Government uses, these policies have resulted in inflation and interest rates way out of line with world trends. The disastrous mix of deregulating our financial markets and maintaining total regulation of our wages and labour market has accelerated our international decline for the 3 1/2 years that this Government has been in control. Containing our labour and wages costs is central to turning around our current account deficit-which incidentally has averaged $1 billion a month for the last 3 1/2 years. That is, the Government has plunged their fellow Australians into a $38 billion loss on our trade results during that time. The high cost of labour for the farmer-which has been further increased through the fringe benefits tax-is another example where government imposed costs have shown no relationship to the market-place. As I mentioned earlier, the pig industry is based around a $450m domestic market. At the start of this year we saw an attempt by Canadian exporters to gain access to the fresh pork meat market in Australia. The prospect of aujeszky's disease or transmissible gastro-intestinal virus gaining entry to Australia through imported fresh meat products is of grave concern to the pig industry, and one the Government must not take risks on. The current ban must remain in place until water-tight guarantees, backed by trials, which will now apparently take place in the Australian National Animal Health Laboratory in Geelong, are given. These will be concluded around October 1987. The point should be strongly made that access should be based on the matter of safeguarding the Australian industry, not on considerations of trade. Personally, I have little faith in the expertise of our Government negotiators in respect of primary industry. The public servants do not value our industries' worth as highly as a farmer who has his life's work and his family's future tied up in it. They do not drive hard enough deals. Yet, because of various Government regulations and considerations across the broad spectrum of Government involvement, industries can be compromised, as we have seen recently with the Western Australian tuna industry. There is one way to ensure the moral probity of any decision regarding any industry, and that is to consider only arguments that are directly valid to that particular industry. In considering the establishment of the Australian Pork Corporation, the alternative was the merger of the Pork Promotion Committee and the Australian Meat and Livestock Corporation. I have also taken the view of a number of small pig producers within my electorate. Their view was that statutory marketing authorities can get out of hand and, in terms of the additional bureaucracy that the industry must support by government regulation, the industry probably does not warrant such legislation at this stage. It must be remembered that the industry is not export based, and the new Australian Pork Corporation's role will be one of marketing, production and processing. If one is primarily concerned with the streamlining or the reduction of the legislative burden, I can see good sense if the Pork Promotion Committee had merged with the Australian Meat and Livestock Corporation. Many of the AMLC's skills in overseas marketing will be essential to the pig industry, as will the AMLC's initiatives in the area of computer marketing of livestock, CALM, and the development of a national livestock language, Ausmeat. Still, the creation of the separate Australian Pork Corporation was at the industry's request, and the additional costs that growers will incur will be offset by the advantages of autonomy. The pig industry is a good example of a high level of co-operation among producers, processors, marketing organisations and government. The moderate level of return has meant that the pig producers have been able to take advantage of recently developed technology. One rarely sees a parrot being flung into the swill trough these days. Our pigs are fed on high quality Australian grain. Producers must have good returns to be able to afford the luxury of recent technological improvements. In recent years the Government has believed that one can continue to load up the primary producer with petrol costs, interest rises, restrictions on storage of grain, government run transport monopolies, high cost labour rates and increased taxation, and then tell him to go out and compete in the market-place. Farm costs are the farmers' biggest problem, related to interest rates, and in reality the only thing a government can do about it is to assist farmers with those costs and interest rates. I support the legislation that is before us today. Mr CAMPBELL(Kalgoorlie)(12.23) —In supporting the Pig Industry Bill and cognate Bills, it is worth noting that it has the support of the industry, which is an indication of this Government's willingness to consult the industry and to act on its behalf. It will bestow on the industry a degree of autonomy which means that it will be responsible for its actions and for the consequences of its actions. This is the essence of free enterprise, and I am sure that all honourable members support it. Listening to the debate, I was surprised at how wide ranging it was. Some mention was made of the transmissible gastroenteritis problem which the Government has addressed. It has nothing to do with this Bill, and I do not propose to dwell on it, except to say that I thought it was unnecessary to mention it in relation to this Bill. The Government is aware of the problem, and it is taking a very responsible attitude to it. Obviously, the Canadians want access to the Australian market. As a country that preaches free trade in agricultural products, we obviously cannot deny that unless it is on very good health grounds. We cannot, as other nations do, simply put forward spurious grounds. I look forward with interest to the results of a study that is taking place at the moment at the Australian National Animal Health Laboratory. The honourable member for Gwydir (Mr Hunt) in his rather wide ranging speech, mentioned quite a lot of things about the industry generally. I think they have to be taken on, to some extent. He told us what should happen but suggested no ways at all in which his views could be implemented. In fact he steered very wide of giving any indication of what the Opposition, as a government, would do. The truth is that it simply does not know. The honourable member picked on the hoary question of wage deregulation. As I have spent most of my life in primary industry, I can remember when, in the early 1960s, I was taking part in what will be the last great pastoral development in Australia-the opening up of the Nullarbor. At that time we were faced with a de facto wage deregulation. The mining companies, which were then very gung ho about nickel, simply paid double the pastoral award. The result of this was that people left the pastoral industry in droves to work in the nickel exploration industry. That left the pastoral industry with the option of either increasing wages dramatically or employing fools, criminals or pommies. I am very grateful to the pommies who were in Australia at that time because a lot of them were interested in getting experience and seeing Australia and not simply in chasing a quick dollar. I congratulate those people for their effort in the development of the Nullarbor. It indicates how irrational the economics of the Opposition can be. In a highly competitive situation it is quite clear that if the industries which are depressed offer less they get a lower standard of labour and there is an increased drift to the cities. These things have to be considered. The great problem facing Australia today is not the multitude of little problems that the honourable member for Gwydir addressed but the growing dichotomy between city and country people. There was a time when people in the cities were aware of and sympathetic towards the problems of the people in the country. I am afraid that in the last 30 years this has gone, and it has gone in part because of things such as the immigration policy and the attitude of some people in rural areas. I was a great supporter of the campaign of the National Farmers Federation, which was designed to bring country and city people together. It probably has not succeeded. I am very sad to say that I think it may even be counterproductive. On reflection, one can see why this has occurred. Because of the need to pay for this costly campaign it obviously had to have sponsorships. So we saw pictures on the television of farmers driving brand new equipment in bright green country, under almost idyllic conditions. It reinforces the view in the cities that everything on the farm is lush, green and lovely. Of course it is not. I do not quite know why that was put over. I say this with all the wisdom of hindsight because at the start I had not realised what was happening either. It is something that has to be addressed. The concept is very good, very valuable and very necessary for Australia, and it has to be addressed if the rural sector is to get value out of that campaign. In one breath the honourable member for Gwydir talked about devaluation as though it is terrible for the industry, but then he talked about having more devaluation as though this would be good for the industry. In my opinion he showed a complete lack of understanding of how business works. The truth is that the Reserve Bank of Australia undoubtedly has been working to support the value of the Australian dollar. The Australian dollar today is probably undervalued. If its value were to rise rapidly I would be most concerned-certainly for the future of the rural sector. We must realise that the problem is that for many years the value of the dollar was kept artificially high because the parties that were then in power, the Liberal Party of Australia and the National Party of Australia, had no policy to deal with wages except to bear down on prices. It kept the value of the Australian dollar high to make imports cheap, to put continual pressure on the Australian manufacturing sector and, of course, to cause unemployment. The countries in which the rural sector is doing relatively well have a policy of supporting that sector from their manufacturing sector. To do this, a country needs a very large manufacturing base. Australia cannot be in that position, unfortunately, because it export a very large percentage of its agricultural products. But we can move towards that, and there is a great need in Australia today to re-establish manufacturing industry in this country. Indeed, if we are to have a future we have to have a direction whereby we encourage manufacturing industry based on natural advantage or intellectual advantage. By that I mean industries in which we actually invent the product, add value to it in Australia and market it from Australia. The honourable member for Gwydir also talked about other problems on the land. There is no doubt that the downturn in commodity prices has been a tremendous burden to Australian farmers, particularly in the area of wheat. But there is another problem facing us. It is not only the downturn in prices; it is the shrinking of world markets. Only this morning it was announced that Bahrain would reduce its imports of wheat, presently running at some 32,000 tonnes a year, to a trickle. It will now buy wheat from Saudi Arabia, a country which, with Australian expertise, has learnt to irrigate the desert. It is those factors that we have to look at. We have to realise that the market for wheat will be a contracting one and we have to get into diversification. We were told about the farm costs. The truth is-in the pig industry, as in other sections of the Australian agricultural industry-that the rate of increase in farm costs has dramatically reduced under this Government. That is generally recognised by farmers. This Government will continue to do what it can in that regard. It is interesting to note that in Western Australia the State owned railway system is in fact carting wheat more cheaply today in real terms than it was five years ago. I think the performances of the then Minister for Transport, Julian Grill, and the present Minister for Transport, Gavan Troy, have been exceptional in this regard. This has not been emulated in New South Wales. The New South Wales system is quite crazy, and there is no doubt that this is an indictment of all State governments in New South Wales over a very long period. It must be remembered that this trouble did not start recently. It certainly was festering away when the Liberals had power in New South Wales. I believe the State Rail Authority of New South Wales really does have to get its act together, and a lot of attention has to be paid to that. Interest rates are an interesting thing. I believe interest rates are one of the great problems facing the rural sector. There is no doubt that, because of government macroeconomic policy, interest rates have been forced up. I do not run away from that at all; I think there are very good macroeconomic reasons for that. But there is no doubt that it affected in fact a group of farmers who, I think, are vital to the future viability of the pig industry and other industries in the farming sector. In this group generally is the young fellow who went out, probably under-capitalised, full of hope and strength, to substitute his hard work for capital-which meant he had to borrow money. Also affected was the more entrepreneurial type of person, who borrowed money for development at what were realistic interest rates only to have those interest rates double on him. I believe that some targeting of assistance to those people should have taken place. In consultation with many farmers in Western Australia, I in fact put forward a program for targeting of interest rate reductions. We put forward a couple of proposals which were quite workable. There is no doubt about that. They failed, in fact, because the NFF was incapable of coming to grips with the concept of targeting assistance. For it, interest rate assistance had to be across the board; whether people needed it or not, they all had to have it. The cake is always only so big. If it has to be cut infinitely it means that people get a very small piece; in fact, a piece so small that it does them no real good at all. For those who are doing well it is just a bit of icing on the cake; for those in trouble it is not enough to help them. The honourable member for Gwydir talked about pumping more money into rural adjustment. The problem is: The rural adjustment bodies do not need any more money; they are brimming with money. Money is coming out at the seams. The problem is that the guidelines are so strict that farmers cannot take advantage of the money that is there. That is the problem that has to be addressed. It is getting access to the money, not the need for more money. While these problems are very real, it is interesting to note what has happened to the people who are supposed to speak on behalf of the rural sector. The NFF has run a campaign targeted at the capital gains tax and the fringe benefits tax. I can tell the NFF, the National Party and the Liberal Party that the fringe benefits and capital gains taxes are not concerns of genuine farmers. My electorate has the highest farm debt ratios in Australia-and even in those areas farmers are not talking to me about the fringe benefits tax, because the truth is that they do not pay it. There is very little employment of other people in the rural sector and so these farmers are not generally affected by the fringe benefits tax. Where there is any effect it is absolutely minimal. My mind goes back to a meeting I attended in Salmon Gums in Western Australia. It was convened by the Country Women's Association, an organisation for which I have a very high regard. I congratulate it on the initiative it took. At the meeting I was confronted with a chartered accountant who also happened to be the President of the Liberal Party branch at Esperance. Frankly, I thought I had been set up. Before the meeting he said `I would like to make a short statement' and, since I had no power to stop him, I readily concurred. He said: `I want to tell you people-as many of you are my customers-that you do not have to pay any fringe benefits tax if you do not pay fringe benefits. What you are on about is substantiation. I have been filling in your returns on the basis that what you told me was true, and I certainly hope it was'. He then went on to say that he was ashamed of his own association, which had given an enormous amount of misinformation to people. He concluded by saying: `If the previous Government had had any guts'-the Government of the Party of which he was a member-`it would have introduced legislation like this, because the tax system was a shambles and many farmers know that they were being forced to pay because of the greed and avarice of people who were simply avoiding their responsibility'. In respect of the pork industry, I must say that I am concerned about the vertical integration that is taking place. I hope that in the measures established by this Bill there is some mechanism whereby a check can be kept on this. The vertical integration will tend to squeeze out the smaller producer unless he is very careful. It will tend to put pressure on his prices unless he is very watchful. It also involves a very high degree of regulation. But while the people opposite talk about deregulation, which in most cases is a misnomer, if we have a high degree of vertical integration we have a totally regulated industry. It is regulated in the interests of a few against the interests of the many. That is so self-evident that I do not think we need talk about it. I think the Government has shown an initiative in facilitating the setting up of this organisation, which will allow farmers to have a large say in their future. I think governments do have the power to take these initiatives. I was interested to hear my good colleague talk about the tuna industry in Western Australia. What happened with the tuna industry in Western Australia? We regulated that industry. It is now on a very sound basis. But in the process of regulation quotas were made transferable and salable and South Australia stepped in and bought up the quotas in large measure. The Western Australian Government did what it could by putting a floor price on the value of those quotas in an endeavour to retain them in Western Australia. It was unable to attract enough Western Australians to the ideal of selling to them the quota so that it could redistribute them to Western Australian fishermen. What the Western Australian Government has done since is to take a very prominent part in the development of the sashimi business. The present Minister for Agriculture, Julian Grill, has had one of his staff members working full time on this and we now have the situation of fishermen in Esperance looking at great prosperity because of the emerging sashimi industry in which quality and marketing are absolutely essential. I believe that the Australian pork industry can show the same sorts of initiatives and the same sorts of marketing endeavours to expand the appreciation in the public mind of pork. I congratulate the industry. I think it was wise not to become associated with the Australian Meat and Livestock Corporation, not because I have any objection to that organisation-in fact, I think it is doing a good job-but there is no doubt that pork will be in competition with some of those other products. I believe that the pork industry should be out there fighting its own battles, reaping its own rewards and of course facing up to any problems that arise from its own bad decisions. In conclusion, I wish to comment on a couple of the sillier things that are fetishes of the National Party of Australia. National Party members seem to think that there is something magical about the ownership of land. While it is true that interest rates are an enormous burden to farmers, unrealistic prices of land are an even greater burden. These prices keep out young farmers who want to get established and make it harder for people to expand their farms in order to cater for growing families. If the price of land were allowed to fall to a more realistic level, it is self-evident that interest rates would also fall. If the price of land halved the interest rate burden would also halve, regardless of the rate at which it was pitched. When I hear the honourable member for Gwydir talk about the ownership of land, I cannot help feeling that this is a nonsense concept. Does he think that the Japanese who buy a farm, and in doing so put some stability into the market, will then roll it up and take it away and leave a hole in Australia? Of course that will not happen. In my electorate some land has been bought up by European interests. Inevitably this has been leased back to the vendor, who is now working the farm profitably without the burden of actual ownership. This practice has kept people on the land and kept small towns viable. It is not necessarily a bad thing. I am not saying that it should go unobserved, but to look at it in the same way as the honourable member for Gwydir is to adopt a very silly concept. I commend the Bill and I commend the Minister's action in bringing it forward. I certainly wish the industry well and all the best for the future. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Blanchard) —Order! It being almost 12.45 p.m., the debate is interrupted in accordance with sessional order 106a. The debate may be resumed at a later hour. Question proposed: That grievances be noted. Mr ROCHER(Curtin)(12.43) —More than any other single factor, it is uncertainty which is the enemy of economic progress. The heaping of one uncertainty on top of another by the present Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) and his Government since they came to office in March 1983 has earned him and it the title of public enemy number one in Australia today. That is undoubtedly true when we reflect on the depressing economic performance in Australia over almost four years of the Hawke Administration. The genesis of government-inspired uncertainties is to be found in countless broken and abandoned election pledges. It is also to be seen in major policy changes foreshadowed, but not immediately-and in some cases never-acted upon, as well as forecasts of economic improvements which have simply not materialised. The Australian public may not have fully appreciated the portent of the Prime Minister's first broken promise and that is no doubt long forgotten. But it took only three days after his election in March 1983 for this Prime Minister to break his first election promise-just three days. Even today there is a sizable but thankfully ever decreasing number of Australians who hang on to and even believe the solemn undertakings of the Prime Minister. What was the first of these countless broken promises given in 1983? On 10 February of that year the Prime Minister, his eyes disappearing into his forehead and the corners of his mouth pointing to the ground, said: `We will not be devaluing'. He was of course, talking about the value of the then managed Australian dollar. What happened? Just three days after he was elected the Prime Minister devalued our currency by 10 per cent. It took just three days after the elections for the Hawke Government to betray its true intentions! Since then, of course, there has been a veritable avalanche of betrayals. It seems that there is to be no end to them. Back in 1983 broken election promises just became the order of the day. That has been the case ever since. First there was the devaluation. That was followed, with almost indecent haste, by the decision to renege on promised tax cuts. Intermingled with the broken election promises there was in 1983 the foreshadowed and much vaunted economic summit. It came and went without any resolution of the question as to the likely intentions of the then new Government becoming apparent. The uncertainty in the minds of those in other than perhaps big government, big unions and big business was simply not satisfied. Then there was the May 1983 mini-Budget, which did not deliver the promised tax cuts and instead imposed additional taxes and charges. The home loan rebate was scrubbed without prior warning. Retrospective tax legislation was introduced. Calls for expansionary economic policy were rife. Speculation about capital gains tax abounded. That speculation was not put to rest by the Government at that time. We found out why some short 12 months ago. We saw also the Combe affair and the irrational Tasmanian spy flights. Interspersed with the events of 1983 were the implications and effects of the hastily contrived prices and incomes accord, the application of which no one-not even the Australian Council of Trade Unions-then understood. Mr Deputy Speaker, nothing has changed since in terms of the massive uncertainty that was generated by the so-called accord between big government and big unions, and the successive accords. There were to be good and bad uranium mines, provided the good were limited to one in South Australia. The bad were to be all the others, throughout the remainder of Australia. We saw the Medicare debacle perpetrated and a myriad of accompanying promises of better and cheaper health care fail to materialise. In fact, the opposite happened. The year 1983 was not even over before the Prime Minister, with the help of an ever compliant and fawning Press, started floating the possibility that there would be another general election in 1984. Never mind his pathetically solemn election promise that if Labor were elected in 1983 his Government would serve a full term of three years. That was to become another sacrifice at the altar of truth. Further uncertainty was born out of speculation about the timing of that early election. That particular uncertainty through 1984 was supplemented by the Government's blind support for universal employer-funded superannuation, as well as for anything that the ACTU, in its submissions to the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission, might want. We saw, without even a warning being given or a mandate being obtained from the electorate, a massive increase made in the number of senators and members of this Parliament. Then there was the 1984 vote now pay later Budget which, sadly, a majority of voters fell for. With the premature December 1984 general election behind him, the Prime Minister then decided to go for broke. Despite his election campaign, which was notable for the absence of a taxation policy, the Prime Minister set about placing more impediments in the way of certainty and therefore in the way of economic progress. We were to have-may we all eventually forgive him-a tax summit. In the run-up to the misnamed tax summit, over a period of six or seven months, economic uncertainty and instability reigned supreme. There was no improvement as the public came to learn how the Prime Minister had rolled his Treasurer (Mr Keating) in a backroom deal with his masters in the ACTU. Prime ministerial promises that interest rates would fall during 1985 meant simply nothing. Instead they rose, and the Prime Minister's words were once again shown to be less than cheap. Mr White —Rates are still going up. Mr ROCHER —They are still going up. We, in the Opposition, had supported the Government's decision to float the Australian dollar but the Government then, through the agency of the Reserve Bank, set about surreptitiously propping it up to artificially high levels, in the process risking our precious and increasingly scarce international reserves. By mid-1985 there were clear signs, very clear signs indeed, that domestic and international developments meant dire trouble ahead for both our balance of payments and our trading account. Despite the consistent warnings by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard) and my colleagues and me, the Prime Minister continued to maintain that his policies were just what were needed. We know that the Prime Minister has been advised by his media minders to recultivate his ocker image, but to adopt his `She'll be right' approach to our economic malaise is to plumb new depths of political irresponsibility. Lately he has lauded his Government's monetary policy although one has not even been announced. The Treasurer walked away from announcing money supply goals a couple of years ago when it all became too hard for him. A basic element of any monetary policy surely is knowing what one's goals are for the supply of money, either in terms of M3 or in the broad. As a consequence, the domestic and international markets have been left with no option but to speculate. Mr Deputy Speaker, the actions of people, whether they be consumers, investors or entrepreneurs, will be influenced for better or for worse by their intelligent understanding and certain knowledge of a Commonwealth Government's intentions and its ability to manage its affairs. Bluff, bluster, cant and humbug such as we hear from the Prime Minister are simply no substitute. Consumers, investors and entrepreneurs of all shades have made their judgments and the waffling simply has to stop. The thinking which sees fuel costs escalating widely in Australia while falling throughout the rest of the world has to stop. The mentality that sees vote catching promises broken after elections at the twinkling of an upturned eye, appealing for the approbation of the Press Gallery, has to stop. The fulminating, the backing and filling by the Prime Minister simply has to stop. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Blanchard) —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr STAPLES(Jagajaga)(12.53) —On 11 November 1975 we saw the culmination of the most blatant act of external interference in Australia's affairs and its autonomy as a nation and a democracy. The dismissal of the Whitlam Government was orchestrated by a combination of forces inside and outside Australia-namely the United States of America. Now, 11 years later, with the protection of history, this matter has not been properly and exhaustively addressed by either the Australian or the United States governments, present or past. Nor has it been addressed by the Australian media or faced by the Australian people. We have had plenty of opportunities to do so. Much has been said in the media about a former Australian Prime Minister who, in a city in the United States, could not find his trousers. That sort of thing attracts a lot of media attention. Again, we have seen the question of the use of three little words, `my little mate', take the whole of Australia by storm for a year or more and follow a man from the beginning of his career to his grave. We listen day by day, as does the Press, to references to this issue of external interference but the Press has heard it all before and says nothing or very little about it. This issue is not addressed in Australia. The Australian people have held their heads in the sand over it. In fact, they have had their heads held in the sand over it. The Australian Press has virtually ignored the biggest political history event in Australia, the biggest story that they could want in a democracy and an autonomous nation. The public has failed to seek further information. I blame most of that on the Press because it has not sought to pursue the matter further. The blame does not lie there alone. It extends further, to this Parliament, but it is difficult to decide what happened and which way to address this matter first. Should we look at what happened or why it happened? In this event we have a significant amount of evidence which shows the involvement of the United States, through the Central Intelligence Agency, the CIA. It is a concern which virtually every Australian has had at some time or another. I am sure that the extent of the involvement of the CIA, of the United States, in this event, has crossed the minds of honourable members opposite who were perhaps on the fringe of the event. For those in the community who are concerned it is a constant sore and a reminder of the threat that we are placed under. Allegations and information are available in Australia and overseas, and have been for a long time, but we are faced by the iron curtain of American intelligence; we are faced by the Berlin Wall of American intelligence and Australian secrecy, the unavailability of such information to the public. One person who did make this information as public as possible, and is now paying the price for having caused quite a furore, was Christopher Boyce, a person convicted in the United States for spying, and serving a 68-year sentence in solitary confinement. He was denied a fair trial because he was prepared to say things that neither the Australian nor the United States governments wanted the public to hear. He was, in 1974, a disillusioned 21-year-old. His faith in the country of his birth had been shaken to the foundations by Vietnam, by Watergate, by racial tension and the mad march towards nuclear destruction. He took a simple job as a postal clerk in an electronics firm, TRW Systems, in California. He stipulated to his employer that his interest in the job was limited to staying only for as long as it took him to save enough money to return to college, but less than two weeks after his commencement a detailed personnel file on Boyce was sent to the CIA. His employer had made the curious decision to recommend this 21-year-old, this restless ex-student who was eager to improve his financial status, to operate and work in a department run by the CIA in this company. Thirteen weeks later Boyce was transferred to the CIA black vault, a communications relay room. He was inexplicably given an exclusive security clearance that allowed him access to America's most secret espionage operations. During the briefing for this new job, that Boyce had not asked for, he was told that much of the communications involved would be coming from Pine Gap in Australia; that although the United States had signed an executive agreement with Australia to share information from Pine Gap, the agreement was not being honoured. It was emphasised that certain information must not be passed to Australia-he was working for the CIA although employed by a private company. He was witnessing at first hand his country's betrayal of allies and had been told that his complicity in deceiving Australia was expected. That was the situation. Eventually he was brought to trial because he gave information to the Russians and brought out what the United States was doing in its relationship with Australia through Pine Gap. Neither of Boyce's defence lawyers was ever allowed to see any of the documents that he had passed to the Russians, nor were they allowed to examine the file on the CIA's own investigation of Boyce. This despite the fact that both of Boyce's lawyers held the appropriate security clearances. Could it be that the documents were in fact so useless to the Russians that if they had been produced as evidence in court the case would have been dismissed? This matter should certainly be laid to rest but should it be left to rest? As Australian citizens, are we to accept CIA violation of our domestic affairs? Does it matter to us that the United States lied about Pine Gap being a Defence Department project when it was actually a CIA project? Are we unconcerned by America's betrayal of that executive agreement? Does it not strike anyone here as sinister that Gough Whitlam was dismissed from office only hours before he was to expose in Parliament the role of the CIA at Pine Gap? Can Christopher Boyce be condemned for failing to honour his security agreement when a precedent for that had been blatantly set by the United States Government? What are we in this country going to do about Christopher Boyce? What are we going to do about a person who has shown what has been happening in the guise of secrecy, under the protection of an ally, in Australia? This is not a bash against the United States. This is a matter of fighting for Australia, for our own sovereignty, for our democracy. We sit in this House day after day under two Australian flags that hang above. Hour after hour we hear of abuses, of how Australia is not being properly treated, of how we must keep this, our flag, forever and so on. But what is the meaning of the flag if we cannot protect our own autonomy? That is the question that we have to face. The person who could be most incensed over this issue, Gough Whitlam, said in 1977-in this very House: It is precisely because America is our principal ally that Australia must be satisfied that American agents are not acting in a manner contrary to our interests as a nation. Are we to let an ally get away with something that a rival would not be allowed to get away with? Alliances are not strengthened by covert operations or by condoning and covering up such covert operations. Our dignity and self-respect as a nation, no less than our national security, demand that the Parliament exercise its supremacy in scrutinising the activities of foreign intelligence services operating in this country. There is plenty of evidence available, Mr Deputy Speaker. We have seen the attention of the media of Australia and of both Houses of the Parliament focused on the three insignificant words `my little mate'. On the other hand, despite the fact that the evidence of external interference is so much greater, little attention is being paid to it. Let me return, in the last few minutes left to me, to a description by Gough Whitlam in The Whitlam Government 1972-75 of a meeting held in Sydney. Mr Whitlam says: I never met President Carter but I had a significant meeting with his Assistant Secretary of State for Asia in the South Pacific, Warren Christopher. On Wednesday, 27 July 1977 at 8 a.m. Alston arranged a breakfast meeting in the Qantas VIP room at Sydney Airport. Those present were Alston, Christopher, his aide, my aide, Richard Butler . . . and I. He continues, speaking of Christopher: He made it clear to us that he had made a special detour in his itinerary for the sole purpose of speaking to me. The President had asked him to say: That he understood the Democrats and the ALP were fraternal parties; That he respected deeply the democratic rights of the allies of the US; I ask honourable members to note what he says next: That the US administration would never again- I repeat those words: would never again interfere in the domestic political processes of Australia; and That he would work with whatever government the people of Australia elected. If our Bicentenary means anything-- Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr GOODLUCK(Franklin)(1.03) —Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I am pleased to enter this debate. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! I have not yet called the honourable member for Franklin. I now do so. Mr GOODLUCK —I am always fast on my feet. Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. You know I can sing and now I am going to swing along with this speech, if you do not mind my saying so. I warned my four fellow Tasmanians when the dams debate was on that we had not heard the last of the people that were so involved-those who came to Tasmania and seemed to stir up all the trouble, those who came to Tasmania and distorted the facts, those who came to Tasmania in the hope that they could make it just a wilderness. Mr Barry Jones —I was one of them. Mr GOODLUCK —I said that they were a formidable group that needed watching at every opportunity because they would just start there and go further and further and ring the bell, as the Minister at the table is trying to indicate, that they would fight every inch of the way to make Tasmania not just a beautiful island, but a wilderness, a plaything for the conservationists. They have certainly started on that footing again. My four colleagues and I did not have very much of an opportunity to talk about the timber industry, to say quite clearly to the conservationists: `Keep out of that industry'. They have done enough harm with the dams dispute. I would ask them to keep out of this one for goodness sake. In retrospect, we lost the other decision. It is water under the bridge but I am still bitter about the involvement of the Federal Government and particularly the High Court of Australia in it, because they won the day. I thought at the time that we did not fight hard enough but let me ask in retrospect: Where are all the jobs that were promised? I cannot see them. Where are all the jobs in the tourist industry that, according to the Wilderness Society, would be provided? Where are all the jobs that Bob Brown and Norm Sanders promised? They are not there. That is why we have lost so many good Tasmanians to the mainland. The jobs promised down there have not been provided. Now, all of a sudden we see that lobby starting up again-very bitterly too, incidentally-to ruin the Tasmanian forest-based industries. They are going to fight hard and will fight dirty if they can, rest assured. They get on television. Let me say that the ABC and other sections of the media in Tasmania seem hell bent on giving Bob Brown and Norm Sanders every opportunity to put their point of view. What is being said is almost laughable, if honourable member do not mind my saying so. I read in the Hobart Mercury-and similar things are being said in every other newspaper in Tasmania, also on the ABC channel and TV6-`Federal grants to the forest group propaganda hit-Sanders says Hawke supports smear campaign'. I know where Mr Hawke stands on this issue and he is equivocating. I know where he stands. He is starting to say: `Look, we cannot win a seat in Tasmania so let us go out and fight in other States in Australia and try to harness the conservation vote because it may be beneficial at the next election'. Mr White —You've got that right. Mr GOODLUCK —I have got it absolutely right. But here we have Senator Sanders attacking Mr Hawke for funding a constructive program which indicates to the people of Australia and Tasmania that the forest industry is well organised, well maintained and in the best interests of the people of Tasmania. Let me give a few facts about that industry. The value to the Tasmanian economy in 1985 of all forest-based industries was approximately $230m. Direct employment in all forest-based industries totalled 8,000. Indirect employment totalled 20,000. Sixteen per cent of Tasmania is covered by national parks and State reserves. Only 0.4 per cent of State forest reserves is logged each year. So the position is being exaggerated. Already those people have about 30 per cent of Tasmania tied up, but they want that little bit extra. They want it for their plaything. They want it to be a wilderness. I hope that those who have had to leave Tasmania because of an inability to get jobs-and there are a lot listening today, rest assured-realise that a concerted effort is under way to save that very important industry for Tasmania. The opponents of the industry, with their nice suits, their bright smiles and their ability to get on television at every opportunity, have a sinister thought in mind. They want to bring the Tasmanian forest-based industry to a standstill. They can pretend that they want this and that but, ultimately, what they want is what I have described. The same thing happened over the dams issue. A lot of rot on the part of the Wilderness Society went on down there. I refer to the rot that the wilderness would be harnessed so that people from all over the world could look at it. What a lot of rot! What about the men and women, the ordinary families of Tasmania, who are battling at the moment with high interest rates and petrol costs? They are just living from day to day. When some of those men who have bought trucks and tractors and are living on mortgaged properties, et cetera, find that they are going to be restricted once again, bitterness arises. That is one of my grievances and I know that the people of Tasmania will listen to what I have said. I plead with my four colleagues to consider that this is something that we need to fight on every inch of the way. I plead with them not to get involved in some of the rot that is going on in this Parliament at the moment. Our ultimate aim is to fight for Tasmania, to stay united, to keep away from the intrigue that goes on up here-leadership battles, character assassinations and all the personal stuff that occurs up here-and just fight for Tasmania and for what we believe in. That is one of my grievances. My second grievance I have mentioned on many occasions. It is regrettable that one has to repeat what one has said so many times. It concerns the petroleum industry. The price of petrol in Hobart at the moment is 64c a litre, about 14c more than is the case in other capital cities of Australia. I know that Robin Gray had to add a 5c a litre impost to the price of petrol in Tasmania. I disagreed with that, but understood his reasons for doing so. I disagreed because the price of petrol at that time was already the highest in Australia. I realise that Mr Gray had to levy the additional 5c in order to make the State function, but even without it the price would have been about 9c higher than elsewhere. It would have been 10c a litre in excess of the Canberra price of about 52c a litre. Even if such a levy were imposed Canberra would still be 5c a litre better off. Mr Burr —That impost was forced on Mr Gray by the Federal Government. Mr GOODLUCK —Yes. The Prices Surveillance Authority, which we discussed yesterday-it is an arm of the Federal Government-needs to be looked at. It fixes a maximum wholesale price for petrol in every capital city. That price varies from oil company to oil company. The regrettable part about it is that the oil companies-honourable members know that I have no love for them because of what they have done to Tasmania-have a beautiful ability to drop below that wholesale price, to make it a fic- titious wholesale price. Thus, petrol may be obtained in Queensland, for example, for 32c, 36c or 40c a litre-the price varies from day to day and from State to State. When we see a fixed price of 64c a litre in Hobart it hits hard. Mr Burr —What does it cost in the mainland States? Mr GOODLUCK —It varies. I mentioned the other day to my colleague that there were people in Hobart, bitter people, who turn on one at the drop of a hat, saying: `Goodluck, you have spoken about petrol on thousands of occasions, but have not been able to get the price down'. That is the stupid rot that one has to contend with in this game. When one tries genuinely to tell people why petrol is so dear, one gets that sort of stuff pushed at one. I would mention to my colleague that in Jackeys Marsh we have a fight on our hands. You have done a good job down there. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Blanchard) —Order! The honourable member will address the Chair. Mr GOODLUCK —I am sorry; he is better looking than you are! When I think about it, although we have the opportunity to get up in this House and speak about the problems of Tasmania we sometimes find that very difficult to do. I have said to my colleagues that we, as a Tasmanian group, need to fight for Tasmania; to get away from all the rot that goes on up here; to get away from character assassinations; to get away from personal recriminations and fight decently for what it is all about-fight hard and fast and get away from all this rot. I hope that the media take heed of what I am saying because I blame them for stirring up the possum at every opportunity. They will not report a decent speech, but if I came in here and threw a bit of mud-which I never do-they would report that in Tasmania. So I hope to God that they listen to this speech and will recognise that what I am saying is right and exact. I hope that the people of Tasmania will know that they have genuine members up here fighting for their causes-not just grandstanding like some that I could name but really thinking about their interests and hoping to make Tasmania a better place in which to live. Mr FITZGIBBON(Hunter)(1.13) —Mr Deputy Speaker, all my working life I have been a pay as you earn taxpayer and have paid my fair share of tax. For the last 20 years or so I have been gnashing my teeth with frustrated rage at government unwillingness or inability to establish a fair tax system. There are winners and there are losers in the tax game. The winners are those who are causing tax revenue to be eroded increasingly, to the tune of billions of dollars, through tax avoidance and evasion and the rorts of the corporate sector. The losers are the PAYE taxpayer and the poor. The ordinary PAYE taxpayer is a victim of all the tax rorts and rip-offs that certain taxpayer groups practice. While ever some people are allowed to pay less than their fair share of tax, the PAYE taxpayer will have to pay more than his or her fair share. The economic well-being of the poor is powerfully affected by an inequitable tax system that denies the Government money with which to improve their living standards. PAYE taxpayers and the poor must support this Government's attempt to bring justice and equity to the Australian taxation system. The Leader of the Opposition, Mr John Howard, is vulnerable to the accusation that he is not fair dinkum. He opposes virtually everything that the Hawke Government does but offers no real alternatives. He tries to catch votes merely by exploiting discontent. Promises to abolish the fringe benefits tax, the capital gains tax, the assets test and the tax on superannuation lump sums might sound great to many people but from where will the money come? What would the Liberals, if they gained office, do to stop the tax avoidance that has occurred through fringe benefits? What would the Liberals do to raise the revenue that would be lost through the abolition of certain taxes? It would be impossible for the Leader of the Opposition to fulfil a commitment to reduce income tax and increase assistance to families if he should have the chance to abolish taxes geared to raising significant sums. It is important that voters realise that the Government will not keep one cent from the fringe benefits tax. Every cent collected will be paid back to taxpayers through lower tax rates which will be introduced on 1 December of this year and 1 July of 1987. The majority of Australians are offended by taxation evasion and welfare fraud, which has the effect of increasing the taxation burden on honest Australians. The community has shown its overwhelming support for an Australia Card. No honest taxpayer has anything to fear from such a card which is the only effective way to stop taxation evasion and welfare fraud. Mr Howard and other Liberals originally implied support for the Australia Card. They recognised that the Australia Card would not infringe civil liberties. Now the Liberals have done a complete about-face on the issue. The electors of Hunter, as well as all other Australians, have good reason to be puzzled at a party which professes to be opposed to tax avoidance but rejects outright the fringe benefits tax and the Australia Card. The Liberals have no tax plan of their own and in rejecting the fair and equitable measures introduced by the Government are guilty of the most blatant and shameful political opportunism. The honest people of Australia want a tax system that is fair. They want to rid our tax and welfare systems of fraud and know that the best way to achieve this is by having an Australia Card. The people of Australia are amazed at the remarkable about-face by the Opposition. They know that the Liberals and Nationals have all spoken in favour of an Australia Card. Why have the conservative members now changed their attitude? Honest people are stunned by this inexplicable change. The only people who are cheering the Opposition's about-face are the tax and welfare cheats. The Australian Taxation Office is not. It knows that it cannot do its job properly without an Australia Card. `To oppose the Australia Card is to put a fetter on tax collection' the Taxation Office says. This duplicitous Opposition has sought to exploit the infringement of civil liberties argument but is inconsistent and insincere. The Opposition cynically distorts the language of genuine civil libertarians. What it is claiming is that the citizen has a basic right to defraud the community. It is hollow rhetoric for the Opposition to say that it shares the community concern about tax evasion and social welfare fraud. The honest and innocent have nothing to fear from an Australia Card. The argument advanced about the infringement of civil liberties is a load of codswallop. Private legislation is to be introduced to underwrite the privacy protections that will be provided in the Government's legislation. Citizens need to be protected against the abuse of their privacy by government and that will be done but, equally, citizens need to be protected against others who cynically hide behind the mantle of privacy to create false identities and thus cheat honest citizens. Let us debunk once and for all this infringement of privacy nonsense. The Australia Card will contain no more than the following: A name, a photograph, a signature, an identifying number and an expiry date; nothing more. Is this an invasion of privacy? Will this terrify honest Australians? The Opposition has once again donned a monster mask in a bid to scare the pants off voters. And who can be heard laughing at their scare tactics? Are all those American Express, Visa and Bankcard holders, and the thousands of other Australians who hold credit or ID cards, scared? They are laughing at the puerile arguments that have been put forward by the Liberals. Many honourable members opposite are feeling a little embarrassed by the stance that they have been forced to adopt. They are wearing sheepish grins. Today, three members of the Opposition showed me plastic ID cards that they carry. It is interesting to note that the Press editorials have condemned the about-face by the Opposition. The Canberra Times had a particularly interesting comment: The Liberals showed opportunism by opposing the introduction of the Australia Card. They present a weak case against the Card. Their opposition is hard to fathom. The Government is well aware that opinion polls indicate that the card has strong public support. The Canberra Times comment continued: The Liberal case against it is weak, being based on the need to employ more public servants and the assertion that the card assumes that all taxpayers are cheats. However, the need to employ extra staff does not mean the card is not cost-effective; the staff are essential to get the benefits from the system. The Canberra Times knows, as does everyone else, that the cost of introducing the Australia Card is a mere fraction of the revenue that it will earn. It will cost the Government $759m in the first 10 years but will raise over the same period $4.7 billion. That figure is worthy of repetition-$4.7 billion. How will that sum be used? The $4.7 billion will be used to reduce tax levels or provide extra services. That is what all honest Australians want. They want lower taxes and better services. The average Australian does not want what the Liberals and Nationals appear to want-the continued protection of welfare and tax cheats. An extraordinary thing happened in my electoral office on the day that the conservatives made known their opposition to the Australia Card. There were many incoming phone calls, but an oddity was that three callers, two women and one male, refused to give their names. Their reason for adopting the cloak of anonymity was that they were Liberal voters. They had rung merely to express horror and anger that their political party sought to protect tax and welfare cheats. Mr TIM FISCHER(Farrer)(1.22) —Mr Deputy Speaker, today I want to raise by way of proper grievance the question of the Australian War Memorial and several outstanding issues relating thereto. On 22 December 1984, a Vietnam veteran was married in the Australian War Memorial. Approval for this was granted directly and indirectly at various levels. I make no comment at this stage on the rightfulness or, more particularly, wrongfulness of a wedding take place at the Australian War Memorial because I want to concentrate on the aspect relating directly to the Minister. On 19 November 1986, yesterday, in the Senate, when the Minister for Veterans' Affairs (Senator Gietzelt) was questioned about the wedding, he said: I am absolutely astounded and shocked at any suggestion that a civil wedding has been held at the Australian War Memorial . . . If the assertions are true, I certainly give Senator Tate an assurance that I will immediately seek an explanation from staff of the Australian War Memorial . . . Therefore, to suggest that there has been a civil wedding ceremony at the War Memorial defies imagination. I am absolutely appalled at that suggestion. I can now tell the House that at least 48 hours before the wedding took place the Minister for Veterans' Affairs knew about the wedding. This happened when the Minister attended a Christmas party at the Australian War Memorial in the week leading up to the wedding, during which he was introduced to the bridegroom in his capacity as an employee of the Australian War Memorial. The Director of the Australian War Memorial during the function-I am advised well within ear-shot of the Minister even allowing for difficult acoustics-stated clearly that the Vietnam veteran was being married on the next Saturday, 22 December 1984, at the Australian War Memorial and that everyone would wish him well, or words to that effect. Perhaps I should add that this information has come from a very reliable source, but not from the Director, Air Vice-Marshal Jim Flemming, or the Chairman of the Council of the Australian War Memorial. I should say that I have not spoken to either of these people since the Battle of Britain observance ceremony on Monday, 15 September last, and deliberately so for obvious reasons. Returning to the issue of the wedding, it is now clear that the Minister for Veterans' Affairs is guilty, once again, of grossly misleading the Senate. Should the Minister in Question Time this afternoon plead some excuse in relation to selective memory, he will do so at great risk because a full and open inquiry will bring out a great deal about all aspects of the complex issues relating to the War Memorial. Not only did the Minister know about the wedding at least 48 hours before it took place at the Australian War Memorial. He was in a position to take immediate action to stop the ceremony being held at the Australian War Memorial, an event which he now describes as having defiled the very sacredness of the portion of the Australian War Memorial that was utilised. Indeed the Minister, albeit a new Minister at that time, with responsibility for the War Memorial, is a former soldier who failed to act in the time available on a matter which he now complains about. It is the Minister for Veterans' Affairs who must accept responsibility for the wedding having taken place at the Australian War Memorial and he stands condemned by his own actions and words yesterday. Mr Deputy Speaker, four issues relating to the Australian War Memorial should be dealt with by the Parliament and the Government before this Parliament rises next week. I wish to continue remarks that I attempted to make at an earlier stage on another motion before the House and to do so by way of further proper grievance. Firstly, there is the issue relating to the Minister and the Australian War Memorial, his politicisation of the War Memorial and the Council. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member will resume his seat for a moment. I remind him that standing order 75 provides: No member may use offensive words against either House of Parliament or any Member thereof, against any member of the Judiciary . . . I just remind the honourable member so that he will not trangress the Standing Orders. Mr TIM FISCHER —Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, I am well aware of that standing order and wish merely to focus the attention of the House on four broad issues associated with the War Memorial. The first is the Minister's role in relation to the War Memorial and the politicisation that is threatening its independence. I could do no better than quote very briefly the remarks of a former Labor South Australian Premier who had been a member of the Council of the War Memorial: The Minister has been constantly interfering in the Council for a long period of time, and I guess that's had its effect in their having overlooked that the Director is entitled to a fair go and natural justice. The first issue, then, is the Minister's role. The second relates to the Director and the Australian War Memorial, and one should recall that in the Ken Jones report there was a finding of no misbehaviour under the fundamental section of the Act. I make no further comment on that, other than to say that the Director is entitled to natural justice. He is entitled to be present at an inquiry where evidence is given against him. That submission was made by the solicitors for the Council of the Australian War Memorial, but that privilege was not extended to him during the Ken Jones inquiry. The third issue relates to certain other staff at the War Memorial. This was raised by the honourable member for the Northern Territory (Mr Everingham) and I will not dwell on it. The fourth relates to the modus operandi of the Council of the War Memorial, which is now centre stage in the whole saga which has arisen. I want to say that the Opposition, the Liberal and National parties, has been very patient and careful not to politicise what is a very sacred institution. For example, we waited some five days following the presentation of the Ken Jones report before proposing any motion in either House in relation to the War Memorial issue, then proposed in the Senate a very carefully worded motion which gave the Government a choice of options. It was carried by the Senate. The War Memorial situation is now out of control. The Government has questions to answer. The Minister for Veterans' Affairs has very serious questions to answer in the interests of the veterans' community across Australia, those who served their country in time of war. Those questions should be answered before the Parliament rises for the summer recess. The Government has before it certain options, certain alternatives. We understand that the Cabinet has been looking at those options and alternatives for at least 48 hours; that the matter has now been deferred until next week. So the saga at the other end of Canberra, at the War Memorial, is to continue for at least another three or four days until we see what the Cabinet might do. I appeal to the Government, to the Minister for Veterans' Affairs and the Minister at the table here in the lower House, to consider very carefully all the issues in relation to the Australian War Memorial and, if the fundamental finding of the Ken Jones inquiry is not accepted, to proceed with a further full and open inquiry utilising the proper rules of evidence and cross-examination procedures which would then be available. May I remind the House of words that were uttered by a great former Prime Minister of Australia, Mr Ben Chifley. When speaking in relation to repatriation matters, veterans and those who had served their country in time of war, he told the House: `Upon this Parliament rests the responsibility of seeing that the right thing shall be done.' I believe they are most relevant words. The ultimate responsibility rests with this Parliament. It is tragic that the situation has reached the stage where unfortunately, due to the inaction and wrong action of the Minister for Veterans' Affairs, it has, sadly, become centre stage to some extent in the lower House and certainly centre stage in the Senate. That is very regrettable. I will not resile from my duties as shadow Minister for Veterans' Affairs to see that the right thing is done by the Australian War Memorial; that the independence of the Australian War Memorial is retained; that there is accuracy in the comments by the Minister for Veterans' Affairs and that he will be forced to own up to misleading the Senate in relation to the wedding ceremony of which he spoke at length yesterday-one that he knew 48 hours beforehand was to take place. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) —Order! The honourable member should withdraw the accusation that the Minister misled the Senate. Such allegations may only be made by way of substantive motion. As I was taking the chair, I believe that I heard the honourable member say that the Minister had misled the Senate. One cannot seek, other than by way of a substantive motion, to accuse a Minister of misleading the Parliament. The honourable member should withdraw. Mr TIM FISCHER —I think, Mr Deputy Speaker, that the facts speak for themselves but if you wish me to withdraw I so do. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —The honourable member should withdraw unqualifiedly. Mr TIM FISCHER —Mr Deputy Speaker, are you asking me to withdraw? Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Yes. Mr TIM FISCHER —I withdraw. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —I thank the honourable member and ask him to resume his seat. His time has expired. Mr GRIFFITHS(Maribyrnong)(1.32) —I wish by way of the grievance debate to bring to the attention of the House a visit that I made earlier this year to Iraq and other countries of the Middle East. I visited Iraq in January or February of this year. My major motivation in travelling to Iraq was to investigate the treatment of Iranian prisoners of war. Also, the alleged use of chemical weapons by Iraq in the Gulf war was a matter of public concern at that time. There are many complexities which one could address in the context of a grievance debate but obviously with the very limited time available it is not an appropriate occasion to do that. I would like to make just a few brief general comments and then deal with some specific areas where Australia's interests are certainly intrinsically involved. Obviously, the Gulf war between Iraq and Iran has much greater implications than simply the effect on those two warring nations and the matters that I wish to address are obviously more on the micro level of humanitarian issues insofar as they affect the treatment of prisoners and the use of chemical weapons. But it is worth making the point that because of the Gulf states' oil reserves and their geostrategic location, Australia is not immune to any cataclysmic result from the current dispute between these countries. The war has now been ongoing for something like six years. That is unique in Third World countries where one is not looking at wars of national liberation or wars that could be described, if one likes, as civil wars. It has gone on for a very long time at an enormous cost in human and capital terms. Obviously the region because of its oil reserves is particularly sensitive. It has, as I understand it, some 55 per cent of world reserves and in a post-oil glut context the importance of the region will reassert itself. Obviously, the petro-dollars derived from the sale of oil by not only the two protagonists but also the other Gulf states have been intrinsically responsible for the ability of the participants to continue fighting. I refer both to the direct income derived from the sale of their own oil-though that has been severely circumscribed as a result of the war-and, importantly, to that received from other countries in the region. The massive contemporary drop in oil prices will obviously have a severe impact on both protagonists' ability to continue the war. Hence there may be some light at the end of the tunnel in that context. The Gulf war is almost ignored in the Western media. It is interesting to note that we have people who are prepared to vote with their feet on Sundays and be intrinsically involved in various peace movements but never really give any consideration to this most horrendous of contemporary conflicts. It is important to realise that Iraq has a population similar, if one likes, to that of Australia. Its losses have been absolutely enormous. That situation is reflected even more so-although less as I understand it in percentage terms-by the Iranian losses. I think that when we look at this situation it is worth recalling that in the First World War Australia suffered per capita the highest number of allied casualties in that war. Mr Rocher —After New Zealand. Mr GRIFFITHS —Perhaps I should have said, more accurately, that in World War I the Anzac forces suffered more casualties per capita than did any other allied country involved; that it took us many generations to get over that massive loss of what has accurately been described as the flower of our youth. I simply raise that to try to bring to the attention of the Australian people the fact that we simply cannot ignore the barbaric conflict that is occurring in the Gulf. Apart from the humanitarian aspects, Australia's vital security interests may very well be affected by an unpredictable outcome especially, as I have indicated, in a post-oil glut environment. That may, hopefully, be of import to some. Recently there have been a number of moves that tend to belie the stalemate view of the war. I refer, for example, to the slight change in emphasis by Syria towards its long time protagonist Iraq and the highly publicised moves by the United States of America Administration to open a dialogue by way of what is possibly an extra-constitutional and on the surface quite crazy method of supplying arms to the Khomeini regime. I wish simply to place on record my view that whilst I am uncomfortable with that initiative, as I believe most people in Australia would be, it is also important to acknowledge that any conclusion to the Iran-Iraq war will have as a necessary precondition an involvement by the United States Administration and, to the extent that this exercise was allegedly designed to open up a dialogue with moderates within the Iranian regime, it ought not to be cursorily dismissed as necessarily, on all views, a bad initiative. Australia's role, as has been indicated in this House by my colleague the Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr Hayden), is one of strict neutrality. We have sought, by a number of initiatives of our own volition, and by supporting other initiatives, in the United Nations in particular, to bring about a ceasefire without preconditions, which hopefully would lead to a comprehensive settlement. Australia's representative, as President of the United Nations Security Council, pushed through in February 1986 UN initiative 582. Of course, it was opposed by Iran and accordingly was not successful. As recently as October 1986, last month, an Arab-sponsored initiative was again attempted in the United Nations but unfortunately, yet again, Iran refused to co-operate. Our most recent representations in both Baghdad and Tehran, made in May of this year, related to the attempted protection of merchant shipping through the Gulf area. We have, over a long period, taken a very high profile on issues such as the use of chemical weapons and the treatment of prisoners of war. In my experience, the Iraqi Government was prepared to allow the International Committee of the Red Cross people access to its prisoner of war camps. It certainly gave me the opportunity to visit any camps that I was aware of and assured me that they were the only camps that were currently being used. I cannot make a judgment on that but can say that to the extent that there is International Committee of the Red Cross access to Iraqi prisoners of war, unlike the situation transpiring in Iran, to a limited extent at least we ought to acknowledge the Iraqi bona fides in that context. Currently very sensitive negotiations are going on between the International Committee of the Red Cross and the Khomeini regime. It is my fervent hope, one that I am sure would be shared by all honourable members of this House, that in the near future that type of humanitarian access can in fact be provided. There are those in Iraq, for instance, who have been unaware of the situation of their relatives-in fact whether they were dead or alive-over the period of six years. In that way some of the humanitarian issues can be addressed. The Australian Government has, of course, censured again and again Iraq's use of chemical weapons and I certainly do not resile from that. Once again, I think that would receive bipartisan support in this House. In the short time remaining to me I wish to make the following points: Iraq sought on 2 August of this year a settlement, by way of a five-point plan, to end the war. Once again the initiative was rejected by Iran. Iran has consistently rejected mediation efforts until its basic demands have been met. Of course, those basic demands include large cash war reparations and the dissolution of the Iraqi-Ba'ath Socialist Party regime and its replacement by a popular democratic government. Unless Iran reverses that policy there is, of course, little hope for sufficient common ground being found between the two protagonists and that is a necessary precondition for a negotiated settlement. I conclude by putting the view here, as I have elsewhere, that it is unacceptable in any civilised country not to take every possible step and exert every possible pressure on the protagonists to protect the interests of not only Iraqi but also Iranian youth, who have been lost in their tens or thousands. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr COLEMAN(Wentworth)(1.42) —In one of his columns in the London Times a few weeks ago, Bernard Levin wrote, as he has done before, about the Soviet attempt to destroy, as a deliberate policy, Jewish culture in the Soviet Union. He surveyed the familiar situation: Two million Jews in the Soviet Union but no Jewish schools anywhere; no Jewish education; no teaching of Yiddish except in the fraudulent homeland, Birobidzhan; no teaching of Hebrew except in three academic institutions from which Jews are excluded and the cruel repression of private teaching of Hebrew; no books published in Hebrew and only a handful in Yiddish with small print runs; no Jewish theatre; no Jewish art gallery and so on and on. But Levin goes to to point out in his column that this persecution, this attempt to crush the cultural identity of Soviet Jews out of existence, has had an effect opposite to that intended and there has been a further revival of Jewish culture, despite further persecution and repression. Levin ends his column by comparing and contrasting Soviet and nazi anti-semitism. However similar, there is a difference. Hitler wanted to kill Jews but the same motives are not at work in the Soviet leaders. Despite this contrast the Soviet leaders appear to be, Levin thinks, as mad as Hitler. I quote him: For consider, here is a minority whom they hate who cause them more and more trouble, whose plight attracts opprobrium from abroad and whose only wish is to shake the dust of the Soviet Union of their feet. Then why not let them go? I think we can attempt an answer to Bernard Levin's anguished and baffled question, `Why not let them go?', and it is an answer that does not encourage easy optimism. It appears that there are two schools of thought, to call them that, on the issue in the Soviet Union. The first says, `Let them go. Get rid of them', as they let 250,000 Jews go in the 1970s. The second says, `Caution. Letting them go will cause all sorts of serious internal problems', and it is this second school of thought which has the upper hand at the moment. Their fears seem to be these: Firstly, the Kremlin's claim to legitimacy rests on the legend that life in the Soviet Union is better than that in the materialist, racist, immoral and neo-fascist West, real news of which it keeps to a minimum by censorship of publications, jamming of broadcasts and controls of communications. An emigration movement naturally challenges the Soviet legend and if successful would, since emigrants would stay in touch with their families still in the Soviet Union, open another line of real news about the West. It is a threat to the system. Secondly, the Jewish emigration movement challenges another basic legend of Soviet policy-its nationality policy that ultimately all of the hundred nationalities of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics will abandon their identities and merge together in a uniform Soviet nationality. The refuseniks and Jewish emigrants reject this totally and if they succeed, what effect will this have on other nationalities, the Armenian or Soviet Germans, for example, but not only those who, after all, have friends abroad? Will not these other nationalities be encouraged to assert themselves against the Soviet goal of the suppression of nationality? Thirdly, a Jewish emigration on the scale of the 1970s would now, unlike then, involve the threat of a Soviet brain drain. The vast bulk of the Jews still in the Soviet Union now live in Moscow, Leningrad, Kiev and Minsk and, despite persecution and increasing exclusion from higher education institutions, are still a disproportionate percentage of the more advanced sectors of Soviet society. While they are only about two-thirds of one per cent of the Soviet population, they are about 14 per cent of all leading scientists; that is, with qualifications above a PhD. Given the demands of Soviet military forces for technology, the threat of the loss of professionals like these is regarded seriously. Fourthly, there is this consideration: Increasingly the Jews who would emigrate, if they could, would settle or want to settle in the United States; perhaps most of them would. This is a prospect that the Soviet authorities cannot tolerate. The Jewish emigrants of the 1970s were a different matter. Most of them were not, as they are called, `heartland' Jews. When 60 per cent of the Jewish population of Georgia emigrated, usually to Israel, they could be dismissed as the remnants of a reactionary nationalism and a doomed religiosity who deserve their fate in the `racist, militarist, genocidal Israel'. When half of the Jews in Lithuania and more than one-third of the Jews in Latvia emigrated, they could also be dismissed as a dying breed of unassimilated bourgeois reactionaries. But when tens of thousands of well-educated Russian-speaking `assimilated' Jews from the Slavic republics want to emigrate and opt for the heartland of world capitalism, that is a blow to the lie, to the Soviet legends, which is grave indeed. So it is for these internal or domestic considerations that the Soviets have maintained their no-exit policy, combined recently with a slight relaxation of anti-Jewish measures and a new apparent willingness to discuss the problem, and to explain how happy and privileged Soviet Jews really are. That is the line we have seen this year coming out of the Soviet Embassy in Canberra. If this approach is correct, the prospects are not encouraging. The emigration movement is essentially a subversive movement. There will be some concessions by the Soviets, especially in the cases of family reunion. These should not be underestimated. They are thrilling and heart warming to the individuals involved. Madam Speaker, Mrs Child, has won our thanks and congratulations for what she has achieved in this field recently, but unhappily it is a drop in the ocean. There will be other cases of concessions. Yelena Bonner was permitted to visit the United States. She wisely refused to submit to Soviet surgery and she is now back in exile in Gorky. There is the great example of Anatoly Shcharansky. Clearly, these and others are isolated cases and do not represent a change in basic policy. What then is to be done? On the sort of view I have taken, there is a limit to what can be achieved by quiet diplomacy, as it is called. Quiet diplomacy does have its successes, of course; sometimes with individual Jews in the Soviet Union, as sometimes with American or French hostages in Lebanon. But if I am anywhere near right, and it would be good if I were wrong, quiet diplomacy alone will not release the hundreds of thousands of Soviet Jews who want to emigrate because a no-exit policy is not based on foreign policy considerations which may be completely overcome by trade or technology deals or other foreign policy measures. It is based on domestic policies, on the basic need to protect the legends or lies on which the Soviet Union is built. If this is right, the only hope must lie in a change in those domestic policies, in some sort of reform in the Soviet Union along the lines advocated by the dissidents. I do not see how the right to emigrate can be accepted by the Soviets without many other changes in Soviet domestic policy; without, that is, undermining the totalitarian structure. In other words, I think those in the nomenklatura who advocate caution and no-exit by emigration are right in their own terms to be cautious about this subversive movement. Many will quickly say that this is the same as admitting that there is no hope at all, but I believe there is some basis in the hope for change and the question is: What can we do to help it along? I am not talking about revolution in the Soviet Union or the sudden establishment of liberal democracy, but only of the success, even limited success, of those dissident movements which are working for the abandonment of the attempt to merge all the nationalities into one synthetic Soviet nation; for greater scope for private enterprise such as we see in Hungary; for a genuine permanent thaw in cultural life; and for the rule of law and the right to emigrate. All such moves will be resisted by the nomenklatura and it may succeed again in supressing reform as it has done in the past, but if the Soviet economy continues to fail, as it surely will, and if the various dissident movements-political, cultural, religious, ethnic and economic-persist, and if the West and its allies maintain a strong defence policy that precludes any easy pluckings abroad by the Soviets, then there is that basis for cautious optimism. It also follows, if this approach is right, that the most promising policy for us outside the Soviet Union to adopt, on the issue of Jewish emigration, is sustained international pressure on the nomenklatura for the recognition of human rights, not only of Jews but of all Soviet citizens, and in support of the dissidents, Jewish and non-Jewish. At the right moment quiet diplomacy will play its role, but as Shcharansky told us last May, no amount of diplomacy will help unless the key element is there first; that is, strong public pressure from within the Soviet Union and from abroad. The sub-title, Mr Deputy Speaker, of Martin Gilbert's recent biography of Shcharansky, is Hero of our Time. It is surely a correct sub-title and surely we should listen to this great man. Mr MILTON(La Trobe)(1.52) —On 26 March 1984 I raised in the House a matter concerning a constituent of mine, Ms Maureen Rees, who is an intellectually disabled pensioner and who was supported by the Ferntree Gully and Districts Welfare Association for the Intellectually Handicapped. The matter involved a transfer of title, of land, including a partly completed restaurant from the welfare association to a company, namely, Basilthon Nominees Pty Ltd, for $213,000 on 5 December 1977. Subsequently, in February 1979, just fourteen months later, Basilthon Nominees went into liquidation with the site and premises then being valued at $1,750,000. Mr Frank Rees and Mr Trevor Rees, brothers of Maureen Rees, and at that time constituents of mine, alleged that fraud had taken place in relation to the property transfer transactions and related business arrangements which occurred between 1971 and 1979, and asked me in April 1982 to seek information on those transactions on their behalf as they had been unsuccessful in obtaining the necessary information themselves. I, too, was unsuccessful and hence my previous Grievance Debate speech. Since that time more information has come to light which I wish to bring to the attention of the House in the hope that members of the Victorian Government might be persuaded by their Federal ministerial colleagues that there is a case to answer. However, before I proceed I would like to make it very clear that my investigation of the case is in no way to be seen as a reflection upon the integrity of the present members of the committee of management of the association. I understand that my previous speech was seen as a criticism of the administration of the Ferntree Gully and Districts Welfare Association for the Intellectually Handicapped and I can only say that my speech was regretfully misinterpreted by some people. I have visited the Knoxbrooke training centre on several occasions and have been impressed by the dedicated work provided by all those who are involved with the services provided by the centre. My sole purpose in pursuing the request for information by the Rees brothers is to seek out the facts behind the sale in 1977 of the property rights to the Swagman restaurant. Since I began my original inquiry in 1982, I am glad to say that the Victorian Labor Government has legislated to ensure that the rights of intellectually handicapped people are fully protected, as had been requested by the Rees brothers when they began their original investigations. The property transactions which took place between 1971 and 1979 could not have occurred had the current legislation been in force at that time. The Victorian Labor Government must be commended on passing legislation which is protecting the interests of intellectually disadvantaged Victorians. Regretfully, such legislation was not in place for the period 1971 to 1977 when the property transactions in which the Ferntree Gully and Districts Welfare Association was the initial freehold owner took place. At the conclusion of my previous speech, I drew attention to a number of matters of contention which I considered must be resolved before the case was settled to my satisfaction. For the record, I should point out that on 29 May 1984 I received a reply from the then Victorian Minister for Health, Mr Tom Roper, which concluded: The sale of land by the association to Basilthon Nominees Pty Ltd has been the subject of litigation and numerous investigations, the most extensive having been conducted by the Victorian Ombudsman. These inquiries have failed to show any irregularity in the sale of the site now occupied by the Swagman restaurant. In respect of this letter, Madam Speaker, I have to say that apart from the fact that no litigation was involved, I am not convinced that the Ombudsman dealt with all the business transactions involved and subsequently additional information has been uncovered. It has been ascertained that the original leaseholders and proprietors of the Swagman restaurant, the de Jong family, ran a business association with Kevin James O'Brien, a man who was behind a number of tax avoidance schemes in the 1970s. Both Basil de Jong and Kevin James O'Brien were involved in proceedings in the courts as a result of illegal transactions. Basil de Jong and Kevin O'Brien formed a group of interlocking companies, namely, Basilthon Constructions Pty Ltd, Basilthon Finances Pty Ltd, Basilthon Nominees Pty Ltd, Aquaglen Pty Ltd, PIB Investments, Basilthon Unit Trust and Basilthon Finance Settlement. There were also two additional companies which were involved, namely, Downvale Pty Ltd and Kevin James O'Brien Specialised Computing and Accounting Services Pty Ltd. The whole purpose of this contrived web of companies was to circumvent the foreign exchange and tax regulations of Australia by establishing an overseas company to act as an intermediary for the receipt of capital profits from Australia. Aquaglen was the overseas company based in London through which the Basilthon companies channelled their profits. Aquaglen then passed the funds back to Basilthon Finance Settlement in Australia, free of exchange controls and taxation liability. Of course, the whole scheme was probably more complicated than I have described, but honourable members will be familiar with the devious and immoral nature of tax avoidance schemes of this type. At one stage, the Victorian Public Trustee assisted in negotiating a $1m mortgage of the Swagman restaurant, the money being provided by the Metropolitan Fire Brigade Superannuation Board to Downvale Pty Ltd, one of the O'Brien companies. As I mentioned before, some of the people involved in this venture, no doubt unwittingly, have protested to both the Rees brothers and me because we have been pursuing the issue. It has even been suggested that my involvement in the case could do me electoral harm. I want to make it very clear that in my view the Rees brothers have done the community a service in their relentless pursuit of the facts. I have no doubt that this case has assisted in ensuring that the rights of intellectually disabled people are now protected by the legislature. However, apart from the matters of individual and community trust, there is a need to expose the excessive secretiveness of so much of Australian society. The operations of government, business and our security forces would be vastly improved if there were less secrecy. The whole purpose of the freedom of information legislation, at both Federal and State level, was to encourage a more open society. Yet, in the present case the various authorities concerned have refused to reveal vital information. It has only been the persistence of Frank and Trevor Rees, acting on behalf of their sister Maureen and all intellectually disadvantaged people, which has managed to provide the present background of facts. There remain a number of facts which have yet to be revealed. I do not have time, unfortunately, to refer to them all. But, first of all, why was the land in question valued at site value only for the purposes of sale by the welfare association and why did it not include the buildings comprising the Swagman restaurant? If the restaurant premises had been included, there would have been far less of a price gulf between the sale proceeds of $213,000 received by the Association and the sale price 14 months later of some $1.75m, which was eventually pocketed by de Jong and O'Brien. Secondly, in view of apparent conflicting evidence in respect of the dates of all the property transactions relating to the land and premises comprising the Swagman restaurant, the precise dates need to be included and the date of the first transfer of the land from the Knox City Council ascertained and authenticated. In this respect, a copy of the Welfare Association's resolution authorising the sale of the property could help to throw light on the issue. Thirdly, in view of the strong evidence of criminal intent, why is it not possible for the Federal and State police authorities to collaborate in investigating the web of financial and business dealings behind the Basilthon group of companies? Madam SPEAKER —It being 2 p.m., in accordance with standing order 106, as amended for this session, the debate is interrupted. Question resolved in the affirmative. Mr PORTER —My question is addressed to the Minister for Health. Mr Barry Jones —You asked it yesterday. Mr PORTER —Well, it is a tax and identification question, but the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs and Minister Assisting the Treasurer cannot answer, so I am going to try the Minister for Health now. If, as the Government claims, the major area of tax evasion impacted by the identity card is non-declared interest, how does he justify the introduction of the card when the Government currently does not require the Reserve Bank to provide to the Australian Taxation Office details of those who purchase and earn interest on the $50 billion invested in Commonwealth bonds? Dr BLEWETT —The Government has never said that the major area in relation to tax evasion is undeclared interest. It is, of course, one of the areas which the card is aimed at. A second point of the whole legislation, as the honourable member knows and as he has often criticised, is that we are trying to improve the reporting processes right across the tax area and in fact to make those reporting practices much more effective by tying them to a real identity. I would have thought that in many ways the basis of the question shows that the honourable member appreciates some of the real problems that government faces. I would have hoped that, recognising and looking at these problems of reporting and of reporting in relation to effective identities, we would get some real and constructive proposals out of the Opposition rather than the kind of negative attitude to these proposals we have had throughout the week. Mr MILTON —Can the Prime Minister inform the House of the effect on a worker on average earnings of the Government's tax cuts? Mr HAWKE —As is increasingly recognised, the sweeping tax reforms that this Government has introduced will produce a fairer and certainly more efficient taxation system and those reforms will generate about $1.5 billion of the $4.5 billion that we will be returning to the taxpayers of this country by way of tax cuts. After two rounds of tax cuts, that is, on 1 December of this year and in the middle of next year, a worker on average earnings will get tax relief of about $12 a week or $10 a week net of the Medicare levy. Yesterday the Leader of the Opposition, in yet another demonstration of his abandonment of principle, sought to suggest that these tax cuts were not real and he boasts that the income tax burden for people on average earnings was lower when he left office in March 1983, but of course any rational analysis of the situation shows that the Leader of the Opposition should be ashamed of his fiscal legacy and certainly not proud of it. There was, of course, nothing in the last Howard Budget of 1982 that would have prevented a worker on average earnings entered the 46c in the dollar bracket. As I suggested yesterday, if this Government were as irresponsible as the previous Government under the treasurership of the present Leader of the Opposition it is quite clear that we could provide further huge tax cuts to the people of this country by blowing out the deficit to the same proportions as did the Leader of the Opposition when he was Treasurer. It would be quite simple. In fact, if we wanted to accept the policies of the then Treasurer we could further reduce the marginal rate for a worker on average earnings from 40 per cent to 30 per cent and we could provide further tax cuts of another $20 a week, in addition to the $12 a week we are providing. If we were to do that, if we were to blow the deficit out to the proportions that the Leader of the Opposition did, we would be guilty of the same gross economic irresponsibility as the Leader of the Opposition and we would produce the sorts of interest rates which the Leader of the Opposition delivered. Do honourable members remember what they were? Ninety-day bank bills hit 22 per cent while the dole queues rose by a quarter of a million and inflation hit 11 1/2 per cent. The Leader of the Opposition might have treated the people of Australia like fools in his last Budget and he may be trying to treat them like fools now but he did not get away with it then and he is certainly not getting away with it now. Mr HOWARD —I refer the Prime Minister to his celebrated promise of 20 November 1984 when he assured the Australian people that they would reap the rewards of lower interest rates as a result of the policies of his Government. As today marks the unhappy second anniversary of that promise, will the Prime Minister explain how Australians have been rewarded when home loan interest rates are the highest ever, average home loan repayments have risen by over $150 a month, credit card interest rates such as Bankcard have risen from 18 per cent to as much as 22 1/2 per cent, prime lending rates have risen from 13 1/2 per cent to 18 1/2 per cent, small overdraft rates have risen from 14 1/2 per cent to 20 1/2 per cent and Australia's general interest rate structure has risen substantially? In the light of the Prime Minister's appalling record of keeping his promise on interest rates, what status should any Australian give to the assurances he made in the House yesterday that interest rates would fall in 1987? Mr HAWKE —I indicated in the answer that I have just given that interest rates in relevant areas rose to their highest levels at the time when the current Leader of the Opposition was in fact Treasurer. It is universally acknowledged, except in the myopic mind of the Leader of the Opposition, that the conditions that were imposed upon Australia by the massive decline in terms of trade, imposed a requirement upon any government concerned with responsible economic management to have a monetary policy and an interest rate regime of the order that operated in this year. That was a requirement, a necessity, imposed upon us by the circumstances of the decline in the terms of trade. We had to do those things. No government likes having a monetary policy or an interest rate regime which has the sorts of interest rate figures which have been referred to, but as distinct from the Leader of the Opposition when in government-he refused to take the basic economic decisions in regard to the exchange rate and in regard to wages policy which were necessary to protect the interests of this country-this Government has consistently refused to take the easy way out. We are concerned with the long haul, with getting the fundamentals right, and in that process a monetary policy and an interest rate regime of the order that has been indicated have been necessary to protect the fundamental interests of this country. Having said that, it is undeniable that Government policy is creating conditions which will allow interest rates in time to decline. Let us go to the fundamentals. We have brought in in 1986-87 a Budget deficit of 1.4 per cent as a proportion of gross domestic product. What was it that we inherited from our predecessors? It was 5 per cent. That is what the deficit was as a proportion of GDP and we have consistently brought that down. The fact that we have the courage to do that and to take the hard decisions is one of the necessary conditions for having optimism about the decline in interest rates. Wages and monetary policies will progressively remove the depreciation-induced acceleration in our inflation rate. As that occurs, it will enable nominal interest rates to decline in line with inflationary expectations. We can already see greater confidence in the financial markets, reflected in a significant rise in the exchange rate and in a decline in professional interest rates, despite substantial sales of the Australian dollar by the Reserve Bank of Australia. In these circumstances, of course, we are not prepared to speculate on when these declines may occur, especially in terms of mortgage rates, because anyone who knows the beginnings of the complexities of this situation will realise that there are a whole host of factors that will impinge on this. Those factors include international financial conditions, shifts in commodity prices, expectations of developments in world monetary and commodity markets and the pace at which the expected progressive improvement in our current account occurs. All those factors will, in their various ways, impact upon the movements in interest rates. The point I make is that this Government-as distinct from our predecessor, where the responsibility for economic management was with the Treasurer-has been prepared to show the guts and courage to take the tough decisions. Those decisions are concerned with getting the fundamentals right so that the long term future of this country will be secure. We eschew the opportunism which the former Treasurer showed when he was in government and the cynicism and expediency which he consistently demonstrates in opposition. Mr O'NEIL —Has the attention of the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs been drawn to the death from petrol sniffing of a teenage Aboriginal boy and to the high number of Aboriginal youths from the north-west of South Australia who are presently in hospital as a result of petrol sniffing? What is the Government doing to combat this tragic problem in Aboriginal communities? Mr HOLDING —I thank the honourable gentleman for his question and for his continuing concern in bringing this problem to the attention of me and my Department. Aboriginal Ministers, both State and Federal, have been concerned to deal with this problem. It has been the subject of communication and discussions between us, as it has been between Ministers for Health. It is not a simple problem, nor does it provide for simple or easy answers. Unfortunately, in a number of Aboriginal communities petrol sniffing is not merely a problem, it is a problem which in the final analysis can be dealt with only by the communities themselves. At some stage someone has to put out his or her hand and take away the can from the petrol sniffer. Unlike problems of drug addiction in the non-Aboriginal community, this problem is a fairly public problem. At this stage both my Department and State Ministers are working through a variety of what can only be described as experiments which are designed to tackle and defeat this problem. In conjunction with the Northern Territory Government we have funded a team, known as the Franks team, which comprises two non-Aboriginal people with backgrounds in drug rehabilitation. They are working with traditional Aboriginal people; they go into the communities and involve them in discussion. That discussion provokes movement, concern and a decision, so that the decision to deal with the problem is an Aboriginal-based decision. That is a relatively low cost program and it has shown effective results in the Northern Territory. In the honourable member's electorate and other areas of South Australia we have no less than four projects operating in conjunction with the South Australian Government under which funding is shared. The problem there is in some ways more acute. The honourable gentleman will be aware of a request by an Aboriginal health structure for funding of $1m to deal with this problem. We have not responded to that request because we do not believe that we can solve this problem simply by putting sums such as $1m into a health service which already has funding of $3m and has the capacity to deal with that problem. Basically, the solution seems to lie in involving the Aboriginal communities themselves and using and reinforcing the authority that exists within communities to deal with this very acute problem. It also involves follow-up programs, particularly when young people are off petrol sniffing, to provide a range of alternative activities, in terms of recreation and other sorts of structures, which will not merely keep the community clean but also enable those young people to lead a normal and balanced life. This is a very serious problem. It has recently been the subject of discussion by Commonwealth and State Health Ministers and there will be follow-up action by Commonwealth and State Health Ministers and Commonwealth and State Aboriginal Ministers. The matter is certainly receiving a great deal of attention in terms of Commonwealth-State relations. I again use this opportunity to thank the honourable member for his continuing concern on this issue. Mr CARLTON —My question is directed to the Acting Treasurer. Is it a fact that the most recent International Monetary Fund and Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development forecasts for economic growth among the industrial economies available prior to the August Budget indicated a 3 per cent growth in 1986 and that the forecasts of those institutions would have largely shaped the international growth assumptions underpinning the Budget forecasts? If so, does the Treasurer's statement in Tokyo yesterday that the world economy is `looking a little fragile at present' and that growth in the industrial economies now seems `likely to fall below 3 per cent' indicate that the Government has revised down its international growth assumptions contained in the Budget? If so, what impact will this have on the Budget forecasts for the current account deficit and the sustained fall in interest rates promised by the Prime Minister in this House only yesterday? Mr HURFORD —It is true that at the annual meeting of the IMF and World Bank in Washington last October an amount of pessimism was expressed by a number of world financial leaders about the extent of growth in the various countries. It is true that the Treasurer led in many of the discussions in pointing out that the need for the United States of America to rein in its large Budget deficit meant that Germany and Japan, in particular, should take a more leading role in the world in easing their monetary situations and in the various policies which would lead to world growth. The Treasurer, as he has announced in this House, came away pessimistic about the attitudes of Japan and Germany at that time. He has gone to Japan for one particular reason, and that is to continue his dialogue with Mr Miyazawa, the new Japanese Finance Minister, in order to seek to persuade Japan in particular to take a role in this matter of easing its policies to lead to more growth. I believe that the Japanese are seeking to respond to those sorts of advices coming from various quarters. At the moment the Australian Government sees no reason to change its forecasts in any way. We hope that the various recommendations which have been made from all around the world to the Japanese and Germans will lead them to take more of a lead in this matter, which will mean that the forecasts on which the Australian Budget has been based will be proper forecasts. Mr KEOGH —Can the Prime Minister inform the House of the effects on the profitability of banks of government economic policy? Mr HAWKE —The Leader of the Opposition had occasion yesterday in this place to refer to certain statements attributed to Mr Bob White, the Managing Director of the Westpac Banking Corporation. I have since looked into the profit position of the Westpac group. I agree that Westpac had a flat profit performance last year, in 1985-86. Indeed, group post-tax profits increased by only 3 per cent to $380m in 1985-86. Interestingly, that followed increases of 38 per cent and 20 per cent in the previous two years under the policies of this same Government. I have noted comments that the poor performance of the savings bank and the fringe benefits tax were responsible for the relatively poor result last year. I am informed that the savings bank contributes only a small proportion of group profit-12 per cent in 1984-85-and that the fall of $10m in profits from this centre was dwarfed by the $103m increase in its general and specific provisions for bad and doubtful debts, which is attributable in significant part to its exposure to foreign currency loans to Australian resident borrowers. The reduced contributions of Westpac's finance company, which is twice the weight in group profit, is also more significant than the savings bank result. Those opposite attribute the decline in profit to the impact of the FBT. We have got some very vivid imaginations on the other side of this place, but it requires a remarkably vivid imagination to see how a provision for FBT liability in the last three months of Westpac's fiscal year could have had a major impact on a total profit, post-tax of $380m. Like so many things that are emanating from the other side of this place, it simply does not add up. All this suggests is that Westpac, rather than blame the Government for its performance this year, should, in fact, be looking to its own decisions. As the Leader of the Opposition sought to invoke a banker on this, let me simply say that not all bankers share the view that the Leader of the Opposition sought to identify with Mr White. Mr Will Bailey, the Managing Director of ANZ Bank, is quoted in Tuesday's Age in these terms: You can't blame the present Government for the state of the economy, or for changes in the economic environment over the past 20 years . . . That comment by Will Bailey of the ANZ reflects a very important reality; that is, this Government, as I have said in answer to previous questions today, has set its policies to secure the long term future of this country. We are certainly not going to give up on those responsible policies for the long term to protect the short term profits of bankers or any other sectional interest in this country. Mr NEHL —Is the Acting Treasurer aware that many small businesses across Australia have been left holding the baby, stuck with stocks of fringe benefits tax vehicle log books-one small firm in Cowper is left with $3,000 worth of useless log books-following the Treasurer's fiddling with the fringe benefits tax log book requirements? Will he reimburse the businesses concerned for losses sustained because of the Treasurer's inept actions, or will he dismiss this problem as just one more unintended consequence? Mr HURFORD —The honourable member for Cowper shows that, whereas at one time he was dead against the log books altogether, now he has changed his tune. The fact is that the log books can be kept and they can be used in future years if there is such a need. As we know from the changes that have been made to the fringe benefits tax in order to accommodate some of the worries from small businesses, which were the subject of the honourable member's question, we allowed 12 weeks of log book entries to determine the percentage of business milage vis-a-vis private milage. But that has to be watched from year to year. I suggest that we have saved those people from having to purchase new log books next year. No adjustments will be made for that. Mr STAPLES —My question is directed to the Minister for Defence. What initiatives has the Hawke Government taken to improve the well-being of Australian Defence Force personnel and their families? Mr BEAZLEY —I think the honourable member will be aware of a number of initiatives which have been discussed previously in this place. The fact is that we ended the pay freeze that had effectively been established on Defence Force salaries by our opponents in their last year of office and effectively gave Defence Force personnel, in addition, a form of anomalies claim which resulted in a 5.9 per cent increase in their wages above the adjustments that they are getting along with the rest of the work force. I think the honourable gentleman will also be aware that we effectively ended a period of freeze on construction of new Defence Force housing. We ended that some time ago. In this Budget we have gone to a record high expenditure of some $66m in this area. The honourable member might not, however, be aware about progress with the implementation of the Hamilton report on supporting service families which was one of the initiatives that we undertook a short time ago to address a problem that I think all honourable members will be aware has been of increasing concern to Defence Force personnel. In this Budget some $1.3m has been made available as a start-up. It will be substantially more than that next year. As a result a national consultative group of service spouses has been established. It met in mid-October for the first time. It is developing and providing a forum for representing defence family matters to the Chief of the Defence Force. The Australian Defence Families Information and Liaison Service is also under way. Early in 1987 we will be providing professionally trained community development officers to assist service families in the various installations around Australia. Suitably qualified service spouses will be eligible for appointment and this will be actively encouraged. I refer now to conditions of service. In light of the Hamilton report, work is proceeding on improvements to, amongst other things, firstly, reunion travel; secondly, child care during removals; and, thirdly, removal for separated spouses. A large number of initiatives are under way. I was very delighted to see today an initiative established not by this Government but by Government back bench committee members. There was a meeting to which I was invited. The honourable member was a participant. This initiative was for the establishment of a government defence forces action committee on the initiative of those back bench members who represent electorates with a large population of defence personnel and their families. I am advised that the committee includes the honourable members for Hughes, Herbert, Leichhardt, Grey, Hunter, Greenway, Eden-Monaro, Jagajaga, Bendigo, McEwen, Moore, Brisbane, Brand, Dunkley and Calare. Several others will be joining that committee as well. That demonstrates the very substantial concern not only on the part of this Government but among the Government back benchers in the interests of service personnel. I assure the members of that committee that we will continue in office to show the care and concern that we have for the conditions both of service personnel and their families. Mr IAN CAMERON —Is the Minister for Arts, Heritage and Environment aware of threats by members of the Queensland Graingrowers Association that, unless the Government announces next year's kangaroo cull quota within a few weeks, farmers will go ahead with the proposed one day kangaroo culling shoot? When will the Minister announce the new quota? Mr COHEN —I have seen the report by Mr Houen of the Queensland Graingrowers Association threatening to take the law into his own hands with the proposed shoot out of kangaroos unless I announce the cull quota within a few weeks. Frankly, of all the stupid ideas that I have heard since I became a Minister, this one takes the cake. I want to thank the honourable member because he and his colleague Senator Boswell have been very sensible in their attitude on this matter. As a matter of fact, I might suggest that, if honourable members get invited to the honourable member's electorate for a visit they should accept, as they will have some of the best days they will ever have in their lives. As a matter of fact, I thought the honourable member was Crocodile Dundee. Getting back to the subject, I can think of nothing more likely to destroy Australia's reputation abroad as a responsible nation than the action suggested by Mr Houen. I can think of nothing more likely to ensure that our kangaroo management program is destroyed. Mr Houen and some of his colleagues in Queensland seem incapable of understanding that the program not only is dependent upon the work of our State and Federal National Parks and Wildlife Service, the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation and the universities but also, in the final crunch, is dependent upon the European nations and the United States of America which import 90 per cent of the skins culled under the commercial quota. Currently, there is a Bill before the United States Congress calling for an import ban on three species of kangaroo-the western grey, the eastern grey and the red. The European Community is also currently addressing the issue through a motion for a resolution in the Parliament proposing an import ban on kangaroos. But I and my Department, over the past 3 1/2 years, have painstakingly explained to representatives of these bodies how our management plan works and how commercial industry is a vital component of a program to contain the population of these species and, at the same time, to ensure that the various species are maintained in reasonable populations across their normal habitat. I believe that they understand our program and that it is a responsible, cost effective and humane way of achieving that objective. Regrettably, a few irresponsible animal welfare liberation groups, using the kangaroo as a means of promoting their own initiatives, have deliberately spread a tissue of lies and disinformation about Australia's program that has been difficult to counteract because we are dealing in the United States and Europe with a largely uninformed community. They have also used the most disgraceful blackmail methods against sporting shoe manufacturers that have resulted in a number of their distributors kowtowing to the blackmail and agreeing not to use kangaroo hide in their products. Let me make it clear that I do not include the majority of responsible conservation groups in Australia, such as the Queensland Conservation Council, the World Wildlife Fund, the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals and many others, which understand and support the Government's program in this category. The last thing we need in Australia is for the international media to relay stories of mass kangaroo slaughters to Europe and the United States. Mr Houen and his friends need not worry about my setting any commercial quotas; there will not be any. The European and the United States Congress will see to it that Mr Houen will shoot not only kangaroos but also himself and his friends in both feet. There will be no quota and there will be no management plan. These liberation groups will have contributed in the same way as Greenpeace, the Fund for Animals and Australians for Animals in destroying the program and kangaroos will be culled but by much less humane methods of poisoning and killing by amateur shooters. The Government recognises that the kangaroo population situation is serious, particularly in the area where the honourable member for Maranoa comes from. The scientific evidence coming to us at the moment shows that there has been a significant increase in the population of kangaroos this year, probably above 15 per cent. We will consider that scientific information carefully and adjust our program accordingly. I will not be bludgeoned or blackmailed by the likes of Mr Houen or anyone else into prematurely making decisions. When we have all the information we will make a decision and not one second before. Mr PUNCH —Can the Minister for Aviation inform the House what progress is being made in improving Australia's airports? Further, what private sector proposals, if any, are under consideration to build airport terminals in Australia, particularly with respect to Sydney international airport? Mr PETER MORRIS —The honourable member is as aware as I am that the problems we have with airport services now are really the legacy of the mismanagement and the failure to plan of those who now sit opposite who now come forward with quick-fix propositions that they think will overcome a problem that was many years in the making. I just say to the honourable member that this Government is carrying forward an extensive program of airport works, upgradings and extensions at Sydney, Brisbane, Perth, Canberra, Townsville, Coolangatta and, separately in the country areas, Albury, Broken Hill, Casino, Tamworth, Wagga Wagga, Bundaberg, and Kangaroo Island and work is in progress at Coffs Harbour. Coming to the question the honourable member raised of ownership of airport terminals, this brings into focus the irresponsible policy of the Opposition that important public facilities, such as airports and international airport terminals, should be handed over to private individuals. That effectively places the lifeline of the aviation system in the hands of a board of people who can determine what airlines, under what conditions and at what prices, will have access to the airline traffic of this country. We have seen this kind of proposal put forward in respect of Queensland. I draw the attention of the House to the assertions of some kind of private proposal to build an international terminal at Brisbane. The expressions of interest for a hotel-motel complex were invited in respect of Brisbane early in the year and eight organisations indicated an interest. Those eight organisations were invited to tender and three tendered. Of the three tenders two were clearly non-conforming tenders. The Government took independent legal advice on that matter and that was the recommendation that we were duly bound to uphold. Let me say in respect of one of the non-conforming tenders that that proposal was being promoted by a Queensland knight, Sir Frank Moore, a well known identity of the National Party of Australia. He was publicly promoting a proposal to build the international terminal at Brisbane, knowing full well that he was the principal of the Roma Street development group that had put forward a non-conforming tender. He knew that and he promoted it publicly without disclosing his own interest. He knew all the time, because he would have had the same legal advice available to him that we had, that it did not conform. Separately from that, another tender did not conform. So no proposal was put forward at all that could have been considered. Certainly, what he put forward was not for a hotel-motel complex, as had been invited by this Government, but for a hotel-motel complex involving a new international terminal. So in Brisbane there is no proposal other than that of the cronies from the Queensland Parliament who thought that they would be dealing in a tendering process in the same way as the Queensland Government deals with tenders. That is the procedure that was under way and that is not the kind of procedure that is acceptable to this Government. In the case of the international terminal at Sydney a suggestion was put forward by Qantas Airways Ltd towards the end of last year and early this year that it may be interested in erecting a second terminal. It was invited to explain that. When it learnt that the extensions currently under way to Sydney's international terminal would result in an 80 per cent increase in the capacity of that terminal, it quickly withdrew from that proposition and also because it realised that its proposal would involve an outlay of some $70m to $80m, not $20m as had been suggested by certain people. So there is no proposal there. The only other proposal was a suggestion from certain people in Darwin that they were prepared to finance the extravagance that was suggested in respect of Darwin-a terminal costing in excess of $108m. It is not a matter of who finances the project; it is a matter of what is value for money and what can be afforded. Naturally, under the proposal we would still have to pay the bill anyway and air travellers would still have to pay the bill, so it was rejected. So I say to the honourable member that there is no proposal for a terminal to be financed from private sources. But, separately from that, it is not the policy of this Government. It is idiotic to suggest that international terminals or airports should be handed over to a bunch of individuals and that they should control public facilities as important and critical as these are to the operation of airline services, particularly to the tourism industry. In conclusion, I say to the honourable member that this Government has done more than any other government in a comparable period to improve the airport systems and services in this country, and we will continue that course of progress. Mr DONALD CAMERON —My question is directed to the Prime Minister. Given that the Prime Minister has been willing, over the last couple of days, to predict the future direction for interest rates, will he predict the future course for the Australian dollar and does he still hold the view that the appropriate level for the Australian dollar lies between US72c and US75c? Mr HAWKE —The answer is no and no. Mr GRACE —My question is addressed to the Minister for Health. Can the Minister inform the House as to what penalties are contained in the Australia Card Bill in the event of forgeries of Australia Cards? Dr BLEWETT —I am pleased to inform the House that under clause 164 of the Australia Card Bill a person in possession or control of a false Australia Card faces a penalty of $10,000 or imprisonment for five years or both. Once the Bill is passed, I understand, anyone encouraging others to forge an Australia Card will be liable to prosecution under the Crimes Act for conspiracy to commit an offence. I draw the attention of the House to this matter because the latest juvenile antic of the Opposition is for one of the Opposition members to offer a $100 prize for the first person to forge an Australia Card. It is very difficult to imagine a more kindergarten-like activity in relation to the Australia Card. It shows the depths to which Opposition members have sunk in their effort to debate this very important matter. Throughout the debate they have sought to debase and trivialise the whole debate. Indeed yesterday, after I had commented, somewhat adversely, that Opposition members had paid very little attention to the civil liberties protections provided in the Australia Card Bill, we did a check and found that in almost a whole day's debate only three or four paragraphs from the Opposition referred to the Data Protection Agency. The House, and no doubt the Australian public, may well ask: Why has the Opposition so trivialised and debased the debate on the Australia Card? The answer is that the Opposition has no comprehensive solution to the problems of tax evasion and social welfare fraud in this country. Where there should be policies, there is simply a vacuum. Mr HAWKER —I direct my question to the Prime Minister. Since the Treasurer gave his warning in May about banana republics, the country has seen worsening balance of payments figures month by month-creating a new record last month; rising inflation, with the latest quarterly consumer price index figures the worst since this Government was elected; and interest rates at their highest for at least 50 years in real terms. Each time the Opposition raises these matters the Prime Minister and the Treasurer seem to believe that pouring scorn on those who dare question their policies will somehow fix everything. Given the fact that the Prime Minister has been Prime Minister for 3 1/2 years now-- Madam SPEAKER —Order! Will you get to the question, please? Mr HAWKER —Yes, I will, Madam Speaker. When will the Prime Minister stop pretending that Australians are not entitled to hold his Government responsible, at least in part, for Australian's worsening economic situation? Mr HAWKE —One hardly knows where to begin with an effort like that. In answer to this question, I am simply prepared to rest, as I have on a couple of other occasions in this place, not simply on the judgment that I make about myself or on the judgment that the Treasurer makes about the record of this Government. I simply put again what I guess would have to be regarded as at least an objective analysis, and that is by a former colleague of Opposition members in this place, Mr Hyde, who has said publicly that this is a better government and better at economic management than was the previous Government-and he is right. Mr GAYLER —I address my question to the Minister for Science. Is the Minister aware of claims by representatives of the sugar industry that the work of the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation in developing a process to manufacture the sweetener aspartame could damage the Australian sugar industry? Having regard to the delicate situation of that industry at this stage, is that concern well based? Mr BARRY JONES —Aspartame is a nutritive sweetener manufactured by a chemical process. Since 1983 it has been adopted largely because of anxieties about the side effects of saccharin and other non-sugar sweeteners widely used in the food and drinks industry throughout the world. The CSIRO Division of Molecular Biology did not initiate a program of research into the synthesis of aspartame. However, the Division has been studying the synthesis of peptides, that is, the chemical substances consisting of amino-acids linked together, as part of its biotechnology research. It is a classic illustration of serendipity. Mr Goodluck —Speak into the microphone. I cannot understand what you are saying. Mr BARRY JONES —Well, it would be easier to resort to grunts or gestures. During this research, scientists discovered how to achieve a particular peptide bond which happened to be the bond that links the two amino-acids that form aspartame. The scientists believe that this has the potential to be a far more cost effective method of producing aspartame than the existing methods. CSIRO, through its commercialisation company, Sirotech, has offered Australian manufacturing industry the opportunity to evaluate the feasibility of this method for commercial exploitation. Aspartame currently sells for about $90 a kilogram in Europe. The potential world-wide market is estimated at about $4 billion per annum. So, clearly, from Australia's point of view, if we can secure even a minor share of the action world-wide, that will be very good for the economy. But its target audience is really complementary to the existing sugar market. There are whole varieties of existing non-sugar sweeteners around. I doubt whether that quantum will change. If Australia can get a part of the action so that we are part of a $4 billion exercise, that will be very good for the Australian economy, and indirectly good for Queensland. I do not believe that it will have any adverse effect at all on the sugar industry. Mr LIONEL BOWEN(Kingsford-Smith-Attorney-General) —For the information of honourable members I present the annual report of the Companies and Securities Law Review Committee for 1985-86. Mr LIONEL BOWEN(Kingsford-Smith-Attorney-General) —Pursuant to the Family Law (Institute of Family Studies) Regulations, I present the annual report of the Australian Institute of Family Studies for 1985-86. Mr YOUNG(Port Adelaide-Special Minister of State) —Pursuant to sub-section 17 (4) of the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918, I present the annual report of the Australian Electoral Commission for 1985-86. Motion (by Mr Kerin) proposed: That the House take note of the paper. Debate (on motion by Mr N.A. Brown) adjourned. Mr HAYDEN(Oxley-Minister for Foreign Affairs) —For the information of honourable members, I present the annual report of the Australia-China Council for 1984-85. Mr KERIN(Werriwa-Minister for Primary Industry) —Pursuant to section 25 of the Schedule to the States and Northern Territory Grants (Rural Adjustment) Act 1985, I present the annual report of the rural adjustment scheme for 1985-86. Mr KERIN(Werriwa-Minister for Primary Industry) —Pursuant to section 30 of the Rural Industries Research Act 1985, I present the annual report of the Grain Legumes Research Council for 1985-86. Mr HURFORD(Adelaide-Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs and Acting Treasurer) —For the information of honourable members, I present volume 1 of a document relating to taxation statistics for 1984-85. Mr SCHOLES(Corio-Minister for Territories) —For the information of honourable members, I present the annual report of the Australian Capital Territory Bush Fire Council for 1985-86. 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 assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: That we strenuously object to the proposal that many Post Office Agencies are to be closed. They provide a network of offices with postal and agency services to residential areas and small communities. They serve a community need and we would be seriously inconvenienced if forced to travel further to purchase postal items or collect parcels. It would be an unnecessary expense particularly for pensioners without their own transport. We maintain that the purpose of Post Offices should be to serve the public for the variety of services they offer. They are a community centre particularly in country areas and if necessary they should be subsidised to retain them. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the House should take all possible steps to prevent the closure of post office agencies and that the network should be extended, with the Agency services they offer expanded. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Beale,Mr Ian Cameron,Dr Harry Edwards,Mr McGauran,Mr Nehl,Mr Rocher,Mr Ruddock,Mr Shipton and Mr Slipper. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned respectfully showeth. We most strongly oppose the process of Food Irradiation by radioactive Cobalt 60 or any other radioactive substance. We oppose the introduction of regulations that will facilitate the food irradiation process by State Governments. We express our deep concern at this attempt to extend the use of radioactive substances and exposure of workers to radiation. by Mr Hollis,Mr Kent,Mr Milton and Mr Scott. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in the Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned respectfully showeth: That there is widespread community concern about the proposal to Irradiate Food in Australia. Your petitioners, most humbly pray that the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled, should- (1) Block the introduction of food irradiation into Australia; and (2) Ban the import of Cobalt-60 and Caesium 137 and Caesium 134 to be used to irradiate food products. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Jull. To the Honourable the Speaker and the Honourable Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth that whereas: They are completely satisfied with the design of the existing Australian National Flag. Your petitioners therefore pray that your honourable House will: Give speedy passage to the Flags Act Amendment Bill which provides that the Australian National Flag can only be changed by a Referendum. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr N.A. Brown,Mr Halverson and Mr McGauran. 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 the anomalous Fringe Benefits tax is iniquitous, inequitable and unfair on the grounds that- it adversely affects business throughout Australia, including farms, by creating a further tax burden it destroys incentive, it has caused unemployment, it is costly to administer and its complexities have caused confusion and widespread anger. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled should immediately seek the repeal of Labor's Fringe Benefits tax legislation. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Ian Cameron,Mr McGauran and Mr Miles. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled: We, the undersigned, are deeply concerned at the impact of the new Fringe Benefits Tax on the following grounds: 1. Its severe and damaging effect on business confidence, investment and incentive, especially in the rural, mining and small business sectors. 2. Its capacity to seriously worsen unemployment through the additional costs it imposes. 3. Its extremely negative impact on the competitiveness of export industries at a time when the nation desperately needs to improve its trading performance. 4. In that it may compel many honest and decent citizens to defy the Tax in order to preserve their livelihoods, their businesses and the jobs of their employees, thus causing hardship, the breakdown of respect for the law and discord within the community. 5. We also feel it is morally wrong for one person to be forced to pay the taxes for another. We therefore most earnestly petition you to repeal the Fringe Benefits Tax legislation forthwith. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Hawker. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled: We, the undersigned, are deeply concerned at the impact of the new Fringe Benefits Tax on the following grounds: 1. Its severe and damaging effect on business confidence, investment and incentive, especially in the rural, mining and small business sectors. 2. Its capacity to seriously worsen unemployment through the additional costs it imposes. 3. Its extremely negative impact on the competitiveness of export industries at a time when the nation desperately needs to improve its trading performance. 4. In that it may compel many honest and decent citizens to defy the Tax in order to preserve their livelihoods, their businesses and the jobs of their employees, thus causing hardship, the breakdown of respect for the law and discord within the community. We therefore most earnestly petition you to repeal the Fringe Benefits Tax legislation forthwith. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Lloyd. 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 sheweth that: The Hawke Government's Fringe Benefits Tax is a vicious, punitive tax that unjustly affects employers, will have a major impact on small business and farm profitability, and will result in increased unemployment. Your petitioners humbly pray that the House of Representatives, in Parliament assembled, urge the Parliament to: Repeal the legislation establishing the Fringe Benefits tax. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Nehl. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in the Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth that: The Fringe Benefits Tax will cause hardship to business throughout Australia, especially in the already severely depressed rural sector and in the motor vehicle industry. The Fringe Benefits Tax will be a disincentive to employment and worse, will result in additional unemployment. The economy of this country would best be served by policies that lightened the tax burden, not increased it, that encouraged enterprise, not stifled it, and stimulated growth, development and jobs, not prevented it. Your petitioners therefore pray that the House will repeal this legislation, and your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Rocher. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia showeth: 1. That over 67,000 men, women and students enjoy the pursuit of their sport and recreation every year at the Anzac Rifle Range at Malabar and have done so since 1967. 2. The people of Sydney through their membership of 41 clubs headquartered at the Anzac Rifle Range together with a number of other community, school and commercial groups, the police and armed forces will lose this community facility if the Federal Government proceeds to sell the Range to private developers. 3. The Australian Bicentenary Fullbore Rifle Championships are to be conducted at the Anzac Rifle Range in April 1988 as part of the celebration of Australia's Bicentenary. Your petitioners therefore urge the House of Representatives and the Government of the Commonwealth to retain the Anzac Rifle Range for the continued use and enjoyment of the people of Australia. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Cowan and Mr Nehl. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled. We the undersigned citizens call upon all Members to pay due respect to pensioners and concessional card holders and cease the constant erosion of our entitlements by the Hawke Government. The humble petition of the undersigned showeth: That we strenuously object to the Government's decision to delete 45 commonly prescribed drugs (including analgesics, anti-histamines, cough mixtures and expectorants) from the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme; That we strenuously object to the Health Minister's assertion that the health problems for which these medications are prescribed (e.g. arthritis and allergic rhinitis) as ``relatively minor, self-limiting illnesses''. That we beg the House to reconsider these deletions from the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Dr Harry Edwards and Mr Hodges. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled in Parliament. The petition of certain citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: That the intention of the Hawke Government to unionise independent contractors, sub-contractors, the self-employed, partnerships, sole traders and family businesses will: Remove the freedom of independent small business to: (a) set their own prices (b) work their own hours (c) control their own businesses (d) negotiate their own contracts; and will create unacceptable and unjustifiable working conditions which will include: (a) the payment of union superannuation, compensation, payroll tax, annual leave loadings, public holiday loadings, PAYE tax deductions (b) limited incomes (c) inflexible awards and conditions (d) fixed hours of work. We the undersigned call upon the Government to restore incentive and opportunity to the Australian economy and to abandon these coercive measures. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Halverson and Mr Lloyd. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia showeth that whereas: 1. They are completely satisfied with the design of the existing Australian National Flag. 2. They are aware it properly reflects 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 Hawker and Mr Shipton. To the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. This petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia shows that: in this International Year of Peace, 1986, the world needs a Nuclear Test Moratorium by the United States, the Soviet Union, France and other nuclear-testing powers that such a moratorium would create a favourable climate and basis for the negotiation of a Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty that such a Moratorium and Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty would be the first vital step to nuclear disarmament impede the development of new nuclear weapons decrease the reliance upon an unstable nuclear strategy inhibit the spread of nuclear weapons. Your petitioners therefore ask that the Australian Government be urged to 1. Use its influence with the United States Government to encourage it to join the moratorium on nuclear testing begun by the Soviet Union on 6 August 1985. 2. Use its influence in all forums to encourage other nuclear nations to join the Nuclear Test Moratorium. 3. Use its influence in all forums to encourage non-nuclear nations to demand the establishment of a nuclear Test Moratorium and Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty. by Mr Hollis and Mr Milton. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: (1) that the phasing down and eventual closure of the services of the Commonwealth Rehabilitation Centre at Glen Waverley will be detrimental to the rehabilitation of disabled Australian citizens; (2) that the Glen Waverley Rehabilitation Centre is ``purpose'' built and its loss would deprive disabled Australian citizens of a unique multi-million dollar facility; (3) that the essential accommodation for disabled Australian citizens will no longer be available. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray: (1) that the phasing down of the services of the Glen Waverley Rehabilitation Centre be reversed immediately; (2) that the one-hundred-and-four-bed residential facility be fully utilised immediately; (3) that sufficient funding is provided by the Commonwealth Department of Community Services to operate the Centre at full capacity. And we pray you may be conscious of God's sovereign purpose for our Nation and your petitioners in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Aldred. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament of Australia assembled. We the undersigned, plead that Parliament make legislative changes to improve the quality of Television in Australia, and thus improve the nurturing home environment of Australia's children, by implementing the following: (1) Amend the Australian Broadcasting Corporation Act 1983, section 6 (2) (a) to read: The Corporation shall comply with- (2) Amend the Australian Broadcasting Corporation Act 1983, section 6 (2) (a) (ii) to read: The standards to be observed in respect to the broadcasting and televising of programs, and the hours during which programs may be televised, as approved by the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal in respect of broadcasting and television services. (3) Amend the Broadcasting and Television Act 1942, section 16 (2) so that the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal, when determining the Television Standards and screening hours, shall consult the Australian people. (4) Amend the Broadcasting and Television Act 1942, section 118 (1), to read: The Corporation, a licensee, the Special Broadcasting Service, or Cable Licensee, shall not broadcast or televise matter which is blasphemous, indecent or obscene. (5) Draft the coming legislation for the Special Broadcasting Service in a way which ensures compliance with the Television Standards and approved screening hours as set out by the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal. (6) Draft the eventual Cable Television legislation in a way which ensures compliance with the Television Standards and approved screening hours as set out by the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal. Because to hold that obscenity laws and Television Standards and hours are applicable to some televisers, but inapplicable to others, is to reverse the entire history and reasoning of law. Because to hold nothing shall be deemed to affect the criminal and civic liability of some stations, while the criminal and civic liability of other stations is upheld by law, is to deny the entire public mandate of accountability to the people whom you, and they, are chartered to serve. Because without these changes, justice is out of reach. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Drummond. 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: That the Government should cancel the Fringe Benefits Tax they intend to impose on businesses throughout Australia because: 1. The tax discriminates against charitable organisations, sports clubs, private schools and religious organisations; 2. The tax will mean employees around Australia will suffer reductions in their renumeration packages; 3. The Bill places another impossible burden of paperwork on small business; 4. The Bill is absurd in its application to Government employees, who now constitute 32% of the workforce. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Drummond. To the Honourable the Speaker and the Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned residents of Australia respectfully showeth: That the humble petitioners have grave concern about recent changes in the Extradition (Foreign States) Act of 1966 which deny basic rights which have been a cornerstone of the English and Australian law for over seven hundred years. We are speaking of the right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty and the right of an individual to defend himself against his accusers. This concern has come to light during recent extradition proceedings against Messrs, Hempel and Etheredge in Western Australia. We are concerned that because judicial protection of these basic rights has been excluded from the Act refugees, migrants, Australian overseas travellers, and visitors are at risk when they have been to (or come from) countries where the norms and practices of human rights and civil liberties are below traditionally accepted Australian standards. We, the undersigned petitioners, therefore urge the Government to re-examine the Extradition (Foreign States) Act as amended in 1985, and amend the current Act so that the rights of the accused are once again judicially protected in Australia. In addition, we urge the Government to refrain from entering into any further extradition treaties or proceedings under the current Act until the process of re-examination and amendment of the Act has occurred. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Drummond. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned shows: Graduated family allowances are of important assistance to families with more than one child. All family allowances, whether for one, two, three or more children, have not kept pace with inflation. There are suggestions that all family allowances should be paid at the one flat rate. This would severely disadvantage families with more than one child. There are also suggestions that the dependent spouse rebate be reduced or removed. This would represent another blow to the family unit. Your petitioners therefore pray that the House of Representatives, in Parliament assembled, should: ask the Federal Government to increase the value of existing family allowance payments, and reject any moves to change the payments to a flat rate or to tamper with the spouse rebate; And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Halverson. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. We, the undersigned plead that the Parliament implement pro-family policies. In particular we appeal for: 1. the retention of the present graduated assessment system for payment of the Family Allowance; 2. indexation of the Family Allowance in order to keep pace with inflation; 3. an increase of 3.7% in the Family Allowance benefit to return it to 11.5% of the Average Award Wage (making it similar in value to the 11.5% of the Basic Wage when Child Endowment was first introduced by the Chifley Government in 1941). 4. retention of the Dependent Spouse Rebate and the amount of the Dependent Spouse Rebate adjusted so that it is equal in value to the tax-free threshold allowed when calculating taxable income. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that you will give this matter earnest consideration and your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Rocher. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned shows: That the Hawke Government should: 1. Pass on the full benefit of lower international oil prices; 2. Not increase or extend fuel taxes; and 3. Maintain its tax cut commitments. Your petitioners humbly pray that the Hawke Government honour its commitment to the Import Parity Pricing policy. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Hawker. 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 Bill of Rights is a dangerous piece of legislation which gives us no new legally enforceable rights that the Bill of Rights leaves out vital rights such as the right not to belong to a trade union, the right to own private property, the right to a private education that the Bill of Rights gives dangerous new powers to a Federal Government Commission to investigate in private, without legal representation and with criminal penalties for refusing to co-operate that the Bill of Rights deals with our rights; therefore we, the people, should say whether we want it by a referendum. Your petitioners therefore pray that you will oppose the Bill of Rights, support Liberal amendments to improve it in case it is passed, and pledge to repeal it should it become law. by Mr Hawker. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens 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 Hodgman. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. This petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth that we strongly oppose the introduction of the `Australia Card' or any other form of National Identification Numbering System. We believe that the introduction of a National Identification Numbering System is not only totally unnecessary but is a severe threat to our civil liberties and privacy. We condemn the Government's actions on this matter, particularly as no reasonable nor responsible justifications for the proposal have been forthcoming from the Government. We humbly pray that the House of Representatives, in Parliament assembled, should reject any proposal for a National Identification Numbering System. by Mr Kent. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled, the petition of certain citizens of Australia respectfully showeth opposition to cuts in English as a Second Language (ESL) teaching, the scrapping of the Multicultural Education Program, the amalgamation of the Special Broadcasting Service (SBS) with the Australian Broadcasting Corporation (ABC), and the abolition of the Australian Institute of Multicultural Affairs (AIMA), as announced in the Federal Budget of August 19, 1986. Your petitioners humbly pray that the Government will review and reverse its decision on these matters. And your petitioners, in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Kent. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of citizens of Australia shows: That the people of New Zealand and the New Zealand Government have given an example to the world in their efforts to achieve a nuclear free South Pacific, and such decision being endorsed by the people at a general election. Your petitioners therefore pray that the Australian Government support the principled stand taken by the New Zealand Government and urges it to condemn any efforts by the U.S. Government to impose economic or other sanctions on New Zealand in retaliation for their stand on nuclear vessels. We further urge the Australian Government to urgently implement its policy to promote the development of zones of peace and nuclear free zones in the Indian and Pacific Oceans. by Mr Kent. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia showeth: 1. That the Summerland Point Post Office recently closed at short notice by Australia Post should be reopened. 2. This Post Office has serviced a community consisting mainly of the aged and young families with small children who are now faced with a five kilometre journey to the nearest Post Office. Your petitioners most humbly pray that the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled should ask the Minister for Communications not to deny the 800 permanent residents of Summerland Point on Lake Macquarie the use of a Post Office. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Lee. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled: This Petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth that- 1. A cessation of the testing of nuclear weapons would break the cycle of research, development and deployment of nuclear weapons and prevent the acquisition of new and ever more lethal weapons of mass destruction. It would thus be a major and significant step towards ending the arms race and beginning the disarmament process; and 2. The Soviet Union has extended its unilateral moratorium on nuclear weapons testing until 6 August this year and has again invited the United States to cease its nuclear testing program. Your petitioners therefore urge the Australian Government to put the strongest pressure on the United States Government to join the Soviet Union's nuclear test ban. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Milton. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth that: Deferring the C.P.I. increase for pensions which will take place in November and May for 6 weeks each will cause hardships to pensioners and penalise people already living in the shadow of poverty. It is interesting to note that the last stock exchange 6 monthly survey of profitability indicated that average profits for Australian companies have risen 41% during the half year to December 1985 over the corresponding period in 1984. Pensioners are already making unfair sacrifices. We call on the Government to restore the C.P.I. flow-on and to take measures to alleviate poverty traps immediately and your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by 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 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 Nehl. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of certain electors of Australia respectfully showeth: That the Bill of Rights Bill, the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission Bill, the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission Amendment Bill and the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission (Transitional Provisions and Consequential Amendments) Bill, if passed by the Parliament, will undermine human and civil rights in Australia; will attack the institution of the family in our country, and will destroy States Rights and the federal nature of our Commonwealth. Your petitioners humbly pray that: The Parliament rejects these Bills; abolishes the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission and moves to withdraw ratification of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Nehl. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia showeth: That many Australian wage and salary earners and self-employed persons do not enjoy secure retirement incomes provided by superannuation; and That the Government issued in December 1985 Guidelines for the implementation of the proposed productivity decision by the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission and draft Operational Standards for Superannuation schemes. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Government: 1. Guarantees to every employee the right and freedom to select the superannuation scheme of his/her choice. 2. Protects the individual exercising that freedom of choice from any coercion, influence or other pressure which may be applied by any employer, association or trade union. 3. Will recognise only those schemes which provide genuine superannuation and reject those schemes which do not provide for- preservation of benefits to retirement vesting of employer contributions on a reasonable sliding scale equal employer and employee Trusteeship control to ensure security of investments. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Rocher. To the Speaker and Honourable Members of the House of Representatives of the Australian Parliament Assembled. The petition of the undersigned residents of Australia respectfully showeth: By cutting ESL funding and eliminating funding for community languages and multicultural education you have attacked tens of thousands of Australian children. You have condemned these children with limited English to gross educational inequality and very dim prospects for their future. On behalf of these children we call on you to remove this new discrimination which your budget has guaranteed by immediately restoring ESL and Multicultural education funding. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Ruddock. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia showeth: That the Capital Gains Tax penalises small business, discourages long-term investment, hinders capital formation and wealth creation, has contributed to Australia's economic crisis and contains many anomalies. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled should immediately repeal the Income Tax Assessment Amendment (Capital Gains) Act 1986. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Shipton. To the Honourable Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. We, the undersigned, are deeply concerned that Australia's important horticultural industry is being severely disadvantaged by unnecessarily rising production costs. Many Federal and State government regulations, excessive taxes and charges are damaging the ability of horticultural growers to maintain supplies of food and plant products to Australian families at a realistic cost. Widespread unemployment will result if horticultural producers are further depressed. The undersigned humbly petition the Parliaments of Australia, its States and Territories, to take all measures within their powers to reduce the burden of imposed costs and regulation, allowing Australian horticultural growers to develop production potential so the nation, as a whole, can share the benefits of the resulting growth and prosperity. Your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Slipper. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of the Federal Division of Maranoa respectfully showeth that: The ABC proposes to abolish certain country programmes from regional stations. Such action will disadvantage those country listeners who only have the benefit of one radio station. Regional stations broadcast entertainment and topics of local interest and any reduction in these programmes will undoubtedly inconvenience those listeners in the more remote and isolated areas of the State. Talk-back shows and the Hospital Hour are only two such programmes which it is thought are to be abolished. Your petitioners humbly pray that the House of Representatives, in Parliament assembled, urge the Government to: Approach the ABC requesting that they reconsider their proposal to adopt the above and that commonsense prevail in ensuring that those listeners who reside in country areas are not disregarded. And your petitioners as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Ian Cameron. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled in Parliament. The Petition of certain residents of the State of Western Australia draws to the attention of the House that the Government has increased wholesale sales tax another 10% under the 1986-87 Budget, resulting in a 20% Sales Tax on wine. This tax was introduced at a time of a record trade imbalance between our wine imports and exports and will further exacerbate that problem. Your petitioners therefore ask that the Government cancels the 20% Sales Tax before it causes a further contraction in our wine industry, with consequential loss of exports, and employment in the wine and tourism and retailing industries which are currently operating in Western Australia. by Mr Drummond. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in the Parliament assembled. The petition of certain citizens of Victoria respectfully showeth: that all legitimate business expenses incurred in earning or producing assessable income should be allowable taxation deductions; that the Hawke Government's Fringe Benefits Tax is an unwarranted burden on the small business and rural sectors, which will severely affect their long term viability. Your petitioners humbly pray that the Government withdraws the Fringe Benefits Tax legislation without delay. by Mr Halverson. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in the assembled parliament of the Commonwealth of Australia. We the humble petitioners at Warrnambool Institute Student Union, in the Federal electorate of Wannon respectfully showeth: That the introduction of an Administration Charge of $250 for higher education students in Appropriation Bill 1986-87 (Volume-1, Page-98) is a regressive step for the Education system; That the introduction of an Administration Charge will force students to withdraw from studies and thereby destroy the opportunity for them to complete their education; That the Administration Charge is a form of Tuition Fees and as such destroys the principle of free education for all. We the humble petitioners hereby request you to amend the Appropriation Bill 1986-87, so that the system of free education for all students will continue. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Hawker. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned residents of the State of South Australia respectfully showeth. We most strongly oppose the moves by the Commonwealth Rehabilitation Service to sell or close Payneham Rehabilitation Centre, situated at 411 Payneham Road, Felixstow in South Australia. We oppose and express our concern that vocational workshops and education services which were available at Payneham Rehabilitation Centre have already been discontinued while staff are still employed at the Centre. We ask that immediate steps be taken by the Government to fully utilise the Centre for what it was designed for i.e. the rehabilitation of sick and injured people to their maximum potential. We ask that the workshop and educational services be re-established immediately and that redeployment action of staff from Payneham Rehabilitation Centre be ceased. by Mr Jacobi. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned citizens of Tasmania showeth: That we strongly object to the imposition of the fringe benefits tax and to the introduction of any additional capital gains tax on the grounds that: They unfairly penalise small businesses and farmers who make a material contribution to the Australian economy by providing employment and producing goods for export. They discriminate against family undertakings and discourage long-term investment. The fringe benefits tax creates wasteful demands on employers' resources as well as unwarranted administrative costs. Your petitioners call on the Parliament to repeal the fringe benefits tax legislation and to reject any proposal for additional capital gains tax. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Miles. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled: The petition of the undersigned who are staff of the ABC and the SBS respectfully showeth that: The proposed legislation to amalgamate the ABC and the SBS, together with certain existing provisions of the Australian Broadcasting Corporation Act 1983 (as amended), would have the effect of removing the present Staff Elected Director of the ABC from office before the end of his elected term, and of barring him from standing for re-election. This offends basic democratic principle. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that: The Government will remedy this situation by either, continuing the current Staff Elected Director in office until the normal expiration of his term on 15 December 1987 or, making such amendments as are necessary to the Broadcasting and Television Legislation Amendment Act 1986, to enable the current Staff Elected Director to contest an early election after amalgamation, whilst preventing him from seeking a further term immediately following the one for which the early election is held. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Milton. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of the Federal Division of Fisher in Queensland respectfully showeth: That the proposed Australian Bill of Rights Bill 1985 will endanger the Federal system of Australia, the State and Federal criminal justice systems, the State and Federal Police Forces, the State and Federal education systems, the independence of the churches and religious associations, marriage and the family, children, the unborn, the handicapped, the aged and the infirm, employer and employee relationships and Australian society generally. Your petitioners, therefore, humbly pray that the House of Representatives, in Parliament assembled, urge the Government to: Repeal the Bill of Rights legislation forthwith. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Slipper. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of the electorate of Fisher respectfully showeth that: Whereas the present Government of the Commonwealth of Australia has purported to present the Title Deeds to Ayers Rock in Central Australia, in reality the joint property of the people of the Commonwealth to an Aboriginal Land Council on 26 October 1985. Whereas opinion polls and statements of representative groups, Members of Parliament and respected individuals show clearly that the Commonwealth Government had no mandate from the citizens of the Commonwealth to act in such a disgraceful manner. Whereas the present Government claims to be totally opposed to apartheid (separate development) in South Africa but purported to hand over Ayers Rock to an Aboriginal Council in support of a policy of apartheid (separate development) which has been shown to be detrimental to the Aboriginal people of Australia. Whereas it is pursuing this policy making it a crime for most white and many Aboriginals to enter, without permit, large areas of the Commonwealth designated apartheid (i.e., set aside for separate development), contrary to our democratic traditions and experience of freedom of movement for citizens of all racial origins within Australia. Whereas Australian citizens have no present means available to them to prevent this violation of their natural rights to unfettered common ownership of, and access to, a treasured natural asset. Your petitioners humbly pray that the House of Representatives, in Parliament assembled, urge the Government to: Seek means available for the protection of the people's interests to reverse this outrage and preserve the democratic traditions of Australia. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Slipper. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of certain citizens of the Federal Division of Fisher in Queensland respectfully showeth: 1. They are completely satisfied with the design of the existing Australian National Flag. 2. They are aware it properly reflects immutable characteristics of Australia, namely: (a) The Union Jack, itself the creation of three Christian Crosses, represents the Nation's historical origin and the source of its language and law; (b) The Southern Cross on an azure blue background signifying its geographical location on this planet Earth; (c) The large star depicting the advent of Federation in 1901. 3. They know the Flag has been a source of inspiration to generations of Australians in peace and war. 4. They recall that millions of native-born Australians and newcomers to these shores from other parts of the world have become united under its proud symbolism. 5. They are certain that any change to the Flag will produce division in the Australian community. Your petitioners therefore pray that your Honourable House will propose and pass a motion that ``the existing Australian national flag remains sacrosanct from change''. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Slipper. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of the Federal Division of Fisher respectfully showeth that: - The Government's actions in changing levels of pharmaceutical benefits will adversely affect the infirm and elderly and that it will cause further unnecessary economic hardship and suffering among all people who are currently dependent on existing benefits. - The Government's actions are little more than yet another burden placed upon our Australian citizens. Your petitioners humbly pray that the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled, urge the Government to: - Restore pharmaceutical benefits to their former level, therefore lifting this inequitable burden now being placed squarely on the infirm throughout Australia. - Give a firm undertaking not to further desert those citizens in need of medical support. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Slipper. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of certain citizens of the Federal Division of Fisher in Queensland respectfully showeth: that the current policy pursued by the Hawke Government is causing an intolerable increase in home loan interest rates beyond the capacity of families to pay. that consequently this policy is causing grave hardship throughout Australia and is contributing to social problems and the breakup of the family unit. that unless the Government act urgently the Australian dream of home ownership is fast becoming shattered for many of our citizens. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray: That the Government make home loan interest rates tax deductible therefore alleviating the present crippling burden of current high interest rates on home owners and home buyers. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Slipper. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of the Federal Division of Fisher in Queensland respectfully showeth: 1. That we the undersigned are totally opposed to the introduction by the Hawke Labor Government of a $2.00 fee on prescription drugs for pensioners; 2. That the impact of such a fee will be particularly felt by the chronically ill elderly who will be faced with a $2.00 burden with the purchase of each Pharmaceutical Benefit Scheme drug; Your petitioners therefore urge the House of Representatives and the Hawke Labor Government to ensure that prescription drugs continue to be provided to the pensioner population without the $2.00 fee on each prescription. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Slipper. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of certain citizens of the Federal Division of Fisher in Queensland respectfully showeth: that the actions of trade unions have gone beyond their traditional goals of protecting workers conditions and rates of pay and have reached the point where they are seriously affecting the economic health of the nation and the people. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray: 1. That all Governments throughout Australia acknowledge and protect the Right to Work on behalf of all Australians. 2. That the total sovereignty of individual governments be recognised as a fundamental requirement of a workable, balanced Federal system of government. 3. That all necessary steps be taken to protect the citizens of Australia from any inducement, compulsion, threat or intimidation to join any trade unions. 4. That there should be no preference in employment for people who are members of trade unions. 5. That the supremacy of elected governments over the sectional interests of trade unions be recognised, and 6. That the provision of essential services be maintained, free from industrial disruption. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Slipper. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of the Federal Division of Fisher respectfully showeth that: 1. That we, the undersigned, are totally opposed to substantial Federal Government funding presently being wasted on undesirable, inefficient and incompetently run Government projects that are unacceptable to the vast majority of decent Australians. 2. That Government grants should not be directed toward projects that are of no, or dubious, worth to the improvement of Australia. 3. That public funding should not be used in encouraging lifestyles contrary to the Australian family way of life. 4. That public moneys should not be given to minority groups to support projects that are of a direct political nature. Your petitioners humbly pray that the House of Representatives, in Parliament assembled, urge the Government to: Halt forthwith the public funding for the abovementioned purposes. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Slipper. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of the State of Queensland respectfully showeth that: The legislation to tax fringe benefits is iniquitous, inequitable and unfair; It will severely disadvantage both employees and employers; Employees will clearly lose many fringe benefits as a direct result of the additional heavy taxation burden being imposed upon employers; Employers will be forced to pay even higher levels of taxation to provide fringe benefits for employees. Your petitioners humbly pray that the House of Representatives, in Parliament assembled, urge the Government to: Immediately abandon the Fringe Benefits Tax. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Slipper. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of the Shire of Caboolture respectfully showeth that: The proposed capital gains tax penalises small business, discourages long-term investment, hinders capital formation and will freeze existing investment patterns and limits the investors' ability to adjust to changed market conditions. Your petitioners humbly pray that the House of Representatives, in Parliament assembled, urge the Government to: Immediately abandon its ill-considered capital gains tax proposal. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Slipper. Petitions received. Mr PETER MORRIS(Shortland-Minister for Transport) —Pursuant to sub-section 25 (8) of the Public Service Act 1922, I present the annual report of the Department of Transport for 1985-86. Motion (by Mr Young)-by leave-agreed to: That, in accordance with the provisions of the National Library Act 1960, this House elects Mr Cross to be a member of the Council of the National Library of Australia and to continue as a member for a period of 3 years from and including 4 December 1986. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) -Madam Speaker has received advice from the President of the Senate that Senator Macklin has been appointed a member of the Joint Committee on the National Crime Authority in place of Senator Haines, Leader of the Australian Democrats. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —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 need for more incentives in the Australian economy to relieve the burden for all Australians imposed by the Prime Minister's high interest rate policies. I call upon those members who approve of the proposed discussion to rise in their places. More than the number of members required by the Standing Orders having risen in their places- Mr HOWARD(Bennelong-Leader of the Opposition)(3.00) —Two years ago today-that is, on 20 November 1984-the Prime Minister of Australia (Mr Hawke) made a very important statement. Mr Cobb —As a promise. Mr HOWARD —He made it as a promise, and he made it in the course of the 1984 election campaign. He made it in very clear and unambiguous terms. It was understood by the Australian public, then deciding on which party to elect as the Government of this country, as an important economic commitment made on behalf of the Australian Labor Party. He said that Australia and Australians would, during 1985, reap the interest rate rewards flowing from the successful policies of the previous 20 months. He then went on to say those very memorable words: We've ploughed the fields and sown the seeds. In the very near future, we will harvest the crop. The Australian public knows, to its very bitter cost, the extent to which that particular promise of the Prime Minister has been dishonoured. If 1986 is to go down as anything, it will go down as the year in which the Hawke Government finally killed off what was left of incentive in the Australian community. The major weapons that it has used to kill off incentive in the Australian community have been the weapons of crushingly high interest rates and additional taxation imposts. We on this side of the House have spoken a great deal about the taxation imposts of the Hawke Government. I know the Prime Minister goes off his face every time he is reminded of a criticism of his taxation and interest rate policies by a senior businessman, as he demonstrated today. Today's matter of public importance is all about the need to put additional incentives into the Australian economy, to relieve that economy of the impact of the crushingly high interest rates that have been imposed by the Hawke Government. The most culpable thing about the interest rate strategy of the Hawke Government is that it has been deliberately imposed by this Government over the last 3 1/2 years, and particularly over the last 18 months, because during those 18 months the Hawke Government has been unwilling to adopt those other aspects of economic policy which it should have adopted and which, if it had adopted, would have made high interest rates unnecessary. This Government will not be able to escape responsibility for having deliberately set out on a course of using high interest rates and, as a consequence, those interest rates have had a deleterious effect on all sections of the Australian community. I have here a chart which illustrates very clearly the dimension of the damage that has been done to every section of the Australian community by the high interest rate policies of the Hawke Government. The prime rate in November 1984, when that promise was made, was 13 1/2 per cent; it is now 18 1/2 per cent. The small overdraft rate was 14 1/2 per cent; now, two years later and 6 per cent higher, that interest rate stands at 20 1/2 per cent. The Bankcard rate stood at 18 per cent but now, two years later, it stands at 22 1/2 per cent. Those rises have taken place during a time when interest rates around the world have not been going up but, rather, have been going down. The second chart that I produce for the information of honourable members shows that in that period in Australia prime interest rates have gone up by 5.2 per cent, but in the United States of America they have gone down by 4.3 per cent; in Canada, by 2.7 per cent; in West Germany, by one per cent; in Japan, by 1.4 per cent; and, in France, by 2.5 per cent. Despite that appalling record, our Treasurer (Mr Keating) has the sheer gall to go to the United States, Japan, France and West Germany and lecture the rest of the countries about how to run their economies. He ought to direct his lectures to those people in his Party and those people in his Cabinet who have saddled him, his Government and, more importantly, the Australian public with the highest interest rates that this country has had since the years of the Great Depression. They are the bare statistics, but the reality is that these interest rate rises have been felt throughout the Australian community. Nowhere have those high interest rates been felt more severely than in the rural community. The Bureau of Agricultural Economics, for example, has estimated that in 1985-86 the average farm income in Australia will be $3,800. That is the section of the Australian community that will have to wear around its neck not only the interest rate burdens but also the taxation burdens of this Government. Has the Treasurer forgotten that more than 75 per cent of Australian farmers have debt exposures? Has he forgotten that in 1985-86 the interest payments due by farmers in Australia have risen by the staggering figure of 28 per cent? Has he forgotten the impact of these increased interest rates on consumer debt? I think the honourable member for Dunkley (Mr Chynoweth), who is on the interest rate hit list, ought to listen very carefully to the next statistic that I will give to this Parliament. Does he realise that since his Prime Minister made that promise in November 1984-that is, two years ago-there has been an increase from 11 1/2 per cent to 15 1/2 per cent in the average home loan interest repayment rate in Australia? Does he understand that that has added no less than $152 a month to the repayments of a person who is paying off a home loan? Has he bothered to count how many of those people live in his electorate? I can assure him, along with the honourable member for Hunter (Mr Fitzgibbon), the honourable member for Calare (Mr Simmons), the honourable member for Eden-Monaro (Mr Snow), the honourable member for Chisholm (Ms Mayer) and I have not forgotten the honourable member for Barton (Mr Punch), the Federal alter ego of Barrie Unsworth, that thousands of their constituents are paying those higher interest charges. These constituents will not forget that those increases have taken place under the Government of those honourable members, and they will not forget that the Prime Minister promised lower interest rates two years ago and that the Prime Minister has ratted on that promise, as he has on all other significant promises that he has made. What is needed in the Australian community at present is not the bluster, the nonsense and the froth and bubble which we are used to expecting and which we receive every day from the Prime Minister at Question Time but a recognition that this Government's economic strategy is very seriously off the rails and, unless more incentives are put into the Australian economy, not only will we continue to suffer the burden of very high interest rates but also the medium and longer term growth and survival prospects of the Australian economy will be very dim indeed. The Prime Minister can shelter complacently behind his own propaganda when he talks about the balance of trade. He can pretend that he is safe with the one way bet that his policies are giving foreign investors in Australian dollars at present. If one is guaranteed high interest rates and if one is guaranteed a floor under the Australian dollar by the Reserve Bank of Australia, why would one not buy Australian dollars? That is the one way bet that this Government is giving to overseas investors at present. That cannot go on forever. Unless the balance of trade turns around next year, unless for once an economic promise of this Prime Minister is met, the predictions that many have made about the strength of our dollar will be realised. The Opposition and I believe that six things need to be done to put a much greater level of incentive into the Australian economy. The first thing that we want in this country is a genuine cut by this Government in the bloated levels of government spending at present. We want an end to all the scandalous waste of taxpayers' dollars that has been exposed by the Opposition's Waste Watch Committee. We want no more grants to muralists-in-residence for the Builders Labourers Federation. We want no more of these trendy wasteful grants to organisations that are out of the mainstream of the Australian community. We want no more money wasted on things that are not worth the support that this present Government is giving. We want an end to the enormous waste that is involved in Medicare. We want an end to the waste that is involved in bulk billing. If the Government is really serious about cutting the level of welfare fraud, the first thing it ought to do is introduce a compulsory scheme of work for unemployment benefits. That would do more than the identity card will ever do to reduce welfare fraud. The second thing I believe this Government has to do if it is going to restore incentive to the Australian economy is to throw out the fringe benefits tax and capital gains tax lock, stock and barrel. Not only must it throw out those two taxes, but it must also recognise that the taxation changes that are being put in place at present will still leave the average family, particularly the single income family, paying a higher proportion of its income in tax than it was paying in March 1983. Is it not a disgrace that, despite the expenditure of an estimated $5m of taxpayers' money in propaganda for the Australian Labor Party, the Government has still not been able to avoid the simple fact-the Prime Minister demonstrated this in Question Time today-that an average wage and salary earner supporting two children who, in March 1983, paid 17 1/2 per cent of his salary in tax, after the great Keating reforms that will be completed in July of next year, will pay 20 1/2 per cent of his income in tax? No amount of publicity or advertising can alter that fact. The third thing that we need to do is to radically reform our industrial relations system. We need changes in our industrial relations system along the lines outlined by my colleague the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, the honourable member for Menzies (Mr N.A. Brown). These changes would introduce into the work places of this country real incentives for employers and employees to get together. Those changes would reduce excessive union power. They would let loose in the community the processes that can lead to a genuine elimination of undesirable work practices. What has happened to all the work practice reforms that the Prime Minister talked about a couple of months ago? Absolutely nothing. Those work practice reforms are no more worth while than the promises he made to the farmers at Canowindra about getting rid of the inequities of the fringe benefits tax. That is how worthless the promises of the Prime Minister are on that particular matter. The fourth thing that I believe has to be done in order to get more incentive into the Australian economy is that the Government must stop tinkering at the edges of changing the foreign investment rules and it must totally abolish, except for strategic industries such as the media, all inward foreign investment restrictions in this country. If it is prepared to do that we will see over time a process whereby equity investment replaces debt investment and some of the overseas debt servicing burden of this country will change. The fifth thing that I believe this Government must do immediately if it is to put more incentive into the system is to get rid of the burden of regulation that encumbers Australian business at present. Not only should the Government reduce present regulation, but also it should stop additional regulation. That means throwing out the identity card which is going to burden the business community with another $2,000m over the next 10 years. The final thing that I believe the Government needs to do is to set about an immediate and dramatic increase in the migration intake into the Australian community. If the Government is prepared to do that it will have the support of the Opposition, it will have the respect of the Australian community, and, if it puts a premium on importing into this country people with skills who can be immediately absorbed into the Australian work force, that will be an enormous boost to the Australian economy. If those six things are done I believe we can have real incentive in the Australian economy. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The Leader of the Opposition's time has expired. Mr HURFORD(Adelaide-Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs and Acting Treasurer)(3.15) —We know that the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard) has been under great strain in this past week, but we certainly deserve better than we just got. It is, indeed, well over time that we got something a little more constructive than that litany of recycled ideas that have come up time and time again. Mr Carlton —That was constructive. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member for Mackellar will cease interjecting. Mr HURFORD —We heard, of course, a lot about what would be thrown out, but very little indeed about what would be put in its place, except in the end, a new one which was added to the list, a dramatic increase in immigration, which I will deal with in a moment. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! There is far too much noise in the chamber. Those members who are leaving the chamber should do so expeditiously. Other members should return to their places and cease interruption. I refer to the honourable member for Mayo and the honourable member for Gippsland in particular. Mr HURFORD —Apart from that, we had as one of the major planks of the Opposition's platform the suggestion of making the unemployed work for the dole. There were no details at all of what sort of work it would be or where the jobs would come from. It really was a recycling of dead old ideas that do not add one whit to solving the problems that we have in this country at present. It is time-indeed it is over time-that the Opposition got a comprehensive list of policies together and took the Australian people into its confidence. As it is, honourable members opposite treat us all as the great mushroom club, keeping us in the dark-except for these few miserable recycled ideas-and feeding us on you know what. That is all we got again today. There is certainly an implicit assumption always in these debates that if the Government were changed all would come good. If that is all the Opposition has-those few ideas that have come forward from the Leader of the Opposition-the Australian people will know that they have nothing in the way of an alternative government in this country. They will not wear being treated as fools by being given a miserable list such as that we have just had. They want a really constructive alternative, a comprehensive list of policies. All we have to guide us, without that promise and without those details, is the Opposition's own record. So I make no apologies whatsoever for having a look at the record of members of the Opposition when they were on the Treasury bench. While I welcome the fact that the Leader of the Opposition has finally recognised the need for incentive, it is a very belated recognition, for in the five years that he spent as Treasurer of this nation he did nothing to increase the incentive. Therefore in a debate such as we are having today we cannot rely on his rhetoric, inadequate as it was. Let us go back to his actual performance. Where was the incentive in an economy forced into the worst recession in 40 years, as was the Australian economy when he was Treasurer of this nation? That is the Opposition's record, which is what we should go on rather than this rhetoric. Where was the incentive with the inflation rate that we inherited-rampant at 11 per cent when the Australian Labor Party took over the Government of this country? Where was the incentive when hundreds of thousands of ordinary Australian workers lost their jobs when unemployment rose to 10.5 per cent? That is the record of the Leader of the Opposition when he was Treasurer. That is what the Australian people have to rely on-not this inadequate rhetoric that we have just been burdened with listening to. Where was the incentive under the 60c in the dollar marginal tax rate of the Leader of the Opposition-the Howard tax rate-that we are just about to reform? Where was the incentive in that? Where was the incentive when the Leader of the Opposition as Treasurer opposed every wage rise awarded to ordinary working people? What incentive did they have with those sorts of policies and with that sort of record? Where was the incentive under the Leader of the Opposition's 78c in the dollar small business tax rate? That was the effective rate that burdened small business during the Leader of the Opposition's time on the treasury bench. Where was the incentive when the ordinary Australian had to carry the weight of a massive blowout in the public sector deficit-the figure that we inherited of $9.6 billion? What was the incentive in that? That is the record. That is all the Australian people have to go on, not this pathetic list that the Leader of the Opposition gave us today, which was no more than rhetoric. Where was the incentive for farmers when the Australian dollar was purposely overvalued, robbing them of hard-earned export income? Where did they get incentive in those years of Liberal rule when we had that overvalued dollar? At that time our manufacturing industries too were absolutely dismembered. Where was the incentive for our exporters with the overvalued dollar ripping their earnings apart? Of course they had no incentive during those times of Liberal and National Party rule. Where was the incentive for local manufacturing industries when the overvalued dollar led to that flood of cheap imports? As I have just pointed out, of course there was no incentive and it led to the dismembering of the manufacturing industry in this country. The Leader of the Opposition seeks to treat the Australia people as if they are mugs-mugs who are members of the mushroom club; kept in the dark without any constructive policies being put forward. That is why we have only the record of the Leader of the Opposition on which to rely. He thinks that he can come into this Parliament and parrot a word such as `incentive' and the voters will fall all over him and at his feet. He thinks that by bringing up a matter of public importance in this way he can divert attention from his own troubles. I have referred to the fact that he has had more than a week of troubles, but certainly we in this Parliament and the Australian people whom we represent deserve better from him than this miserable speech that we have just listened to in this debate. It is a wonder that the Leader of the Opposition did not attempt another of this great tactical successes and bring this up as a censure motion during Question Time. He would have got his comeuppance again. We must give him credit where it is due. There were some incentives during the Leader of the Opposition's period of Treasurer. Let me go through them. First, there was incentive to avoid and evade tax. There was plenty of that. It was brought about by that 60c in the dollar tax rate and by the poor administration for which he was responsible. There was the incentive to send companies to the bottom of the harbour. There was plenty of that. Look how much of that took place during his stewardship. There was the incentive for bankruptcy lawyers; they had plenty of work to do. We only have to look at the number of small business failures during his term to know that there was plenty of incentive for bankruptcy lawyers because of the big increases in their work load. From the very beginning this Government has had as its prime concern getting over that miserable record that we inherited. Our prime concern has been to address the issues of incentive, bringing real incentive to the Australian economy. Of course, the incentive has been there and we can see it in the results we have had. We have created more than 600,000 jobs compared with the number of jobs that were destroyed when the Leader of the Opposition was Treasurer. We have given incentives through restoring economic growth to the economy by fixing the wage-profit share. We have had the advantage of excellent co-operation from trade union leaders in this country who understand the economic difficulties and who are co-operating with the Government to overcome them. We are achieving our aims through incentive by making the Australian economy more competitive than it has been at any time in the past 20 years. In doing so we have taken some tough decisions; we have not taken the easy track. We have made the economy competitive by bringing about effective wage restraint and the new lower value of the dollar. The value of the dollar provides real incentives to exports. There is no better incentive that people in this country could be given to get on to that growth path than the incentive given through getting the dollar to a realistic level. In relation to competitiveness, we have also given incentive through long overdue financial deregulation. There is a real incentive to export now that the dollar is at a realistic level. There is real incentive to establish import competing industries in this country and incentive through deregulation as well. This is one of the four or five great issues which the Leader of the Opposition raised in the debate today and which he peddles through this Parliament. But who got on with the job of deregulation in areas where there were unnecessary regulations? It was the Hawke Labor Government and we have had plenty to do because of our inheritance from the Liberal and National Party members, who are now in opposition. There is plenty of incentive through realistic foreign investment policy. The Leader of the Opposition talks about abolishing it all. What a great waste and shame that would be for this country, abolishing the foreign investment monitoring. Having removed the unduly rigorous policy of the Leader of the Opposition himself which prevented job creating projects getting off the ground, we now have a realistic foreign investment policy. Yet he wants to throw out the baby with the bath water; he wants no policy whatsoever. That would do nothing more than hand over all the economic power in this country to people from overseas. We would find more and more decisions about our future being taken in boardrooms in Detroit, Osaka or elsewhere. The monitoring is worth while. Where there is no Australian savings and investment to get on with the job of economic growth, we then bring in investment from overseas. We allow it in very readily. The turnover in the administration of our foreign investment policy is very efficient. It would be a very sad day for this country if it were all thrown out at once, as has been suggested by the Leader of the Opposition. Most of all, the Australian people under the Hawke Labor Government have been given incentive through taxation reform. There have been tax cuts for all. The 60c rate has been cut to 49c. The poverty traps have been ended so that there is incentive for pensioners to earn a little more. The Liberal and National parties have not cared about these people in their time in government. We have ended the Howard double taxation on dividends. We are cutting the small business tax rate from 78c in the dollar, which was the Howard rate, to no more than 49c. We are introducing a fair and reasonable package of taxes, such as the fringe benefits tax and the capital gains tax, to make income fashionable again instead of devices which walk around the tax system. These are the real incentives, these will got our economy going. The proof of the pudding is in the eating, the proof is in what we have achieved. All this is a genuine and comprehensive program of incentive, unlike the phoney lot that the Leader of the Opposition gave us today. The Leader of the Opposition also seeks to shed some crocodile tears about interest rates. The truth is that, as the Prime Minister said, there has been a decline in market interest rates in recent months. For the future, while the Government, through sound fiscal, monetary and wages policies, has established the foundations for reduction in interest rates, we will not seek to engineer that reduction prematurely in a forced way. Let there be no doubt where the prime responsibility for Australia's present interest rate structure lies. In seven years of rule the Fraser-Howard Government did nothing to address the fundamental imbalances in the Australian economy. Instead it took a massive gamble that resources exports would be our road to riches. All our eggs were placed in one basket. Australia was left reliant on a narrow base of mineral and agricultural exports. We are paying for it now. We are paying for those Fraser-Howard years. Our manufacturing sector was ripped to shreds by cheap imports and this policy was no more than economic vandalism, from which the Hawke Labor Government has had to rescue the Australian economy. The Leader of the Opposition's big play of the roulette wheel did not come off and he will pay for it because we will not let the Australian people forget what was the real record of the present Leader of the Opposition. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) —Order! The Minister's time has expired. Mr MARTIN(Macarthur) —On behalf of the Joint Select Committee on Telecommunications Interception, I present the report of the Committee, incorporating a dissenting report, together with the minutes of proceedings. Ordered that the report be printed. Mr MARTIN —by leave-In presenting the report on behalf of the Committee I would like firstly to remark on the fact that the Committee was unique in the history of the Commonwealth Parliament. This was the first occasion since Federation that a Bill originating in the House of Representatives was referred to a joint select committee for examination and report. I am advised, further, that this was the first time also that a Bill was referred by the House to a select committee prior to the second reading, and today is the first time that a select committee has reported on a Bill referred to it by the House. The Committee's task was not an easy one. Formed by resolution of the Houses in June of this year, the Committee sat for the first time on 17 July 1986 and for the last time on 18 November 1986. In that time, the Committee was required to examine and report on, firstly, the Telecommunications Interception Amendment Bill 1986 and, secondly, the recommendations contained in Mr Justice Stewart's report of the Royal Commission of Inquiry into Alleged Telephone Interceptions to the effect that the power of interception be extended to cover serious offences. The Bill itself is complex, and covers an area in which there is a wide divergence of views within the community and within this Parliament itself. But the Committee took the view that, consistent with the requirement in its resolution of appointment to report as soon as possible, it should report by the end of the parliamentary sittings in 1986. This task has now been achieved. But in doing so it precluded a protracted inquiry into important peripheral issues raised by the Bill and raised in evidence taken by the Committee. There were many issues of central importance which emerged during the inquiry. These included: The requirement of law enforcement agencies to have rapid access to information which would assist in countering organised and drug-related crime and in solving other serious criminal offences; the protection of individual privacy from unwarranted intrusion; the prevention of abuse of interception powers; the protection of the integrity of the telecommunications system; the need for a thorough and practicable system of safeguards, consistent with administrative efficiency; the requirement for a streamlined system for the lawful implementation of interceptions; the admissibility of evidence gained through legal and illegal interceptions; the communication of information gained through legal interceptions; and the problems created by the free availability of devices capable of effecting illegal interceptions. The Committee's consideration of these issues generated both heat and light during the inquiry. The Committee was unanimous in its view that there is a need to give law enforcement agencies such assistance as is necessary to combat organised crime, drug trafficking and other serious offences. The Committee was also in broad agreement that there needed to be a balanced structure of safeguards to protect individual privacy and to maintain the integrity of the telecommunications system. The Committee divided, however, on the best means of achieving these aims. By a majority, in fact by six to three, the report outlines a proposed system which will extend to all necessary law enforcement agencies rapid access to intercepted information sought by them, targeted by them, and in accordance with priorities determined solely by them. The recommendations retain, however, a form of central control in a proposed telecommunications interception agency which itself will provide a significant safeguard against abuse of interception powers and wrongful use of intercepted material. Other safeguards recommended by the Committee in its majority report include a detailed warranting system, strict criteria for the issue of warrants by Federal Court judges and a detailed system of reports culminating in the requirement for the responsible Minister to present to the Parliament an annual report on interceptions conducted in considerable statistical detail. This, in itself, will permit the Parliament to assess the efficacy of the interception process while at the same time protecting information which might either prejudice individual privacy or impede police operations. In addition, the Committee proposes a totally independent audit and scrutiny function over the interception process by a judicial officer. I should like to refer to the premature release of information purporting to be the Committee's findings in this report and the subsequent reference of this matter to the Privileges Committee. As I have said, throughout the inquiry the Committee as a whole had a broad unity of purpose, differing only in the methodology and mechanisms necessary to achieve that purpose. The Committee maintained its cohesion right throughout the inquiry despite occasional differences, and I was pleased to serve as the Committee Chairman, whilst I recognise the right of the media to follow through reports on committees' views and attempt to predict conclusions. I must express my disappointment that someone on the Committee, or close to the Committee, appears to have unnecessarily assisted the media in fulfilling its role. On behalf of the Committee, I would particularly like to thank those officers of the Department of the House of Representatives who, although not part of the Committee secretariat, played a major role in enabling this report to be tabled today. I thank Margaret Tie, Pat Arentz and Carol Richardson for their invaluable keyboard assistance in the production of the report since it was approved by the Committee on Tuesday, and Sarah Grey, who worked well into last night, and is still working, to duplicate sufficient copies of the report for those who require it today. At this stage I would also like to thank the Committee secretariat who worked above and beyond normal requirements of secretariat staff. Long hours, copious notes and Committee members who at times argued points of law which would have tested the High Court were all handled by the secretariat with apparent ease. To secretary Peter Gibson and his excellent support staff, Ms Dorothy Miles, Ms Kay Crouch and Mrs Yvonne Huddleston, go my sincere thanks on behalf of the Committee. Throughout the inquiry, the Committee received unreserved co-operation from two key Commonwealth agencies, the Australian Federal Police and the Australian Telecommunications Commission. State police forces permitted by their governments to make submissions to, and appear before, the Committee made a significant contribution. The Committee is grateful to these organisations, and extends its thanks also to the various law societies, police associations, civil liberties groups, government departments and private individuals who gave evidence to the Committee or made submissions. The Committee, however, was surprised at the response of State governments to invitations to contribute to the Committee's inquiry. Their responses are detailed in the report, and can best be described as less than enthusiastic, particularly when the main issue before the Committee involved a significant potential devolution of Commonwealth power to the States. The enthusiasm with which these governments embraced the suggestions of the participants at the National Drug Summit, particularly with respect to the need for additional police powers to fight drug trafficking, was clearly not reflected in their communications to the Committee. Most of the issues raised by the inquiry involved the Committee in `drawing the line' between conflicting, and, occasionally, opposing positions. Balanced judgments were required, and in large measure the Committee achieved agreement. The Committee trusts that the report contributes to public awareness and discussion of the issues involved, and assists in the development of appropriate legislation in this important and sensitive field. I commend the report to the House. Mr RUDDOCK(Dundas) —by leave-I had the privilege of serving on the Joint Select Committee on Telecommunications Interception as the Deputy Chairman to the honourable member for Macarthur (Mr Martin), who has just spoken. Before I emphasise some of the areas of disagreement that some of us have with the majority report, I commend the honourable member on his efforts. I commend our colleagues who worked very hard on the preparation of this document and I endorse his comments about the very capable assistance that we received from the secretariat, provided by the House and the Senate, as well as the secretarial staff. To Peter Gibson and Dorothy Miles I say a special thank you for their efforts in ensuring that all views held by Committee members on this subject were able to be made available to the House today. The committee's report acknowledges that there are arguments for and against each of its conclusions. It emphasises that in some areas a balanced judgment had to be made. Of course, some of these conclusions would extend significantly the range of circumstances in which telephone and telecommunications interceptions may occur and the information so gained would be made available to a wider range of law enforcement agencies. To the extent that that has occurred in this report and there is agreement on that, I think it is a very important matter and one which, we ought to be pleased, is the concluded position of this Committee. As part of the Committee's package of proposals, the majority has limited seriously the possible range of offences in which telephone interceptions may be used to investigate breaches of the law. The majority report confines the use of telecommunications interceptions directly to the Australian Federal Police or a central agency which may be established within the AFP and implements a range of additional reporting and safeguard provisions, some of which may very well impede the successful use of telephone interceptions. In the minority report, the honourable member for Gippsland (Mr McGauran), Senator Brian Archer and I came to the view that greater weight should have been placed on arguments advanced by law enforcement agencies for assistance in obtaining evidence which would aid them in obtaining convictions for serious drug trafficking offences and organised criminal activity. In our overview we relied very heavily on the evidence submitted by Mr Justice Stewart. I quote from what he said: This Commission has not the slightest doubt that organised criminal activity is continuing which has not yet been identified by conventional law enforcement methods. Mr Justice Stewart came to that view whilst conducting his Royal Commission of Inquiry into Drug Trafficking. It is our view that, if this situation is to be reversed, law enforcement agencies must be given every possible means to counteract serious crime. We were of the view, following the Special Premiers Conference on Drugs, that the Government was adopting an approach which was likely to meet that need expressed by Mr Justice Stewart. The Special Premiers Conference on Drugs, held in April 1985, endorsed the importance of achieving full co-operation between law enforcement authorities, both within jurisdictions and between jurisdictions. The Conference called on all relevant authorities to ensure that they work together in a co-operative way. The Conference further agreed that telephone interception powers can be a valuable aid in the investigation of drug trafficking and that the Commonwealth would extend such powers in relation to drug trafficking to the States, subject to stringent controls being exercised over their use. The controls were to include a requirement for judicial warrants. The fact is that we believe the report is flawed because it does not go as far as Mr Justice Stewart thought was desirable in certain areas, which I will identify in a moment. It does not envisage the co-operative arrangements that we thought were likely to be put in place after the Special Premiers Conference. It was our view that the extension of telephone and telecommunications interceptions powers to the National Crime Authority, State police forces, including the Northern Territory Police Force and the New South Wales Drug Crime Commission, if those organisations were desirous of it, was a very desirable matter. That was the view of the Committee. The extension would proceed, if requested by the agencies, in accordance with the guidelines proposed by the Government in its amending Bill, the Telecommunications (Interception) Amendment Bill 1986. The minority members were not in favour of the introduction of a further interventionist statutory authority as proposed in the report. As a consequence of that view, we believe that if the law enforcement agencies mentioned request a capacity to utilise telecommunications interceptions, they should make all the decisions in relation to that matter themselves. They should be able to approach a court for information, and the issue of a warrant should be accessible and convenient to them. The warrants should be obtained through State Supreme Court judges in addition to judges of the Federal Court of Australia. The interceptions would be facilitated by Telecom Australia. We saw that as the most desirable and direct method and one which would limit the possibility of serious delay which can occur in relation to these matters. The dissenting report identifies some of those issues further. While we broadly accept the majority view on the range of serious offences for which telecommunications interceptions might be used, we recognise, like the majority, that circumstances might arise, which we have not envisaged, where it may be appropriate that the interceptions power be extended beyond the list of specified offences that the Committee has identified in its report. We believe that it should be possible to obtain an extension to that list expeditiously. We were concerned that, if an amendment is required to an Act of parliament, the system proposed would be a significant impediment to the use of telecommunications interceptions in appropriate cases. Therefore, we came to the view that whilst the extension of the list should be scrutinised by parliament, a more appropriate mechanism for achieving such extensions is the regulation-making power. In the area of safeguards, we accept, like the majority, that the use of telecommunications interceptions carries significant risks, particularly to privacy. Therefore, the use of this power should be balanced with carefully structured safeguards. However, the safeguards should not be so stringent as to seriously impede the appropriate use of the power to make telecommunications interceptions. We are of the view that the use of information obtained from interceptions carried out in accordance with the law ought to be used in all but the most minor of offences. It is our view that the Committee's recommendation to limit the use of such information to a range of offences punishable only by imprisonment for three years or longer would provide a formal and technical defence to charges which ought quite properly lead to a conviction on available interception evidence. Coupled with this, the majority view that information obtained in some technical contravention of the interception legislation should be inadmissible in a court, except solely for the purposes of establishing a contravention, is in itself an unreasonable requirement. That requirement would merely establish another form of technical defence to offences that could otherwise be properly established by relevant agencies and lead to a conviction before a court. The Committee's report envisages a rewriting of the legislation and suggests that the Bill and the Telecommunications (Interception) Act be withdrawn and redrafted. From our experience we conclude that this would be a very time-consuming procedure. The adoption of this approach might well delay, by possibly a year or more, the introduction of appropriate legislation. It is our view that the Government should amend the Bill immediately in accordance with the recommendations of the Committee, taking into account the views of the dissentients, and proceed to put in place new arrangements as quickly as possible. The Government could proceed to introduce an amending Bill consolidating the amendments and the existing legislation at a later date. In order to satisfy the desire of those who would like such legislation to come into the Parliament quickly, a sunset clause in the amending Bill could be utilised. Finally, it is the judgment of the dissentients that the requirement for detailed and comprehensive reports to Parliament, as well as the intervention of a judicial auditor, is unnecessary and an excessive intervention that may well hinder the effectiveness and use of interceptions. It is our view that only one of the proposals in the Committee report ought to be accepted by the Government. We believe that a judicial auditor as proposed would limit the public release of information, which may have an unintended consequence of alerting criminals, to some extent, of the methods of operation of law enforcement agencies. Therefore, our preferred view for safeguard and protection is that the judicial auditor report mechanism should be adopted by the Government and put in place. I mention those dissents most strongly. I commend them to the Government. I believe that, in adopting the proposals in the report, the Government should qualify them in the way we have suggested. Mr LEE(Dobell) —by leave-Shortly after Robert Francis Kennedy was sworn in as Attorney General of the United States of America he made the following remark: My feeling is that the use of legal wiretaps should be limited to major crimes such as treason, kidnapping and murder. In each instance it should only be done with the authority of a Federal judge . . . At the same time, there is a great deal of indiscriminate wiretapping that now goes unpunished. Therefore, it is essential that the penalty for indiscriminate wiretapping be greatly stiffened . . . It is ironic that Robert Kennedy at the 1964 Democratic convention was the subject of a considerable degree of telephone interceptions and the use of listening devices allegedly planted by the Federal Bureau of Investigation in the United States to provide certain political information to President Johnson. If ever anyone needed proof that governments and their authorities can get out of control through the use of illegally obtained information, one need simply look at the history of the FBI where people such as Martin Luther King had his telephone conversations intercepted. The first thing that has to be said about this report and the Joint Select Committee on Telecommunications Interception is, as the honourable member for Dundas (Mr Ruddock) has pointed out, that we have all found agreement on a large number of points. We were unanimous in agreeing that members of the police do need greater access to telephone intercepts so that they can obtain more information to catch anyone trafficking in drugs and anyone involved with organised crime. There was unanimous agreement that telephone intercepts, if they are approved by a judge, should be extended beyond drug trafficking. There was unanimous agreement that that should include murder, kidnapping and organised crime. Despite Mr Justice Stewart's recommendation that the State police forces and the National Crime Authority should have the power to install their own telephone intercept devices, the committee unanimously agreed that the current practice whereby Telecom Australia implements telephone intercepts should continue. As the Chairman of the Committee, the honourable member for Macarthur (Mr Martin), pointed out, the Committee divided six, three on what, on balance, was the most efficient and secure way to give the State police forces and the NCA the information that they need to catch those who are dealing in drugs and involved in organised crime. It should be remembered that if the original recommendations of Mr Justice Stewart's report had been accepted, it would have allowed not only the six State police forces to intercept telephone conversations, but also the Northern Territory police force, the National Crime Authority and the New South Wales Drug Crime Commission. Many on the Committee were disappointed with the response from the State governments. We wrote to them on more than one occasion asking them to give evidence to our committee. With the exception of the New South Wales Government and the Northern Territory Government, none of the State governments came out in complete support of Mr Justice Stewart's report. I seek leave to incorporate in Hansard a table which has been extracted from the Committee's report. I showed it to the honourable member for Mackellar (Mr Carlton) earlier this afternoon. Leave granted. The table read as follows- RESPONSES FROM STATE GOVERNMENTS State or Territory Submission to the Committee? Supports Extension to States? Supports Extension to Serious Offences? New South Wales... No (Premier's letter to Prime Minister) Yes Yes Victoria... No Not known Not known Queensland... Yes Yes No Western Australia... No (Premier's letter to Chairman) Yes (Premier's View) No (Premier's view) South Australia... Yes Yes, but AFP to conduct No Tasmania... No Not known Not known Northern Territory... The Northern Territory Government did not make a formal submission to the Committee but wrote in support of all the recommendations of Mr Justice Stewart Extract from Table 3.1 of Joint Select Report on Telecommunications Interceptions. Mr LEE —The table indicates the view of the various State governments on this issue. No State government was prepared to come before the Committee to give evidence and to answer any questions which the Committee wished to ask. The Committee was, therefore, totally unable to reach a conclusion as to whether the safeguards which the various State governments proposed to introduce were satisfactory. In fact, the South Australian Government advised the Committee that whilst it endorsed Mr Justice Stewart's recommendations that power should be extended to the States, it preferred the Australian Federal Police to carry out any telephone interceptions which the South Australian police needed. I wish to make several comments on the minority report which has been brought down by three members of the Opposition. Paragraph 6 states: We believe that a greater weight should have been placed on the arguments advanced by law enforcement agencies . . . This is on the question of whether the State should be allowed to intercept telephone conversations or whether the Federal Police, as a central agency, should carry out interceptions for everyone. I believe the minority report has not given enough weight to some comments made by people who represented the State police forces. Chief Superintendent Parrington, gave evidence, along with others, on behalf of the New South Wales Police. He made the following remarks at our hearings in Sydney: That means the actual tapes and everything would be in Sydney. Yes, that would overcome that major objection. It is very costly having it in Canberra where the lines have to run backwards and forwards from wherever the tap is on. Secondly, I quote from Assistant Commissioner Delianis, who is from the Victoria Police. He made the following remarks in answer to the following questions from the Chairman: CHAIRMAN-How would you react to a suggestion . . . that there be established some central organisation to handle all telecommunication interceptions for all levels of crime investigation . . . Mr Delianis-Yes, that would have appeal. CHAIRMAN-The Victorian Police would have no objection to something like that? Mr Delianis-There would be no objections, providing security were not thrown down the drain . . . In my view we did not have very strong evidence from the State police forces to say that they needed to implement the intercepts. I believe that, by allowing the Australian Federal Police to apply all of the intercepts that are needed, we can have an efficient and tightly run organisation. It is important to remember that the Committee report recommends that the State police forces be allowed to determine the targets and priorities and be allowed to go to a Federal Court judge to seek approval of the warrant. I believe the State police forces will be able to make effective use of these procedures. We will not have the complaints coming forward that perhaps the Federal Police are not co-operating sufficiently with the various State police forces. Before I wind up, I will comment on another point which did have the unanimous support of all members of the committee; that is a recommendation contained in chapter 2, namely, that the law should be amended to allow the Australian Federal Police to introduce evidence from their monitors by using evidentiary certificates. At the moment whenever the Federal Police produce evidence in court which has been obtained by legal interceptions, a large number of the Federal Police staff are required to go to the trial and give evidence which is largely technical and quite time-consuming for the police and courts. The Committee unanimously recommended that that evidence be allowed to be given by way of certificate on the very important condition that the defence retain the right to challenge that evidence and have all the monitors brought to court. I wish to add my thanks to Peter Gibson, the Secretary of the Committee, and all the support staff. I say to my colleagues who served on the Committee that it was one of the most rewarding experiences I have had since I have been in this chamber. Mr McGAURAN(Gippsland) —by leave-Although it is coincidental, it is nonetheless important that the presenting of this report occurs at the very same time when jury convictions against three of the United States of America's five Mafia families have been brought down. When in America during July I engaged in a number of discussions with Federal prosecutors and district attorneys in different parts of America on the strategy employed against the Mafia and other criminal organisations. The fundamental plank of that strategy was the use of telephone interceptions. I say, with respect, that the Americans found it hard to believe that we have waited so long to be in a position to pass legislation allowing for telephone interceptions beyond the narrow grounds that previously existed, that being phone tapping only by the Australian Federal Police in regard to drug trafficking. Of the Mafia convictions, we find that the primary evidence is largely arrived at by way of telephone interceptions, if not against the three heads of the families then of their lieutenants, so that certain convictions are envisaged making those lieutenants more susceptible to turning prosecution evidence. Coupled with the efforts of the authorities in Sicily and Italy, the Americans are very confident that the Mafia in a short while will be reduced to another large, although often successful criminal organisation. After giving the Mafia and organised crime offshoots some 40 or 50 years head start, the Americans have finally brought them back to the field. The problem for them now, of course, is the upsurge and growth in a whole new area of organised crime-the Chinese Triads, the Colombians involved in the South American smuggling, a number of prison gang organised crime rackets as well as bikies. I make those introductory comments to stress the importance of telephone interceptions whilst at the same time acknowledging, as did the Deputy Chairman of this inquiry, the honourable member for Dundas (Mr Ruddock), the need to have stringent controls on the issuing of warrants allowing telephone interceptions. The honourable member for Dobell (Mr Lee) qouted from what Robert F. Kennedy had to say in the early 1960s about the need to limit the extension of crimes upon which telephone interceptions could be placed. The first comment I make to that is that a lot of water has flowed under the bridge since 1962 when Mr Kennedy made those comments and the extent and growth of organised crime, without talking about its menace, is so much more apparent to us. If anything, Australia lost its innocence and became aware of the dangers of organised crime only this decade. The second point I make to the honourable member for Dobell is that Federal Bureau of Investigation telephone interceptions and listening devices were all illegal applications. We must stress that the legal interceptions will be strictly controlled by the conditions laid down by the issuing judge. Let me quickly summarise the differences in emphasis in this report between the majority and the minority. In essence, the minority believes that the report does not go far enough. We acknowledge the dedication and the honesty of approach by Government members but, at the end of the day, this falls short of what I believe to be the necessary tools in the war against organised crime. Firstly, the minority believes that the power to apply for telephone interceptions should be given to the National Crime Authority, all State and Northern Territory police forces and the New South Wales Drug Crime Commission. Secondly, we do not believe that there should be a central interception agency. Instead, each of these law enforcement agencies should be able to carry out their own interceptions. We do not agree with the report of the Joint Select Committee on Telecommunications Interception in regard to the centralised operation. Interestingly, in relation to the question of resources, it was never fully investigated whether the Australian Federal Police could or would be involved in any enlarged scheme. Again, in reply to the honourable member for Dobell's statement that Assistant Commissioner Paul Delianis of the Victoria Police Force has no objection to a central agency, my recollection, with respect, of that evidence is that it was never explained to Assistant Commissioner Delianis what was meant by a central agency, and I do not know whether he understood properly what was being put to him. I only raise that as a doubt, for the benefit of the honourable member for Dobell, rather than as any conclusive reading of Mr Delianis's mind. The next point of difference is that we in the minority believe that there should be a wider extension of the offences upon which telephone interceptions can be placed. I do not believe that the offences should be limited to murder, kidnapping and organised crime activity arising out of, or centred upon, murder and kidnapping. What about white collar and other financial fraud, taxation fraud, union racketeering, illegal gambling, prostitution, hard core pornography, video piracy, extortion and standover tactics? As I read the majority report, unless those other crimes are connected in one way or another with murder, kidnapping or financial dealings, there will be a very real doubt as to whether a telephone interception can be granted. I believe that the offences upon which interception can be placed are too narrow. I note that the majority Committee report wishes all present legislation to be amended. But, as the honourable member for Dundas has said in the report which he so clearly influenced, that will take far too long. What we really need now is legislation to empower the law enforcement agencies to apply interceptions. The wholesale redrafting proposed by the majority will take far too long where speed is of the essence. In drawing to a conclusion, I wish to acknowledge the work done by the Chairman of the Committee, the honourable member for Macarthur (Mr Martin). It is a trite observation that organised crime poses a major threat to Australian society. It also poses major problems of law enforcement to this Federal Government and, indeed, any Federal government. All in all, I do not despair in relation to this report, although I am a member of the minority report. It is far better to have our foot in the door and, after a period when the system works well, when perhaps there is a greater awareness of the evil we face, there will be an extension of powers and offences for telephone interceptions. Finally, I associate myself with the comments of previous speakers concerning the quite outstanding assistance provided by Peter Gibson, Secretary to the Committee, Dorothy Miles's research officers and their administrative assistants. It was an immensely difficult task and it seemed as though the clock was always running against us. Therefore, they had to work with not only complex issues but also great speed and efficiency, and I wish to add my congratulations to them. Dr KLUGMAN(Prospect) —by leave-I preface my remarks by saying that I am the first speaker in this debate who was not a member of the Joint Select Committee on Telecommunications Interception. I have strong views opposing the extension of telephone tapping. Whilst I have seen the report only in the last quarter of an hour since it has been tabled in the House, I have reservations about some of the recommendations in the majority report let alone the minority report. One of the most depressing things about this debate is the utter hypocrisy on the part of the Opposition, which is opposing the Australia Card on the grounds of privacy. All Opposition members on this Committee have signed a minority dissenting report which goes way beyond anything that even the keenest opponent of the Australia Card has alleged about it. We have this utter hypocrisy. It is no good the honourable member for Dundas (Mr Ruddock) and the honourable member for Gippsland (Mr McGauran) smiling and smirking about it because I think it is a ridiculous proposition. We have a dissenting report arguing for a great extension of the types of offences that can be dealt with arising from telephone tapping. On page 210 of the report, paragraph 32 states: We do not discount the extremely high value we place on privacy- that must have been said with more than tongue in cheek- but we must recall that this legislation is only being introduced because `organised crime is now firmly entrenched in Australian society'. The report refers to agreements endorsed at the Special Premiers Conference on Drugs and it then states: The extension of powers to serious offences . . . intended to be of use in the fight against crime. On page 203, paragraph 11 of the dissenting report states: We are of the view- that is, the dissenters, the Opposition the great supporters of privacy- that the use of information obtained from interceptions, carried out in accordance with the law- it is their proposal to change the law, of course,- ought to be used in all but the most minor offences. I stress the words: `in all but the most minor offences'. Obviously, we can argue about what are the most minor offences. But there must be a vast number of offences between what I would consider to be the most minor offences and the sorts of things argued for in paragraph 32, which states that organised crime is now firmly entrenched in Australian society and mentions the Special Premiers Conference on Drugs. Hopefully, many of us would have great reservations about turning this country into a police state in which everybody's telephone can be listened to and the information obtained can be used against us for what I consider to be offences that are certainly not a threat to society. Constantly, there is talk about this threat to society. Every police force at all times has always argued that it needs more powers because society is about to be overrun by criminals and society as we know it will be destroyed. Mr Rocher —Like tax commissioners. Dr KLUGMAN —Yes, like tax commissioners. The honourable member for Curtin was not on the Committee and hopefully would have come to a different conclusion. People have argued for prohibition. The people who argued for and supported prohibition in the United States of America felt that, if the sale of liquor were allowed, it would destroy society and therefore certain things had to be done. Now people talk about videos destroying society. A few years ago it was colour television and a few years before that it was black and white television. We are always told that the fabric of our society and the existence of our society is at risk unless we give governments more powers. Hopefully, there will be more discussion of this issue when the actual legislation is introduced into this House. I just point again to the utter hypocrisy of the people who say that the Australia Card is a terrible evil because of its alleged interference with privacy but who are prepared to say that, if the honourable member for Gippsland were overheard calling some call-girl to come to his motel, he should be prosecuted and the conversation on the telephone should be used as evidence in the prosecution of him and of that call-girl. I just think that that is not the way to approach the question of crime in Australia. As I think the honourable member for Curtin suggested, there must be significant reservations on the part of many of us about the fact that police forces can listen to our conversations with our accountants or solicitors and then decide to lay criminal charges against us and possibly our accountants on the basis of conspiracy to defeat certain proposals that are part of legislation. We have on the statute books lots of pieces of legislation about which many of us have reservations as to whether they are really necessary to run a state such as Australia at present. I know that I have intervened in the debate without having given notice of it, and I will therefore stop now. I just wanted to indicate that, hopefully, there will not be unanimous support in this House even, let alone in the community, for proposals which just extend Federal or State powers to deal with individuals who are considered in some way to be, as the Opposition puts it, carrying out some offences except the most minor of offences. Mr Ruddock —I take a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. I ask for a withdrawal of the reference to me as a hypocrite. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Mountford) —Does the honourable member claim to have been misrepresented? Mr Ruddock —No, I do not claim to have been misrepresented. I raise this as a point of order. I did not want to interrupt the speech of the honourable member for Prospect at the time, but I found quite offensive the suggestion that the approach that I took in drafting a dissent to this report was hypocritical. I was called a hypocrite three times in the comments of the honourable member. I ask for it to be withdrawn. I am quite prepared to argue the issue on its substance and on the merits, but I do not like the use of language of that sort. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —If the honourable member for Prospect did refer to the honourable member for Dundas as a hypocrite, will he withdraw? Dr Klugman —I referred to the Opposition as being hypocritical in its opposition to the Australia Card. I consider Opposition members to be completely hypocritical if they take the line on privacy that they have taken in relation to the Australia Card and take the line on privacy that they have taken in this dissenting report. But, if the honourable member for Dundas is annoyed by the actual use of the word `hypocrite', I am perfectly prepared to withdraw that word, so long as people are aware of the sense of the argument. Mr Sharp —Mr Deputy Speaker, I seek leave to make a short statement. Leave not granted. Mr WEST(Cunningham-Minister for Housing and Construction)(4.18) —I move: That, in accordance with the provisions of the Public Works Committee Act 1969, it is expedient to carry out the following proposed work which was referred to the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works and on which the Committee has duly reported to Parliament: Development of HMAS Albatross, Nowra, NSW, stage 1. The proposed work now before the House is for the construction of new facilities to support a squadron of Sikorsky Seahawk helicopters at HMAS Albatross Nowra. It was first referred to the Joint Committee on Public Works on 22 September 1986. Part of the proposal includes the development and upgrading of existing facilities at the base. In order to locate a squadron of Seahawk helicopters at Albatross, new facilities to service and maintain the helicopters will be required. The work will involve the construction of a new building to house a flight simulator and an aircraft weapons system support centre. As well, an avionics workshop building will be extended and maintenance facilities, including a squadron maintenance support building and flight line operation and aircraft washdown facilities, will be built. Associated services to upgrade the base, such as a new supply centre and a building to house the Royal Australian Navy's tactical electronic warfare support section facility, will be provided. Fire protection to three hangars and a new pump house and substation will also be upgraded. The estimated cost of all the work is $19.7m at November 1986 prices. This cost represents the indexed equivalent of the $19.2m at August 1986 prices which was originally referred to the Public Works Committee. This includes an additional $70,000 for a larger computer room for the flight simulator. Further consultations have taken place between officers of the Department of Housing and Construction and both the Shoalhaven Shire Council and the State Pollution Control Commission. These consultations will continue during progress on the work. In addition, Department of Defence officers will hold further discussions with the Shoalhaven Shire Council in respect of urban development and a cycleway. When the House first referred the proposal to the Public Works Committee, the Opposition spokesman, the honourable member for Deakin (Mr Beale), misunderstood some aspects in my speech. The proposal consists of two parts. The first element is for helicopter facilities estimated to cost $6.65m at August 1986 prices. This work has been included in the capital works program for 1986-87. Four hundred thousand dollars has been set aside in the capital works program this financial year for the helicopter facilities. This is considered a reasonable amount, given that the bulk of contracts will not be let until February 1987. A contract for the installation of the flight simulator computer will be awarded as soon as possible. Apart from the flight simulator, it is intended that construction of the helicopter facilities will commence in February 1987, and will be completed by September 1988. The remaining element of the proposal is for the upgrading of the base. This is estimated to cost $12.55m at August 1986 prices and is likely to be included in the capital works program next financial year. If the upgrading work required for the base is included in the 1987-88 capital works program, it is anticipated that construction will commence in August 1987, and be completed by the end of 1988. So there are two stages to this work-one which already has government approval, and stage 2 which will, after today, have Public Works Committee approval and will go forward hopefully into the next capital works program. Consultants have been used to design and develop the proposed work and it is intended that they will continue to be used for project documentation. Actual construction is to be contracted to private enterprise in accordance with normal Department of Housing and Construction practice. The project will employ a work force which will peak at 100 on site plus 25 off site administrative staff. Up to an additional 30 positions could be generated in local support and services industries. I would like to thank the Committee for its quick examination and support of this proposal. I commend the motion to the House. Mr SINCLAIR(New England-Leader of the National Party of Australia)(4.21) —In the absence of the honourable member for Deakin (Mr Beale) I shall respond on behalf of the coalition to the motion moved by the Minister for Housing and Construction (Mr West). There is no doubt that the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works has dealt with the report now before us effectively, and expeditiously. Like the Minister, I commend it for the way in which it has undertaken its responsibilities. The extension of these facilities at HMAS Albatross is essential if the Royal Australian Navy is to bring into service on schedule the Seahawk helicopters. These are an essential adjunct to the fleet which will be able to give to the FFG frigates the eyes and ears necessary for them to undertake their proper function. Without the Seahawks the FFG is not adequately able to undertake its task. The Squirrel is a much smaller helicopter than is necessary, and of course it does not have anti-submarine warfare capability. The Seahawk will correct that deficiency and, while it is true that there are other helicopters in service in the Royal Australian Navy which might to some degree pick up the shortfall, they cannot land with safety at least on marks 1 to 3 of the FFGs presently in service. For that reason the introduction of the Seahawks into service as soon as possible is essential. For that reason I was a little disappointed to see that the Seahawk helicopters are apparently still not coming into operation until, at the earliest, some time later next year. The facilities themselves-this report relates specifically to the on-shore facilities-are essential if the fleet is to operate the Seahawks. It is necessary for the Navy to have shore based facilities at which the helicopters can be repaired and maintained, and particularly where major refits can be carried out. The other adjunct facilities relate not just to the Seahawks but to the Navy's tactical electronic warfare support section, to the flight simulator that is to be incorporated there and also to other facilities at HMAS Albatross. The coalition has not at this stage taken any final stance with respect to a fixed wing aviation component for the Royal Australian Navy. It is of great concern to us, however, that the fleet should not go unprotected and we are therefore concerned that HMAS Albatross should be maintained and developed so that, should a future coalition government decide it necessary to acquire fixed wing aviation for the Royal Australian Navy, the facilities will be there and the naval base will be able to handle those aircraft and facilitate their operation and maintenance. Of course this is quite possible under the program envisaged in the motion before the House. HMAS Albatross is an excellent facility. It is well served in the Nowra community, which is in the electorate of my colleague the honourable member for Gilmore (Mr Sharp), and I believe the Navy and the community have established a very happy working relationship which is a very good illustration of how the community and the Services can work together to each other's mutual advantage. I notice as part of the reference there is a suggestion that there will be consultations with the Shoalhaven Shire Council and the State Pollution Control Commission, and also that there will be some urban development and a cycleway. These are necessary facilities to try to maintain the quality of the environment around HMAS Albatross, and again they have the full support of the coalition. One area of concern to us is that in government we would wish to ensure to the maximum that work and responsibilities be undertaken by the private sector. I know that there is reference in the Minister's statement to actual construction by private enterprise in accordance with normal Department of Housing and Construction practice. It is our view that that construction must be undertaken by the ordinary community, and we believe that, subject to that being the case, the reference by the Minister would fit within our belief as to how the whole project should be undertaken. Private enterprise involvement and in particular the delegation to those within HMAS Albatross, who will have responsibility for operating these facilities, of greater financial management than is now the case are elements of our policy which differ from those now pursued by the present Government. The coalition supports the move by the Minister and believes that these additional facilities are necessary and will facilitate the early and adequate introduction into the Royal Australian Navy of the Seahawk generation of helicopters. Mr SHARP(Gilmore)(4.26) —As the member of parliament representing HMAS Albatross I feel it important today to say a few words about the motion before the House. I state first that I, as the local member, welcome this motion. This project will certainly be of great benefit not only to the naval station of Albatross but indeed to the whole community of the Shoalhaven. The Shoalhaven community has suffered financially over the last few years as a result of the Government's decision to axe the fixed wing component of the Royal Australian Navy's Air Wing. As a result some 700 personnel have left HMAS Albatross, and of course have taken with them the income that they would have spent in the Shoalhaven area. That has had a quite severe effect on local business. So anything that will go towards increasing personnel levels at Albatross and/or the spending of money at Albatross will certainly be welcomed by not only business but the whole community. As the Leader of the National Party of Australia (Mr Sinclair) pointed out, I would also hope that private enterprise will be given as much preference as possible to carry out the construction and associated work involved in this development. I hope that local contractors will be given preference so that the community will benefit even further from this development. Again the Leader of the National Party was correct in saying that there has been for a long time now a very close working association between the Navy and the people of the Shoalhaven, to the point where the people of the Shoalhaven are pleased with the presence of the Navy there. If I am fortunate enough to continue to represent the Shoalhaven in this House in the years ahead, I will continue to work to ensure that the losses incurred as a result of this Government's axing of the fixed wing component of the Navy's Air Wing are made up for and that the Shoalhaven community benefits from whatever expenditure the Department of Defence undertakes in the area. I also raise the issue of the Navy's Fleet Air Arm museum, which of course is housed at HMAS Albatross. I remind the House, as I have on previous occasions, that these unique, rare and valuable aircraft have been out in the open without any roof over them for the last several years and as a consequence are slowly deteriorating, and part of Australia's aviation history is going along with them. I urge the Government if there is at any stage in the future some means by which it can put a roof over these wonderful and valuable aircraft, to do so as quickly as possible because in so doing it will be maintaining a valuable piece of our history. Question resolved in the affirmative. Debate resumed. Mr McVEIGH(Groom)(4.30) —In the speeches of the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Kerin) and the Opposition spokesman on primary industry they gave details of the way in which the industry is growing and the reasons that that is so. I would like to repeat them for the information of people who may be listening to the debate on the Pig Industry Bill and cognate Bills and who did not hear those details. The reasons are several. It is a very efficient industry. The fact that consumption is increasing reflects, it seems to me, changing eating habits of Australian people, possibly reflecting the huge number of people who have come here from overseas since the Second World War. This is an efficient industry partly because at present the grain prices are lower. Farmers, in association with research companies, have gained world wide recognition for their ability to handle pigs. There is an improved feedback conversion ratio and, as other speakers in the debate have indicated and as has been mentioned in the debates on all manufacturing industries, the rapid devaluation of the Australian dollar has certainly been of benefit to Australian exporters as far as their exports are concerned. I believe it is appropriate in a debate such as this to pay tribute to the aggressive marketing and research activities of people who are associated with the manufacture of pork goods. It is true that they have sought out markets overseas as well as locally. They have done this basically through their own expertise, at their own cost, and they have always been proud to put their brand names on their exports. Of course, it is understood that those products also bear the Australian mark. The success has been the fact that individual exporters, private enterprise people, have taken a great pride in the quality of their product and a determination to ensure that the quality of the product is sufficient to attract purchasers from all over the world, irrespective of the competition. In some of the markets that they have opened up there has been a realisation that it is difficult for Australian companies and exporters to compete against such producers as the European Economic Community and Canada. It is often stated in the House and in other debates that such producers dump their products. Australian pork producers have endeavoured to open up new markets such as the air export of fresh, unfrozen pork to the rapidly growing markets of Japan, Korea and New Zealand. Occasionally in debates all of us should adopt the view of what is good for Australia and forget about playing politics. The Minister saw that maybe there would be a threat to Australia from the dumping of Canadian products. Because of his concern that some of these products from Canada could contain diseases which are not prevalent in Australia, he has agreed to ensure that any such products that come in are examined and, as I understand it, the Government will pay the costs. It is interesting to note that the suggestions for the rearrangement of this authority have more or less fallen in line with the blueprint that the Minister indicated to the House some months ago would be the format that he would like all statutory and primary industry marketing authorities to adopt. It appears to me that sometimes in pursuing an objective we may not fully meet with the agreement of all sections of the industry. The information that comes to me from Queensland- Mr Braithwaite —A great State. Mr McVEIGH —As the honourable member for Dawson quite rightly and fittingly observed, it is a great State, a State where democracy continues, where a party that gets 56 per cent of the vote can quite rightly govern the State. The Queensland industry believed it was not necessary to have this type of legislation. It was in agreement that the original Pork Promotion Committee had been very successful; it operated with a minimum of costs. It is a concern that, under the arrangements as indicated by the Minister in this legislation, the cost factor could be prohibitive. I am informed that the Tasmanian organisation plus the Queensland organisation and the intensive pig producers were basically against this type of statutory authority. I assure the Minister that the industry in those States will be keeping a very close watch on the cost factor and the operations of the statutory authority. I draw the Minister's attention to a view that has been expressed to me by pig producers from all over Australia, and that is the composition of the Pig Industry Policy Council. I make particular reference to the fact that on that Council one position has been reserved for the President of the National Meat Processors Association. It is my understanding that the National Meat Processors Association is not representative of pork processors. It grew out of the Australian Meat Canners Association which canned beef, pork and sheep products. I know that the Minister, given his background, will be interested to note that the criticism that I get of this organisation is that in industry circles it is called the Melbourne Club. Not having any association with the Melbourne Club, I am not really sure what the inference is, but I understand that it does not represent the real producers of Australia; it just represents the big producers. Many small producers of pork products do not belong to that Association which, as I have said, does not specifically represent pork producers but which represents also beef and sheep product processors. Mr Braithwaite —Big is not always best. Mr McVEIGH —The honourable member for Dawson has come in with quite a legitimate observation that big is not always best. It is quite right that government always has a responsibility to look after the smaller producer. It is all very well to bring in legislation which purports to meet with the approval of an industry because a few producers are producing an enormous quantity, but the wishes of a lot of producers who are producing a small percentage are disregarded. It is necessary for the Minister to have another look at the composition of his Pig Industry Policy Council. If he is attracted to the logic and the fairness of my comments, he might see fit to replace that person who, I am advised, is not representative of the industry by someone representing the Australian Consumers Association. It appears to me that too often we tend to forget that the consumer has rights and that it is necessary in the development of policy to ensure that the consumer is in a position to express a point of view adequately and, if necessary, with force. In the final analysis there is not much sense in producing a whole heap of goods if no one wants to buy them. I will quote from a newspaper article of Friday, 11 April this year. It quotes a great Queenslander, a product of that beautiful part of Australia called the Darling Downs, Sir Leslie Price. He is a man who has had the confidence of governments of both political colours. I think it is pertinent to quote the views attributed to Sir Leslie Price by Peter Robinson in an article in the Australian Financial Review, as I said, of 11 April 1986. The article states: As Sir Leslie Price, former boss of the Wheat Board and as tough an old cocky as you are ever likely to find, pointed out the other day, the overproduction of wheat in the world `is such that any relief for the Australian industry is likely to be only temporary'. Between 4,000 and 5,000 farmers might be forced out of the industry . . . So it appears to me that, consistent with the view expressed by Sir Leslie Price, it is necessary to ensure that the consumer is represented on these various policy councils, because the consumer knows what the people want. I pay tribute to the Pork Promotion Committee for what it has developed. It has developed smaller cuts of pork, pork with leaner meat, and pork which is more readily prepared-something that is very important in this modern day, particularly when both husband and wife work. I thought the shadow Minister for Primary Industry, the honourable member for Gwydir (Mr Hunt), voiced a great concern-- Mr Ian Cameron —How much longer, Tom? Mr McVEIGH —I will, just like the honourable member for Kalgoorlie (Mr Campbell), take 20 minutes. I understand that he took 20 minutes and, unless there is an arrangement, so will I. I understand that that was the norm. The shadow Minister expressed the concern that unless we watch it we could have a pork industry in Australia controlled by very few producers and we could have enormously sized intensive piggeries located in a few strategic areas. It was suggested that, in effect, they could establish a cartel and capture the market. So it is necessary to ensure that we have an industry which widely reflects the Australian method of access to grain et cetera and market requirements. Otherwise, the industry could very well go to the wall. So we will watch with interest all these initiatives which the Minister has brought up in the legislation that we are now debating. Some of the previous speakers touched on the need to have an industry which is export oriented. Of course, one can understand the logic of that approach, given the fact that last month we had the worst ever trading deficit-a record in Australia. Surely, Mr Deputy Speaker, it does not give you any great pride, as a member of the Australian Labor Party, to know that a government to whose policy, platform and philosophy you subscribe had an Australian record for a trading deficit. The Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard), in an excellent speech in this Parliament this afternoon, really detailed to the Australian people this severe problem of Australian farmers, brought on by the macroeconomic policies of the Hawke-Keating Administration. I think the views he expressed need to be emphasised. He cited the Bureau of Agricultural Economics estimates for 1985-86. The average farmer will have an income of $3,800. Surely, Mr Deputy Speaker, you must agree that that is well below the poverty line. Seventy-five per cent of farmers will be in debt. Mr Deputy Speaker, you would not allow 75 per cent of your trade union supporters to be in debt. Yet the Government sits idly by and allows this type of situation to occur. As the Leader of the Opposition states, in 1985-86 the interest repayments on capital borrowed for farm initiatives increased by 28 per cent over the year. He also detailed the problem of spiralling interest rates as they affect the home owner and he informed the Parliament and the nation that home loan interest rates increased by 4 per cent, from 11 1/2 per cent to 15 1/2 per cent, in two years, necessitating extra repayments of $152 per month. Quite obviously we need to ensure that the farmers are in a position to remain competitive. I do not know how they will do that, because, in addition to those figures given to the Parliament by the Leader of the Opposition, the BAE indicated that there will be an increase in farm cash costs from $69,200 in 1983-84 to $79,300 in 1985-86. The rate of return to capital and management, excluding capital appreciation, will drop close to zero in 1985-86, against 2 per cent the previous year, while the real rate of return, this time including capital appreciation, was estimated at minus 6 per cent as a result of declining land values in some regions. So in all these restructurings we need to be aware that the Government's macroeconomic policies are contributing to declining farm income, forcing farmers on to the verge of bankruptcy and making it impossible for them to stay internationally competitive. We want to increase the export of primary industry products. We want to ensure that pork products are exported in increasing amounts. I am just saying these things to indicate the tough competition that Australian primary producers have to face in the world market-places which they cannot meet unless they have sympathetic treatment from the Government. I am concerned that the European Community's Commissioner for External Relations, Mr Willy De Clercq, during his recent visit here, proposed a freeze on agricultural export subsidies pending agreement with the United States of America to do likewise. Yet in his address to the National Press Club he maintained that the EC would retaliate if the United States or any other country decided to increase its agricultural export subsidies. At the same time it has been reported that the European Commissioners are seeking an additional $4 billion war chest to use for their dairy and beef subsidies. Before any progress can be made on freezing subsidies the countries involved have to reach agreement on the definition and measurement of subsidies. This will not be easy and the issue is as contentious as the subsidies themselves. If we are to reach some degree of balance with this whole mess some sort of meaningful dialogue must be established. To achieve this there must be a willingness of all parties to reach a conclusion. Now that there is a Democrat controlled House and Senate in the United States, a new wild card has been thrown into the deck. Australia is in a difficult position because, on the one hand, products such as pig meat may be coming into the country from Canada with a subsidised price tag but at the same time we are encouraging our producers to become more efficient and export oriented. The argument about exotic diseases from other parts of the world being introduced to Australia via pork is reasonable because of the serious result which would occur. As I said earlier in my few words, I thank the Minister for the positive contribution that he has made. Nevertheless, the real solution to the subsidy problem is to address the fundamental and structural problems associated with both the EC and United States farm industries. At the same time, we must take heed of the problems they are faced with and endeavour to make sure we do not fall into the same traps with the same expensive results. This is a difficult problem and there are no easy solutions. In conclusion, I just want to say, as a primary producer myself, that it is interesting to note the changing emphasis in the attitude of rural producers in the last decade. They are only too willing now to contribute out of their own funds-although in many instances they may be close to bankruptcy-for research and promotion. That is absolutely essential. This, of course, is to ensure that we have a great conversion of grain and supplements into pork, that we have the quickest possible growth rates, and that the product is promoted. Other countries, such as New Zealand, spend far greater amounts of money on promotion, are more expert at it and have a capacity to seek out markets and to target on to those markets. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Mountford) —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr IAN CAMERON(Maranoa)(4.50) —It is my pleasure to speak to the Pig Industry Bill 1986, the Pig Industry (Transitional Provisions) Bill 1986 and the Pig Slaughter Levy Amendment Bill 1986. We in the Opposition support these Bills. I believe that the industry itself is more or less in favour of the measures. It is not 100 per cent in support; there are some things that it is still not happy about, but overall it seems to be reasonably supportive of the changes that are taking place. Before coming to the guts of the Bills, I wish to congratulate Denis Hinton, a past president of the Queensland Pork Producers Association, on being part of that fantastic election in the State of Queensland a few weeks ago. He has been elected as a back bench member for the seat of Broadsound and I do not doubt that he will do a fantastic job in the Queensland House representing pork producers, primary producers and all the other people in his electorate. As well, I wish to congratulate my local member for Balonne, Mr Don Neal, who has been elevated to the Queensland Ministry. He has also been involved in the pork industry and he represents a number of pork producers in his State electorate. I am sure that he will do an excellent job as a new Minister. In passing, I wish to inform the House, as other members have, that the National Party in Queensland is now governing in its own right with 53 per cent of the second preference vote and 55 per cent of the seats. It is time that we buried forever the sort of Press reports that were put around about the election result. People such as Mr Denis Hinton and Mr Don Neal will continue to do that for our National Party in Queensland-- Mr Kerin —This is appropriate to the pig debate, is it? Mr IAN CAMERON —Yes, it is, because the National Party has been very supportive of the pig industry in Australia. Many of the pork producers of Australia live in inland Queensland. Many producers have moved into the pork industry from the grain industry. I do not doubt that that move will be accelerated with the downturn of the grain industry. Many producers have been converting grain into pork and they have been very successful. Some of the bigger grain growers have now established huge piggeries in this country and have done so very successfully. That includes the past Leader of our Party, Mr Doug Anthony, who has been in the pig producing industry for many years. We in the National Party pride ourselves on the fact that we have a knowledge of the industry and many members of our Party are in that industry. It is important for us to see that the changes continue and to ensure that they are the sorts of changes that the producers want. I also wish to mention the wild pig program which the Government has introduced. I congratulate the Government on attempting to get this program under way. Unfortunately it has not allocated very much money to the program, but I hope that some more funds will be available and I look forward to the day when some of these funds are spent in my electorate of Maranoa. Not only do we have an enormous kangaroo problem in that part of Australia, but we also have an enormous population of wild pigs. The wild pig problem is tied in with foot and mouth disease control. We dread the day when foot and mouth disease might break out in Australia and we have to attempt to eradicate all the wild pigs in the country. It will be a tremendous task. We have had a matter of public importance today highlighting Australia's debt position and the high interest rates for primary producers, including pork producers, in this country. At lunch time members of the Livestock and Grain Producers Association spoke to us and put their case on behalf of pork producers of this country and other farmers. The continuing alarmingly high interest rates are affecting the efficient production of these foodstuffs and making it terribly difficult for many of these businesses to continue. For pork production particularly, high-tech, disease-free piggeries are needed. It costs millions of dollars to build and operate them and to supply the consumers with a quality and disease-free product. This industry, as much as any, is affected by the horrendous interest rates and the problems of meeting interest bills and at the same time remaining in business. I wish to quote quickly some of the figures that were given today by the LGPA. Only 28 per cent of farmers have no debt-that is a very small number. The rest of Australia's primary producers carry some sort of debt. Of those, 10 per cent carry 37 per cent of the total farm debt; 20 per cent have 58 per cent; 30 per cent have 73 per cent of that debt; and 40 per cent have 85 per cent of the total debt. One can see from those figures that unfortunately for us, with a downturn of markets throughout the world and the fact that we must continue to compete under ever increasing costs, primary producers and in particular pork producers are finding it very difficult to remaining in business. These Bills establish the Australian Pork Corporation and the Pig Industry Policy Council. The new Corporation has a wider range of functions than the Pork Promotion Committee which it replaces. It will become involved with price setting and will give advice to the Minister about the sorts of levies and so on that should be imposed and the marketing arrangements, such as computer aided livestock marketing. The pork industry has been at the forefront of computerised marketing. It was one of the first industries to introduce classification of its product and to sell under the present electronic marketing arrangements. The industry has reached a stage where it is no longer necessary to have buyers physically in attendance; it is all being done on a television screen and people do not have to go out into the field in order to buy. These great advances are taking place, not only in the pork industry, but also in the beef and sheep meat industries. The pork industry has been one of the pioneers of these changes. I am sure that all honourable members who have had a chance to look at these aspects will realise that the pork industry is more technically advanced than most manufacturing industries. I have also had the privilege of speaking to Mr Fred Hillier, who is the Chairman of the Queensland Pork Producers Association. He is concerned about the fact that producers have lost control of the levy. The Minister will still have control of that. As a producer, Mr Hillier feels that the Minister should not have the final say. The Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Kerin) shakes his head but perhaps his public relations is not the best. I can assure the Minister that Mr Hillier told me that the producers are concerned about some of the control being taken away from them. They are no longer in a position to have the absolute control that they once had over setting the levy. The new Australian Pork Corporation will consist of seven members-an independent Chairman, a government representative and five members with expertise in pig production, pig meat processing, et cetera. The five expert members will be selected by the Australian Pork Corporation's selection committee. The Australian Pig Industry Policy Council will also be set up under this legislation. It will have eight members including an independent Chairman. Under this Council there will be a meeting of a number of special interest groups to decide on the future policy of the industry. The levies will be collected on the pigs slaughtered in Australia for human consumption. The Australian Pork Corporation will be responsible for recommendations to the Minister. I believe that it is important to note that it will make only recommendations, not final decisions. Unfortunately under these Bills the industry always gives away some of its independence. It must now make recommendations and the Minister will have the final say on the levy. The slaughter levy that was paid to the Pork Promotions Committee will now be paid to the Corporation and the maximum levy will be increased from $1 to $1.50. The pig industry is well organised, as I said. It is experiencing a rapid increase in production. Average consumption now is 16.5 kilograms per person per year. An amount of $15m has been spent on promotion since 1975 and $4m has been allocated for 1986-87. Of every $1 of the slaughter levy, 80c is spent on promotion. In not only the pork industry but also other meat industries we are having a great debate at present as to how much money we should be spending on promotion. I believe that in the present day and age, because we have ever increasing competition in our markets, we must continue to expend as much money on it as we can physically afford. It is difficult for us sometimes even to pay these levies, particularly in slump times. In the cattle industry the slaughter levy is often as high as the price of cattle. It is now up to $8 a head. In the real crunch period of the beef industry we are not able to get that sort of money for our cattle. That is one of the dangers in introducing these compulsory levies. They are all right when times are good, but when times are tough and we are not getting very good prices for our stock it is often difficult to pay the levy. It becomes due before the producer sees a cheque, and there are many instances of producers having to forward a cheque to their agents to cover the costs of selling their stock, be they in the pork, beef or sheep meat industries. The pork industry is spending much more of its funds on promoting its product, including recipe promotion and new cuts of pork. It has done an excellent job in that area. Consumption of pork is up by 40 per cent since 1982-83 and I think that is an excellent performance in anybody's book. I do not wish to add any more to the debate. There is in front of me a much more competent person, the honourable member for Gilmore (Mr Sharp), who wishes to speak. I thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. Mr SHARP(Gilmore)(5.02) —I thank the honourable member for Maranoa (Mr Ian Cameron) for his obvious confidence in me. I rise to speak on the Pig Industry Bill and cognate Bills because I feel that they are important. I am one of the few people actively involved in the pig industry who are also members of this Parliament. Mr Tim Fischer —Very successfully involved. Mr SHARP —I thank the honourable member. I notice that former members of parliament have also been involved in the pig industry. I refer to people such as the Rt Hon. Doug Anthony, the former leader of the National Party, who is a very large pig producer as well as being a dairy operator. I also note that the Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism (Mr John Brown) has had some interest in the pig industry over the last few years at the other end of the industry to the one I have been involved in. I have been involved in the production end; he has been involved in the slaughtering end. I suppose that it is fair to say that, since becoming a member of this Government, his activities have been much the same in that he and his colleagues have been busily slaughtering the economy. It is the economy, of course, which is affecting the pig industry at present. As other speakers have said in this debate, interest rates are severely affecting the pig industry at present. I can speak with some personal experience on this. When money was borrowed to make extensions to piggeries to increase productivity and efficiency it was done at a rate of about 12 per cent. Today the interest rate on those moneys borrowed only a couple of years ago is in the order of 20 per cent. Unfortunately the industry is not sufficiently profitable to carry such huge increases in the cost of interest. One of the great bugbears of the industry is that it is so capital intensive. In order to be an efficient producer of pig meats today one has to have very extensive capital expenditure. One has to have an intensive piggery to be able to operate profitably and efficiently today. Unless one is prepared to borrow funds, I am afraid to say, one will not be an efficient pig producer in the future. So the cost of interest has been the great burden that this Government has placed upon the pig producers of Australia. Whilst we cannot really do much about the world prices of our agricultural commodities, because Australia is not a big producer except in areas such as wool, we really can do something about some of these internally created costs such as interest rates. I strongly urge the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Kerin), if there is one thing he can do in this Government to really help not just pig producers but all farmers, to do something to reduce the cost of interest to the figure it was two or three years ago-10 to 12 per cent. Mr Braithwaite —For all Australians. Mr SHARP —As my colleague says, if he could do that for farmers, it would be of great benefit to all Australians. I am pleased that this legislation has been introduced into the House because the Bill creating the Australian Pork Corporation has broad support from within the industry. This Corporation will replace the existing body, the Pork Promotion Committee. Of course, the Pork Promotion Committee has served the industry very well over the years but, because the pig industry is a very dynamic industry, times change and, with them, the various aspects of the industry have to be upgraded to keep up. The Pork Promotion Committee will be replaced by this Australian Pork Corporation. I believe that it is important for me to correct in the House a few of the misconceptions that exist in our society and indeed within this Parliament. Many of these corporations involved in agricultural industries are totally self-funded by the industries. There are no Commonwealth funds or State funds going into the establishment or maintenance of this organisation. I am afraid to say that many people in the community believe that, when an organisation such as this is set up, it will be a burden on the taxpayer. This is not so. The pig industry will pay the entire cost of running and establishing this Corporation. I think that point has to be made clear, because the misconception is popularly held both in this House and outside it. The pig industry is one of the great success stories of agriculture. I cannot recall an industry which has been more successful. The gross value of production in the pig industry has risen in the last 10 years from $197m to $450m. That is more than a doubling in the value of the production of pork in 10 years, a huge increase in anybody's book. It is to the great credit of people involved in the industry. The reason the pig industry has expanded so much is that it has been prepared to promote itself properly. As a result of promoting itself properly, consumption has increased quite substantially. Previous speakers have pointed out that in the last 10 years or so consumption of pork meat has increased from 12 kilograms per head per year to in excess of 16 kilograms per head per year. The reason this has taken place is that the pork industry is made up of people who are management, promotion and marketing oriented. They have gone about promoting their product in a most aggressive and imaginative way. I will give an example of the sort of promotion that they engage in. I come from a town called Young, which is quite a significant pig producing area. Each year at the Young show the pork industry has a stand in the main pavilion with a chef who displays the latest cuts of pork meat. He cooks the pork in various styles and, through a microphone, talks to all the people who go by to try to promote new ways of cutting pork meat and of cooking it. This is an ongoing promotional campaign which has resulted in increased consumption of pig meats and which has added to the general viability of the industry. I mentioned earlier that the pork industry has grown rapidly. It has grown not only because of promotion and marketing but also because there has been a great deal of improvement in the actual management that people in the industry are prepared to undergo. One of the great benefits of the pig industry is that pig gradings are now such that producers are really forced to produce a product that the market demands. One of the unfortunate aspects of other meat producing industries such as the beef or sheep industries is that they are unable to quickly meet the ever-changing eating habits of our society. The pig industry is able to do that because it is a much more disciplined industry. What has happened over the years is that the pig industry has recognised that the eating habits of people have changed. People are now more health conscious and require less fat in their meat, therefore the pig industry has been able to change the way it markets its product so that the pigs do not have as much fat in them to meet the changing needs of our consumer society. There have been some major improvements in techniques of management, but there is still a long way to go before Australian pork producers will match the performance of some other countries. I have met English pig producers who brag of getting in the order of 30 to 32 pigs per sow per year as an average, whereas if an Australian pig producer can brag that he has averaged 20 pigs per sow per year, he is doing very well. There is a long way to go before Australian pig managers will be able to match the performances of overseas pig producers, but we have increased our production figures over the years through increased genetics and management techniques. Every pig manager in this country is aware of the fact that it is vitally important to have a proper environment in which to raise pigs. One of the unfortunate things that has occurred in our society over the past few years is the way in which the animal liberation movement has given a false impression of what goes on inside intensive piggeries. We are led to believe by the animal liberationists that piggeries are the Australian version of concentration camps. This is not so at all. Every producer understands that a healthy, happy pig is a productive pig and therefore a profitable pig, and profit is the name of the game in the pig business. People who do not have a healthy, happy pig will not have a profitable piggery, therefore they will be out of business very quickly and the piggery will close down. Mr Holding —Will you sign them up in the National Party if they are happy, healthy pigs? Mr SHARP —All good pig managers are members of the National Party of Australia because they are good businessmen and understand that the policies of our Party are the best policies for those people who are prepared to go into business to make a profit, to create wealth, jobs and so forth. The animal liberation movement has not done justice to the pig industry. Anybody who is prepared to take a little bit of time and trouble to go through an intensive piggery will understand the care and concerns that every pig manager has for the well-being of the animals under his control. I say to honourable members and all the people who are listening today: Do not believe what the animal liberationists tell you because they try to play on your emotions. They make false statements and try to create a false impression. By attacking the pig industry in a concerted way, they may well put at risk an industry which is very important to this economy-an industry which is growing rapidly, producing $450m of wealth and employing a lot of people. It would be a very sad day if the animal liberationists affected the long term viability of our industry. The new Australian Pork Corporation will further enhance the management and promotion aspects of the pig industry. It will help the establishment of computer aided livestock marketing-CALM-and it will add further to the development of the national livestock language, commonly called Ausmeat. It will add to the necessary tools of a dynamic, growing and profitable industry. I know that the Corporation will be well received by the industry. It will not be involved in price setting schemes, nor will it be a trading body, but it will be involved in marketing issues which affect the pig industry. I hope that the whole scheme will be happily financed by the industry. Most of the pork producers I speak to are happy to pay the levy on each pig slaughtered for domestic human consumption. I reiterate that the Corporation will be funded totally by the industry; no taxpayers' funds will go into it. The body will be fully accountable to the Parliament, the people of Australia and the industry. I commend this Bill to the House. 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 Holding) read a third time. Consideration resumed from 23 October, on motion by Mr Kerin: That the Bill be now read a second time. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith. Bill (on motion by Mr Holding) read a third time. Consideration resumed from 23 October, on motion by Mr Kerin: That the Bill be now read a second time. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith. Bill (on motion by Mr Holding) read a third time. Debate resumed from 8 October, on motion by Mr Kerin: That the Bill be now read a second time. Mr BRAITHWAITE(Dawson)(5.17) —The Opposition supports this legislation and offers it clear passage through the Parliament. The introduction of proprietorial ownership of commercially bred plant varieties has fuelled many emotions both for and against the concept over many years. However, when these arguments are weighed one against the other I am left in no doubt that the net benefits of plant variety rights well outweigh any drawbacks. Plant variety rights will encourage new private sector research to complement existing public research for a wide range of cropping and vegetable industries. Among those to benefit most will be cereal growers, who are among the hardest hit by the rural recession and many of whom will suffer a net income loss again in 1986-87. I remind the House again of the figures brought forward by the Bureau of Agricultural Economics earlier this year, that farm incomes are likely to drop by $4,000 per farm over this coming period, so if there is to be a benefit let us hope that it will be in the rural sector. Not only can we expect intensified research in Australia, but also plant and seed users will enjoy access to new plant species from overseas through the introduction of reciprocal agreements with our trading partners. The Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Kerin) has correctly pointed to PVR giving a significant boost to our farm industries, allowing farmers and nurserymen to compete more effectively on world markets. It would be appropriate for us to view Australia's situation in this world market in the current crisis facing the exporters of Australia. We see from the trading results of the past four months not only that the projection of $14.7 billion deficit in the current account this year will be met, but it will be exceeded. Again, it is within the trading sector that it is of particular relevance. If we look at the balance of trade figures on the goods side alone, the last year in which Australia had a real trade surplus was 1979-80. From 1980-81 to the current year in only one year, 1983-84, did we have a small surplus. Australia is a nation that has to trade to survive. I believe the deficit is of major interest and concern to us all. Let me turn to the current account figures. The last occasion of a credit in this regard was 1972. Since then the deficit has progressed downwards to what was, last year, $13.7 billion. This year it is $14.7 billion. It has been estimated that the deficit, to keep in track with the October deficit of $1.7 billion, will have run at an average of $1.1 billion for the next 8 months. This crisis is a major concern to primary industry and to everybody in Australia. I have just mentioned Australia's trading results. Let us turn now to accumulated foreign debt. It has been estimated by an economist that while the Hawke Labor Government was in office from March 1983 to June 1986 our net foreign debt tripled. It has gone from $22 billion to $66 billion. The analogy is often made that whereas it took Australia 81 years to reach $22 billion, it took Labor only three years to triple it to $66 billion. The figures that we have heard suggest that our foreign debt is exploding. It is in the vicinity of $100 billion. Any boost to our export performance in the trade sector will be very good news not only for the exporters but for all Australians. It has to be repeated that trade deficits will affect every Australian. No Australian can feel that he is quarantined against the effects of our overall trading position. The standard of living of every Australian can only deteriorate with the figures I have mentioned. This will be an indication to the person in the street that his own standard of living will decrease. Interest rates are at a high level. These are features of a deteriorating trade situation. Unfortunately we could have had plant variety rights four years ago. The Liberal-National Party Government then recognised a need to bring Australia into line with statutory rights which have been available for several years in most developed countries. The Fraser Government brought legislation into this Parliament in 1981, but the present Minister, by his own admission in his second reading speech, was responsible for delaying the Plant Variety Rights Bill which ultimately led to it lapsing. His reasoning was to seek further public consideration of the concept of PVR. This was in spite of the fact that interest in plant variety right first emerged in Australia in the 1960s. One wonders why extra public consideration was necessary in 1980. This was followed by several inquiries in the 1970s-notably the Industries Assistance Commission report on rural research in 1976 which strongly recommended introduction of plant variety rights. Draft versions of the 1981 Bills were circulated up to two years before they were introduced into this House. Then they lay on the table for another 12 months. Despite all the opportunity given for public debate, parliamentary debate and formulation of an opinion, the Australian Labor Party allowed the Bill to lapse and has dragged its feet until now. Australia has waited an additional four years for PVR legislation to come back into this Parliament. It is unfortunate that while the Minister for Primary Industry has now stressed the benefit of PVR, Australian agriculture has not had the benefit of this boost since 1982 to help it overcome one of the worst economic crises on record. I want to give evidence of that economic crisis, as is evidenced within the primary production area. I speak on behalf of any primary producer who is listening. They have faced difficulties, compared with three, four, ten or 20 years ago, in making ends meet and trying to make a profit. Today they are facing record interest rates. Earlier today in this House on the debate on interest rates an indication was given that prime rates of interest that would be available in the most favourable circumstances to our primary producers were now at 18.5 per cent-5 per cent higher than they were when Labor took office in 1983. Let us look at inflation. The recent quarter was a record for this Government and shows that the inflation rate for the 12 months will be greatly in excess of what was predicted. On top of that, primary producers, above anybody else, know the on-costs they face because of government charges and taxes. Do I have to remind this House of the effects of the fringe benefits tax for work related benefits being taxed to the employer? This can lead only to a deterioration in the work situation. I also indicate the reduced development incentives through taxation and the capital gains tax that has been introduced in this House. I want to compare this Government's economic record with the rest of the world. I stress that the interest rate of 18.5 per cent is the prime rate and is about three times higher than that available to our competitors overseas. Examples which have been given in this House show that while our interest has been increasing by 5 per cent in the last three years, the prime interest rate available to producers throughout other countries, our competitors, has been at a lesser rate and has been decreasing. Let us look at the inflation rate. Some of our competitors are now benefiting from a negative inflation compared to our own inflation which we believe will probably go back into double digit figures this year. Australia's inflation rate, which represents a cost to our producers, will be about three or four times higher than our competitors. When the Government talks about the wonderful benefits of devaluation, it does not add in the additional costs that have been brought about in interest through inflation and the price of imports. We should never let the Labor Government forget that a lot of the problems facing primary industry today were deliberately created and put as an impediment in the way of the primary producers by this same Government. There are some flaws in the plant variety rights to which I will refer in a moment. The central principle of plant variety rights is to allow plant breeders to apply for proprietary rights over any new variety of plant which they develop. Endorsement of the concept has come from the IAC reports on rural research in 1976, apple and pear industries in 1985 and the vegetable product industries this year. Support has also come from the Senate Standing Committee on National Resources, the Lazenby inquiry into Australia's plant breeding needs and the 1985 Committee of Inquiry into Grape and Wine Industries, known as the McKay report. Among the most vocal supporters of PVR, and one to whom we should pay credit, is Senator Robert Hill who has fought a frustrating battle in Opposition to gain support for his private member's Bill. I have no doubt that the action of Senator Hill has helped catalyse events leading to the introduction of this Bill. The plant breeders and plant industries of Australia owe him a great vote of thanks for helping to keep the issue of PVR on the boil in this Parliament. The benefits of this Bill now before the House may be summarised under three main categories. We are likely to see, firstly, a stimulus to private sector research; secondly, a faster and wider-ranging development of new varieties; and, thirdly, improved access for Australians to overseas varieties. While there is likely to be some shift in research emphasis from the public to the private sector, there should be a substantial improvement in the overall research level in Australia. The scheme is voluntary. Once granted, rights will attract an annual fee over the 20 years for which they will apply. As the scheme will be open to overseas as well as Australian breeders, I would expect to see an improvement in our access to international genetic varieties. I just want to emphasise again the part that primary industry plays in our trade balance and the part that it must play in the future. Some people would suggest, and I would agree with them, that the way out of our present trade imbalance lies with our services and manufacturing industries. But the difficulty is that, by the time the risk is calculated and they have the stability to make an investment and bring that investment to the point of production, even with the best of good will and the best of intentions of a government that is helpful and not negative towards the manufacturing sector, it could take months and years to come to fruition. It will take some years to flatten that playing field so that everybody can relate to a consistent and practical government economic policy. In the meantime, no Australian and no exporter, whether he be in primary industry, in minerals or in the manufacturing industry, should underestimate the need for Australian primary industry to maintain and try to increase its portion of world trade. Immediate relief could be given by Bills such as this to that balance of trade figure. In addition, Australia will seek membership of an international convention extending benefits of domestic rights to overseas markets. Any plant breeder or public or private gardener will be able to obtain rights, as will overseas breeders. Rights may be transferred, surrendered or revoked if the grantee does not meet conditions of the grant or pay the annual licence fees. Complementary amendments will be required to the Trade Practices Act to grant an exclusive proprietary right over a variety. The Bill includes an appeal mechanism, and any legal action to protect rights may be pursued by breeders through the Federal Court of Australia. A major review of the scheme will be conducted after its first five years of operation. Rights will not restrict the sale of plants for use as food or any other purpose that does not involve the growing of the plants. Importantly, to be eligible for PVR the variety must be new and distinguishable from other known varieties. It must be bred by the applicant and not drawn from a natural or wild environment. While these provisions overcome many of the initial fears held over plant variety rights, especially by the farm community, some doubts remain. We should remember that, despite all the deliberations, discussions, soul searching and inquiries, this Bill still does not convey rights to any particular species or genus. A committee will be established to advise the Minister on which genus or species will be granted protection under the legislation. I do not disagree with the idea of an advisory panel, but I do draw a note of caution concerning that panel and I suggest that it is a caution that the Minister should take on board and understand. The Minister's instructions to the new committee that it consult widely before making recommendations should not be used as a delaying tactic which might effectively defer action on PVR for some years. Using the New Zealand experience as a guide we will be well into the 1990s before most species are covered and it may be a couple of years before any species or genus is included. As I have said before, after four years of delay, the Opposition is heartily sick and tired of these delays and what could be further delays in this regard. This Parliament has waited for too long for the PVR legislation. To induce further delays in its implementation would be nothing short of scandal. The Government's performance will be closely watched in this regard by the Opposition and there will be no excuses for delays. The Australian Labor Party, having been dragged kicking to this point where we have the legislation, must now accept the legislation as a positive contribution to the overall plant development effort in Australia and must facilitate the operation of the Act. I turn to some matters of specific interest to particular industries and community groups. One concern raised frequently has been that farmers may not be permitted to save patented seed for a new season's crop. The Opposition's understanding of the legislation is that farmers and home gardeners will be able to keep seed or other propagating material for their own use. It is unclear in the legislation whether this extends to commercial crops. So I call upon the Minister to answer this concern before the legislation passes this House. It is unfortunate that the Minister responsible is not in the House at the moment. But I hope that, in his response to the second reading debate, he will indicate whether he can answer the concern we have. The grains industry has flagged to the Opposition some concern over possible exclusion of growers from important varieties should the recipient of rights be selective in the allocation of the new variety. Naturally PVR incorporates commercial risks in developing species, so there will be commercial considerations which will govern the distribution of such seed or other propagation material. There will, of course, be a continuing industry and public research effort as well as the expected new private research. The network of plant genetic resource centres established by the Federal and State governments will be one open source of raw material for plant research. It might be helpful to the industry, though, if the Minister for Primary Industry could give wheat growers, in particular, an assurance that he will carefully monitor progress on this issue. Should major grievances arise on the part of the industry, there may be a case for a careful and exhaustive review of the PVR scheme's operation as it affects wheat growers, if necessary prior to the five-year review which is already planned. I know that the concerns over possible denials of access to crucial new varieties are shared by growers in all of the wheat, barley, sorghum, rye, triticale, millet, maize, oats, grain legumes and oilseeds industries. This body of opinion must not be ignored by the Minister, and he will have a responsibility to maintain close contact on the operation of PVR with the grains councils of Australia. It is not sufficient for the Minister to bring this legislation into the House and have it passed. He has a continuing responsibility to monitor the effects of the legislation in the future. A Sydney lady has raised the fear that voluntary charitable causes may be disadvantaged by this legislation. She has pointed out to the Opposition that her own work has raised several hundred dollars through the sale of plants at school fetes and other such functions. Further, these activities tend to encourage children to take an interest in gardening and the broader subject of botany. She has said that it would be an outrage if this were to be denied through unexpected restrictions flowing from this Bill. I doubt that such restrictions would be an intended consequence of the legislation, but I call on the Minister to allay these fears. Beyond these matters, some claims have been made which I consider to be of a rather wild nature. Many criticisms of PVR concerning genetic resources, market structure and the impact on the Third World are issues quite independent of PVR. It should be noted that Australia has established an aid program for agricultural research in developing countries. Further, under the auspices of the consultative group for international agricultural research Australia contributes to the operation of 13 research institutes in the developing world. This legislation is long overdue but it carries the support of the Liberal and National parties. The costs to taxpayers are minimal compared with the likely benefits in terms of improved production across many plant industries, and, as I have said, the effects of our trade situation with the rest of the world. Administrative costs of $700,000 in the start-up three-year period will be partially offset by expected revenue of $150,000. Further, revenue is likely to increase in future years as PVR is spread across a wider range of industries to a point where the scheme should be self-funding. The Opposition, although concerned over delays which I have mentioned, commends the Minister for Primary Industry for adopting plant variety rights and will give this legislation passage through the Parliament. Mr CHYNOWETH(Dunkley)(5.40) —I rise to speak on the Plant Variety Rights Bill 1986. However, I do so with some concerns. First, I want to outline briefly the concept of the Bill, which is to grant a proprietary right to the breeder of new varieties of certain plants that will give the owner of the right the ability to sell the new varieties in a restricted market. Such a right can most easily be compared with the principle underlying patent and copyright legislation to give protection to the invention. Normally, inventions are made and designed by man. What we are doing here is altering something that was not made by man and enabling the right to that product to be owned mainly by a very exclusive number of people, mainly large multinational companies. The system of plant variety rights exists in many countries, including the United Kingdom, Japan, West Germany, the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, the United States of America and New Zealand. Plant variety rights were first introduced in the United Kingdom in 1964. The first rights were issued in 1965. Under the system, rights can exist for between 15 and 25 years and can apply to agricultural crops, field crops, vegetables, fruits and ornamentals. There are a number of arguments both for and against PVR. The major arguments in favour of the system are that it will encourage increased plant breeding in Australia as breeders will be able to recoup the funds necessary to create new varieties; that it will facilitate access to new varieties bred in other countries with a PVR system; and that it will assist the development of an export industry. The major arguments against PVR concern their effects on the lesser developed countries and the genetic stock, which is what interests me. It is argued that the system of PVR adversely affects the lesser developed countries as they will become more reliant on seed stock that has to be imported from the more developed countries. If they refuse to pay, they will be deprived of the more productive crops. The concern over genetic stock is that the range available for future use will be drastically reduced and will get into fewer and fewer hands, and that much of the genetic stock that has been developed by nature will cease to be available. As mentioned in the second reading speech of the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Kerin), India had approximately 30,000 varieties of rice at the turn of the century but only 30 varieties are now in use. However, much of the genetic stock is preserved for future use by national and international bodies such as the International Board for Plant Genetic Resources. That is what begins to worry me. If our seeds that were created by nature are stored by various governmental bodies, who has access to these seeds? Recently, my sister, who lives at Kongwak, which is a fairly good farming area, tried to get some seeds from a State government organisation in Victoria-the Department of Conservation, Forests and Lands. They were seeds for native trees and plants. However, when she rang there, she found that the seeds were not available. They could not be sold to her because they were out of stock. I rang recently and asked why they were out of stock. I was told that it was because there had been some changes within the State government department and it was temporarily not collecting seed or distributing it. It did not have any for any State government departments in Victoria which may want to seed some trees anywhere in Victoria. It just did not have the seed. Will these State instrumentalities run out in the future and not have any seed? Will it be available to people such as me? These are the sorts of worries that I have. I would like to give a perfect example of plant variety rights already practised here in Australia. I am talking about the humble cabbage. I am a bit of an amateur gardener. I went to my local seed store to buy some cabbage seeds. I have here six packets of different cabbage seeds. Mr Hawker —Do you want to table them? Mr CHYNOWETH —I cannot table them. Only one of them is not a hybrid seed. Hybrid means that the seeds cannot be kept; that is, if I grow these cabbages in my back yard and I want to keep the seeds to be able to grow these particular cabbages again, that will not work, because they will not grow again. What this means is that every year I have to buy new seeds. After a while, there will not be any original seed stock left in Australia; there will be only hybrid seeds or seeds held under PVR. What will happen in 20 years time when, say the Liberal Party of Australia of the National Party of Australia gets into power and there is some sort of depression and I want to grow my own food? I will have to buy the seed every year. I will not be able to collect the seed and keep it until the next year because the seed will not work. Those are the problems that come with PVR. I have noted that some National Party members are speaking in this debate. They should be speaking in this debate because they should be very concerned about what will happen to their farmers. I am not talking about the immediate future; I am talking about the long term future. What will happen in 20 years time if, say, there is one type of wheat seed which has proved to be better than all the others in the world? Let us say that it gives a better crop, a better head, and that one gets so many more bags per acre from this seed. Let us say that the only way one can grow this seed is to have a particular type of chemical. This happens now with many crops where one has to have certain chemicals to make them grow. Let us say that all of these chemicals are controlled by big multinational companies. The Shell company has moved into the agricultural business in a big way in developing seeds. What if it controlled this particular type of seed and this particular type of chemical? It could hold countries to ransom. Food is a most important thing. We would not be here without it. We would not be here without the efforts of our farmers who grow it. In many years time we may not be able to exist without a particular type of seed and chemical fertiliser. Let us say, once again, that the whole of the Mallee had been planted with this type of wheat and that for some unknown reason some pest or virus had attacked and wiped out the whole crop. Where would the diversity of seed come from to make certain that this did not happen? Would everybody have access to it? As I have already illustrated, even today, through one government body, the average person does not have access to a particular native tree seed. What will happen in 20 years time? This is the problem that I am concerned about. The Plant Variety Rights Bill contains a clause which provides for a limited life or a limited amount of time for the patents. But we will not be around in the distant future. This Bill has far-reaching consequences. It should be looked at very closely. We should make certain that seed stock is kept not just by government agencies but also by private agencies. I am pleased to know that there is one in Tasmania which has been acting very responsibly by building up seed stock and making it available to people throughout Australia. I have put some arguments against this Bill. The arguments for it are that it will give some people, who have put a lot of work into developing new seeds and new strains of plants and fruit, some sort of protection. But we should look closely at this Bill. Perhaps there should even be a sunset clause in the whole Bill so that in 20 or 30 years time we can look at it and, if it is not working correctly, take steps to correct it. I hope there is a large seed stock that can be distributed freely throughout the country and we will not have to rely on one particular company or its products to enable us to survive. Our Government has decided that we will put this legislation through. It has been on the books for a long time; I know that. In 1986 the European Parliament passed a strong resolution of concern regarding transnational concentration in the European seed trade, of which they have had experience for some years, the elimination of small scale producers and the serious loss of local plant varieties. Many years ago I read a science fiction novel called The Death of Grass. It showed what could happen if some disease wiped out all our grass and the problems it would cause. One has only to think of that sort of thing happening to a particular strain of wheat, rice or barely to realise how it could affect many people throughout the world. Mr DRUMMOND(Forrest)(5.50) —I think the honourable member for Dunkley (Mr Chynoweth) shows unnecessary concern about the Plant Variety Rights Bill. He is concerned about hybrids, multinational fertiliser companies et cetera. The Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Kerin) went to great lengths in his second reading speech to allay those concerns, and I suggest that world experience has not indicated that those sorts of concerns should be of paramount importance. The Opposition is delighted that the Government has finally seen the need for plant variety rights legislation in Australia. The Bill is substantially similar to the Plant Variety Rights Bill of 1981, which was tabled by the then Minister for Primary Industry, Peter Nixon. The legislation we are discussing today has some slight though not substantial changes to the previous Bill. That we did not have this legislation in place in the early 1970s showed a lack of foresight by government, but it is quite another matter that this legislation was ready to go when the Hawke Government came to power and it has been delayed for over 3 1/2 years. It has been critical for Australian agricultural industries to have this legislation for over 15 years, and I cannot help believing that we have caused a permanent stunting of the development of our agricultural export industries because of this lack of care by successive governments. In fact, the delay of this legislation is an example of how pseudo-intellectuals of the greeny-type can confuse the arguments, and deny legislation which would benefit everyone in Australia. It is about vocal minorities, which have had no commercial interest in an industry, holding sway. The Minister in his second reading speech was obviously very sensitive to these groups, who are only experts on the red herring and the white elephant. Obviously he has been listening to the honourable member for Dunkley. Mr Milton —Other members, too. Mr DRUMMOND —Others too? Will we have a division on the Bill? So sensitive in fact was the Minister to these groups that he delayed the legislation for 3 1/2 years, having waited through all the debate and reporting from various groups that occurred. It would have been a difficult time to ignore the pleas from the industry. During August and September last year I received over 65 different letters from horticulturalists, farmers, plant breeders, dairymen, crop growers and home gardeners requesting my support to have this legislation introduced. We had a private members Bill introduced in the Senate on PVR by Senator Robert Hill. Nothing seemed to move the Government, until now, from its concentration on taxation reform-a deep regret which by now is shared by all Australians. It is against this background that I would like to mention a few industries within my electorate. The wine industry in particular will benefit from access to varieties and genetic material from Europe and the United States of America. Some overseas programs have evolved disease resistant grape vine hybrids, which significantly reduce the need for chemical sprays. Australia up until now has relied upon the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation breeding station at Merbein, the State agricultural departments and the work undertaken by private wine companies. Even so these programs simply cannot compete with overseas vine breeding programs, some of which have been in operation for over 100 years. Through reciprocal agreements allowed under PVR legislation this breeding stock will now become available in Australia. But this is little consolation at a time when the Australian wine industry has been forced into crisis by capricious acts of this Government-acts of pure irresponsibility such as lifting the customs duty on imported wines by 10 per cent, and in the same year introducing a wine sales tax of 10 per cent. The Government was lucky that the devaluation coincided with this decision to lift the customs duty, otherwise our producers would have been in a bigger mess. Despite the downturn this caused our wine industry, the Government imposed a further 10 per cent sales tax this year, totally against the advice of the McKay report on the grape and wine industry. It introduced a $2.61 per litre excise on alcohol used for fortification of wine, and then found that it had to be withdrawn before it precipitated a collapse in the industry, and unsettled the whole industry by trying to limit the amount of off-farm income which could be used as a write-off against farm losses. Everyone knows that wine producers have had negative incomes in four out of the last five years. All these items are over and above the problems this Government has saddled all rural producers with, such as record interest rates, between double and treble those of our major trading partners; rises in fuel costs when the price of oil has fallen on world markets; the accord, mark 1 and 2, with its nonsensical wage indexation, and massive on costs in employing staff; and a tax reform package which had nothing to do with reform as it was all about increased taxation to the tune of $26.7 billion in just four Budgets. I hope this places the PVR legislation back into perspective. It is important, but the Government must not stop here, with just one good turn to an industry to make up for the litany of bad turns. If we do not have a healthy and viable domestic wine industry, grape growers will simply not be able to afford the new breeding stock which will now become available. Unless each grower can see a future for his product down the track, the price of investment-the Government must understand that many grape varieties take five to 10 years to reach a decent yield-will simply be far too high. Australia has many areas which are better climatically than Europe for growing grapes. Australia should represent strong competition in the world wine markets. Yet our growers have been denied some excellent varieties used in making full-flavoured white table wine and there certainly has been increased demand for these wines. In the past 10 years wine imports into Australia have virtually doubled. In 1975-76 we imported 6,925 kilolitres, in 1985-86 that increased to 12,794 kilolitres. On the export side, in 1975-76 we exported 6,132 kilolitres and in 1985-86 that had increased only to 10,828 kilolitres. Something is seriously wrong, and that problem must be addressed by increased wine exports. To this end, certain improvements must be made to the export market development grants scheme. PVR legislation is one less impediment the wine industry will now face in setting the stage for Australia to return to the days of being a net wine exporter. Western Australian table grape growers will benefit significantly from access to European varieties, and I believe we shall see the commencement of a plant breeding industry with significant export potential in Western Australia now that they will be guaranteed reward and protection for their efforts. The apple and pear industry will also benefit from PVR. Western Australia leads the States in apple export and my electorate leads the State by producing 72.4 per cent of the State's total product. Last year exports amounted to 558,320 boxes, and by far the majority went to South East Asian markets. Maintaining and developing these markets depends on maintaining our edge on price, quality of product, visual appeal and consistency. It is not just a matter of staying with varieties such as granny smith, delicious and jonathans and hoping all other varieties will go away. The concern is that new varieties, such as the United States of America bred prime gold, redchief or the oregan red sour, have gained strong acceptance on world markets, while Australian growers have been denied stock, simply because countries are unwilling to provide patented stock to Australia where there is no mechanism by which the material is afforded protection or royalties returned to the owner. In the past private and public breeding organisations have simply been denied stock, although I believe in the absence of PVR legislation there have been a number of signed agreements between Australian purchasers and overseas breeders allowing for royalty payments to be made, while the purchaser has agreed not to repropagate the material. However this is no substitute for PVR legislation. This legislation will now give all parties who have agreed to the International Convention for the Protection of New Varieties of Plants confidence to deal with Australia. This current legislation is fairly precise and protective of the rights of all Australians regarding access to patented varieties of plants. It also protects the existing range of stock being patented. In case anyone is listening to the debate and cannot wait to lodge an application for his unique variety of garden rose or strange looking shrub that may be in the garden he may be disappointed. Under this Bill the powers of the Parliament derive from paragraph 51 (xviii) of the Constitution which authorises laws, among other things, in respect of patents of inventions. A new variety amounts to an invention only if it is purposely bred. Rights will not be granted for simple discoveries where there is no element of invention. My reading of the Bill is that genuine native flora or chance seedlings would therefore not be patentable. The third industry I would like also to make reference to is citrus fruits, which is facing its worst crisis in 10 years. The main problem is from Brazilian competition on the Australian market, and it will mean that citrus grower incomes from the processing sector will be reduced by 50 per cent or around $25m this season. One contributory factor is that there is a certain market preference for the low priced Brazilian orange juice concentrate which also has a lower sugar; acid ratio 14:1 and 17:1 than the Australian orange juice concentrate, which is 12:1 and 14:1. Further government legislation will exacerbate the problem. Mr Kemp said the citrus industry had experienced increased government activity over the past year, with the soon to be introduced model food standards regulation for orange juice, which amongst other things states that not more than 1.5 per cent sugar may be added without declaring it on the label; this was previously 4 per cent. This means that our juices, with lower sugar acid ratios of about 12:1 to 14:1, are at a disadvantage to imported juices which may be up to about 20:1 ratio but which normally are about 16.1. The converters require a juice of 15:1 sugar; acid ratio. Previously up to 4 per cent sugar could be added to bring most of our juices up to the required level, but now high ratio imported juice must be added to achieve this, so reducing local content in juices. He said the recent legislation governing marketing boards and the introduction of new export and domestic market fresh fruit standards had all increased the work load of the industry and must be carefully considered to ensure it is beneficial to our industry. To my knowledge, it is the variety and, to a lesser degree, the horticultural practices which determine the sugar: acid ratio, and these factors are within the control of the industry. The crisis over the Brazilian imports has meant that growers are realising that the fresh fruit market will once again become the main income earner, with the juicing sector using the second grade fruit. Again PVR is only one item among many issues which the industry would like the Government to resolve, such as the entry of products in overseas markets, food irradiation rationalising complex legislation and the streamlining of procedures relating to the importation of nursery stock material which has helped to retard the dynamism of the citrus industry in the past. Without doubt the immediate benefits of PVR will be seen in the whole range of fruit such as cherries, avocados, peaches, apricots, strawberries, nuts, gooseberries, the berry fruits, nectarines, plums and prunes. It will enable many of our growers to pick up on the specialised fruit export markets which have not developed as aggressively as some of our export competitors. I am very pleased to support the legislation. Ms JAKOBSEN(Cowan)(6.06) —The Plant Variety Rights Bill provides for the granting of proprietary rights to persons originating new plant varieties, and for other purposes. In other words, it will allow a plant breeder to own a plant variety which has been created by selective breeding and to control its distribution, propagation, export and import for up to 20 years. I rise to speak on this Bill with reluctance and some regret. Indeed, it is my personal, preferred position that such legislation not be introduced at this time because I believe that many questions relating to plant variety rights remain unanswered. I say this despite the findings of the 1984 report of the Senate Standing Committee on National Resources plant variety rights inquiry and the more recent report of the Lazenby inquiry into Australia's plant breeding needs. I also recognise that my position on this legislation runs counter to the recommendations of the Industries Assistance Commission following inquiries into rural research in 1976, the apple and pear industries in 1985, and the vegetable and vegetable product industries in 1986. Furthermore, I am mindful of the fact that the prospect of plant variety rights legislation was raised at the national conference of the Australian Labor Party in Tasmania earlier this year, and I appreciate the Government's objective of stimulating plant breeding in Australia. However, I am also aware that a large group of people in the community share my concerns on this issue. Contrary to the claims of the honourable member for Forrest (Mr Drummond), it is not a small minority. These people genuinely believe that plant variety rights will have a detrimental effect on seed stocks and varieties world wide to the point at which the future of humanity may be under threat. People opposed to plant variety rights on these grounds come from all walks of life and represent a significant range of interest groups, including the religious, environmental and consumer communities. Like some others on this side of the House, I have been studying the possible impact of PVR for a number of years. My misgivings arise from a long-standing concern over matters involving genetic engineering. They include a genuine fear that the worst effects of plant variety rights will be felt in the countries of the underdeveloped and/or developing world which are already inextricably dependent on the developed world for so much of their food and seed requirements. If people in Australia have concerns about new technologies, such as in vitro fertilisation and other new reproductive technologies, because they may be deemed to be forms of genetic engineering, how much more concerned would these same people be if they recognised the possible effects of plant variety rights? The people who have approached me regarding this Bill have expressed a definite and dedicated opposition to the concept of patenting life forms. Furthermore, they believe that PVR will reduce genetic diversity and variability while enabling corporate plant breeders to gain monopoly rights over germ plasm, seeds and plants. I am inclined to agree with them. In connection with the many expressed misgivings about this legislation, I would like to draw the attention of the House to a report which was endorsed by the European Parliament on 20 February 1986 and which specifically refers to the adverse consequences of multinational control of the seed industry. In passing, I note that the honourable member for Dunkley (Mr Chynoweth) also referred to this report briefly. It is extremely pertinent to the debate on this Bill because most European countries have had plant variety rights-type legislation for more than 20 years. In the context of that experience the criticisms voiced by the European Parliament are even more alarming. They relate to the dramatic narrowing in the availability of plant genetic diversity, both species and varieties, which has led to more pesticide use and, accordingly, more pollution. It has also led to loss of plant breeding material, higher farm costs, fewer farmers, less consumer choice and a lower quality food. The report implicitly acknowledges that plant breeders' rights have played a contributory role to these deleterious structural trends by specifically calling on those member states that have plant breeders' rights to ensure that `obstacles to the development of new varieties are removed' and that `information concerning new discoveries is circulated'. It further demands that germ plasm of all varieties of plant not be regarded and treated as private property. It calls on the member states to adopt the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organisation international undertaking on plant genetic resources. The report goes on to highlight the fact that plant patenting is significantly increasing the plight of the starving and malnourished in developing countries. European member nations have been requested to provide the following information by 1 January 1987: Statistics on the extent and effects of genetic erosion over the last three decades; analysis of the reasons for the drop in the number of plant varieties and species; suggestions on how member states and institutions could exert a positive influence in the matter of genetic diversity in the Third World countries; proposals for indirect economic measures to reduce genetic erosion; and, finally, emergency measures to safeguard genetic diversity. It disturbs me that the Lazenby inquiry did not appear to have considered the report of the European Parliament on PVR. Australia should be heeding the experience of countries which have a negative view on plant variety rights, as well as those that have a positive view, especially on a matter with the complexity of imponderables that plant variety rights has. While I understand that there are primary producers who claim that this legislation is required to enable access to overseas seed sources and to new improved high yield plant varieties, I believe that they are seriously mistaken. My information leads me to believe that they are seriously mistaken. My information leads me to believe that there is currently no barrier to obtaining patented seed varieties from overseas for use in Australia. On the contrary, people have ordered patented material from seed catalogues and they have arrived in this country without any difficulty whatsoever bar our own protection mechanisms, which honourable members opposite, I am sure, would all support. I refer to the Australian Customs Service. Mr Drummond —They would all be hybrids, wouldn't they? Ms JAKOBSEN —They may be hybrids, but I am not sure that that will change. There is another reason why plant variety rights cause me concern, that is, its basic restriction on information. The scientific community has always maintained a protocol of information sharing for the benefit of human kind. How does plant variety rights with its obvious consequences of hoarding and secrecy fit into this protocol? Suffice it to say that plant variety rights makes exclusively held plant breeding material extremely valuable. Like my colleague the honourable member for Dunkley and, obviously the honourable member for Forrest, I have a continuing concern with the proliferation of mule or hybrid varieties of plants. While I am pleased that the Bill provides some protection for farmers and home gardeners by allowing them to retain seed from purchased PVR varieties for their own use, this provision cannot apply to hybrid plants. Although I know that the Minister has heard these arguments before and has given them consideration prior to introducing this legislation, I do not think they bear repeating today. I thank the Minister for his undertaking to review the effects of this legislation five years hence, at which time the information relating to plant variety rights may be even more categoric. Like the honourable member for Dunkley again, I would prefer that a sunset clause be inserted in this Bill. Finally, I urge the Minister to ensure that the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation continues to experiment in plant productivity and disease resistance in its own right. Ironically, the resultant varieties may themselves need to be patented for protection of their integrity. (Quorum formed) Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker and honourable members. I had better repeat the last piece. I urge the Minister to ensure that the CSIRO continues to experiment in plant productivity and disease resistance in its own right. Ironically, the resultant varieties may themselves need to be patented for protection of their integrity. The distinction between the activities of the CSIRO and the activities of other plant breeders is that profit will not be the motivating force. Rather, I would expect that the CSIRO, as a government funded scientific institution, will have an obligation to the people of Australia, its producers and consumers, and will therefore create only those varieties which have no in-built dependence on fertilisers and pesticides. Should such pressures arise, its duty to resist is clear and unequivocal. No nation can afford to be trapped into a food production cycle which is entirely dependent on such factors for its yield and/or its survival. That road is the road of monopoly and domination, and it is certainly not one down which Australia should be walking. Mr HAWKER(Wannon)(6.19) —Before outlining why we in the Opposition are very keen to support the Plant Variety Rights Bill, I thought I might just take up a couple of points mentioned by the honourable member for Dunkley (Mr Chynoweth) and the honourable member for Cowan (Ms Jakobsen). The honourable member for Dunkley highlighted the problems with hybrids, but I think he makes an assumption that somewhere down the track all seeds will be hybrids, and I would have to suggest to him that, in all practicality, that is very unlikely. If one looks at other aspects of the agricultural scene, one sees that there are many varieties of sheep, cattle, horses and even pigs. In all those genetic areas there are those types or breeds that would be considered inferior in terms of productivity. However, in the eyes of those who are breeding them there is some reason for them to continue with those breeds. The same would be true in areas of horticulture and other crops. In any case, the fear the honourable member expressed of a particular variety dominating the market and dominating our crops is extremely unlikely to occur because of the wide range of climate in Australia. We must also not forget that there are many other types of climate throughout the world and, if one particular variety of plant became susceptible to a new disease, I do not believe it would be catastrophic. I believe that the situation could quite easily be remedied because other varieties would still be available. The honourable member for Cowan made an assumption which is basically wrong. Following on from the comments of the honourable member for Dunkley and my reply, she is assuming that a small amount of genetic material will dominate all the breeding and all the crops in Australia. That is wrong; it will not happen. After all the existing varieties will still be around. Some of those available in Australia have been available for 50 years or more. They will not just disappear. Some people will continue to use them and at present most plant breeding stations in Australia hold stores of older varieties that are no longer in use. Again, the fear that is being put forward is based on a wrong assumption. The honourable member for Cowan is looking at an extreme example which, in reality, is never likely to happen. The honourable member for Cowan also made a couple of extraordinary statements when she said that plant variety rights will lead to fewer farmers. I find it a little difficult to understand how she reached that conclusion. Ms Jakobsen —I did not say that; the European Parliament said that. Mr HAWKER —She said that on the basis of the report of the European Parliament. The point is that plant variety rights will not lead to fewer farmers. There may be other reasons for there being fewer farmers, such as the record of this Government. One only has to look at the level of interest rates, the level of inflation and the lack of competitiveness faced by farmers in Australia when compared with farmers in the rest of the world to see why there might be fewer of them. The honourable member went on to make another extraordinary statement that by patenting plant varieties we would add to the malnutrition in less developed countries. Ms Jakobsen —The European Parliament said that too. Mr HAWKER —The European Parliament has got it wrong. How on earth can the patenting of plant varieties lead to malnutrition? Is the honourable member assuming that countries that have a certain variety will be deprived of that variety? Obviously they will not. They will continue to have those varieties and it is more likely than not that through aid programs they will have access to better varieties. Therefore I would have thought that the opposite would be the case. On this side of the House we strongly support this Bill. I am sure that most honourable members on the Government side will support it also. There are a number of reasons why this measure will be of great benefit to Australia and particularly to Australian farmers. It will certainly boost private plant breeding-it is the shot in the arm that we have been looking for for a long time. It will also open up export opportunities which do not exist at present and this will be of particular benefit because Australia happens to be located in the Southern Hemisphere. I will come to that matter again in a moment. It will also give Australian farmers access to new varieties that are presently available overseas, to our competitors. That is something we tend to forget. Our competitors are going ahead, using better varieties, getting better and cheaper production and this is making it more difficult for Australian farmers. Of course Australian consumers will also benefit. With a greater range of plants there will be a great opportunity to get better quality food and probably cheaper food as well. In this way plant variety rights will benefit all consumers. So, overall plant variety rights will be of considerable benefit to Australians and particularly to Australian farmers. The matter of plant variety rights or the right to patent new varieties of plants has been on the political agenda in Australia for 15 years. It was first raised at the Commonwealth Plant Breeding Conference in Perth in 1971. PVR was recommended by the Industries Assistance Commission in 1976-so 10 years ago the IAC recommended that Australia should introduce PVR. We have not exactly rushed into this. In fact, the Australian Agricultural Council endorsed PVR as long ago as 1977, so even that august body got moving. In fact, the first Bill was introduced into the Parliament late in 1979. It was later redrafted and reintroduced into the House of Representatives by the previous Government in 1981. So there has been a lot of time and opportunity for the debate on PVR to proceed and there is no doubt that through this process of distillation the Bill before us today must have had the longest gestation period we have seen for some time. When the then Minister for Primary Industry introduced the Bill he let it lie on the table and in 1982 he introduced some amendments. It was most unfortunate and most untimely that the previous Government lost power before that Bill could be passed. In the light of these efforts I found it a bit galling that the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Kerin) said in his second reading speech: Research and development in the private sector have been of particular concern to this Government. If this has been a matter of such concern to the Government why has it taken the Minister 3 1/2 years to reintroduce a Bill that was already in the Parliament when the Government was elected? Despite this, the Government proceeded to refer the matter to a Senate select committee. Following that, Senator Hill's Bill was introduced last year and I would have thought that the Government could have been big enough to proceed with that measure. Nonetheless we had yet another report-after having reports from the IAC and the Senate select committee-and this time it was made by Professor Lazenby. Again, this report fully recommended that Australia should introduce plant variety rights. Now at long last, after all this time, we are seeing the introduction of plant variety rights into Australia. It is interesting to note that every one of these inquiries supported the introduction of plant variety rights. Honourable members opposite, who seem to have some doubts about the whole idea, should look closely at those reports because it is not often that one finds such a string of reports all supporting the same thing. To give honourable members an idea of some of the things that were said, I quote the report of the IAC inquiry into apples and pears in 1985, which also endorsed PVR: . . . the absence of PVR for the Australian apple and pear industries has been a significant factor in denying growers access to those varieties of fruit . . . which are better yielding, more disease resistant and in greater demand in world markets. Australian growers have been, and remain, disadvantaged as a result. That makes the point very clearly. I also quote from the McKay report on the grape and wine industries: Australia is missing out on productivity and efficiency gains, quality gains and disease resistance. It is very significant that in both cases disease resistance should be mentioned. Some honourable members opposite are rather concerned about the increased use of chemicals in farming nowadays. Here is evidence to show that plant variety rights will in fact facilitate the use of fewer chemicals in farming and I would have thought that all honourable members would welcome that. Professor Lazenby said in his most recent report, entitled `Australia's Plant Breeding Needs': Overall therefore, the evidence leaves me in no doubt that the total resources presently invested in plant breeding in Australia are insufficient to enable rapid and effective improvement of our agricultural and horticultural plants. I seek leave to continue my speech later. Leave granted; debate adjourned. Sitting suspended from 6.30 to 8 p.m. Mr BEDDALL(Rankin) —On behalf of the Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs and Defence, I present the report of the Committee entitled `Australia and the Philippines: The situation in the Philippines and its implications for Australia', together with extracts from the minutes of proceedings and transcripts of evidence, and I seek leave of the House to make a short statement in connection with the report. Leave granted. Mr BEDDALL —At the outset of my remarks I would like to pass on my best wishes to the Chairman of the Sub-committee on the Philippines, the honourable member for Kingston (Mr Bilney), who unfortunately cannot be with us this evening because of an accident. I know I speak on behalf of all members of the House when I wish him a speedy recovery. We will greatly miss his wit and the contribution that he makes. The report entitled `Australia and the Philippines' of the Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs and Defence presents a timely and valuable contribution to Australia-Philippines bilateral relations by the Australian Parliament. The decision to conduct such an inquiry was based on several considerations, including the Philippines location in a region of primary strategic, political and economic interest to Australia, its membership of the Association of South East Asian Nations and alliances with the United States of America. A further consideration was the growing public concern in Australia about Australia's policies towards the Philippines in general and the Marcos regime in particular. Soon after the Committee commenced its program of public hearings in February 1986, the political landscape in the Philippines changed dramatically. After being declared winner of the presidential elections held on 7 February, Marcos's position was rapidly eroded by widespread reports of vote buying, multiple voting, mass disenfranchisement and other forms of fraud. The election was condemned both in the Philippines and the international community. I would note here that Senator Hill, the Deputy Chairman of the Sub-committee, participated as an international observer at those elections. In an extraordinary sequence of events, Defence Minister Enrile and General Ramos announced that they had broken with Marcos and would no longer accept his authority as President. This defection quickly attracted the support of the armed forces. Simultaneously, the church and opposition groups acted swiftly to mobilise `people power' in the streets of Manila to support the cause of the rebels. Within a few days Marcos left for exile in the United States once it was clear that he had lost control of the armed forces and that the United States Administration would no longer support his presidency. That same day, Corazon Aquino was sworn in as President and established a new government. I now turn to the major findings of the report. The Aquino Government-Challenges and Prospects The prospects facing the Aquino Government are daunting in their number, scale and complexity. After 20 years in office, Marcos left the Philippines a legacy of decay and corrupt political institutions, an economy in crisis, an active communist insurgency and a society marked by sharp inequalities and widespread poverty. Despite these problems, the Aquino Government has moved quickly to begin the task of rebuilding the political system and restoring individual freedom and respect for human rights. There have been some major political developments since the Committee concluded its inquiry in September. Regrettably, political instability has persisted. Serious differences between Defence Minister Enrile and other members of the Cabinet, which were explored in detail in the report, have intensified in the last two months. The handling of the communist insurgency remains the major bone of contention between Enrile and other Ministers. The draft constitution to be presented to the people in a plebiscite in early February is also emerging as a source of instability and friction within the Aquino Government. The murder in recent days of a prominent left wing political and trade union leader, Rolando Olalia, and the kidnapping of a senior Japanese executive provide further evidence of the difficulties which now exist. Even within the last 48 hours, the assassination of David Puzon, a confidant of Enrile, has further inflamed this situation. Despite the current instability, it should not be concluded that the Aquino Government is about to fall. What is more likely to happen is a continuation of the present circumstances, in which personal ambitions and policy differences are being fought out within the Aquino Government. Despite persistent rumours, a military takeover does not appear likely in the short term. As noted in the Committee's report, President Aquino enjoys the support of the Reagan Administration and the US Congress. Anyone contemplating the illegal seizure of power would have to take account of strong US disapproval and probably withdrawal of US economic and military aid. We should also bear in mind that there is a very broad constituency supporting the Government's emphasis on national reconciliation and moderate reform. If Aquino can hold together the broad middle ground, there is a fair prospect that her Government will lay the foundations for political stability and economic recovery in the Philippines. The Economy President Aquino's government is facing severe economic problems after three years of contraction in the economy as a result of mismanagement by the Marcos Government and the drop in world commodity prices. The most pressing needs are to reschedule foreign debt, to improve economic policy formulation, to revive business and investor confidence and to alleviate poverty throughout the country. The Committee's report concluded that even with sound economic management, economic recovery would be slow and difficult. Recent developments confirm this unfortunate outlook with the economy contracting by about 2.2 per cent in the first half of 1986. The persistence of political instability is a major reason for the reluctance of domestic and foreign business to invest in the Philippines. The Communist Insurgency One of the most serious challenges to the Aquino Government is the communist insurgency. The Committee's report concluded that the communist insurgency, which remains at a high level, would continue to burden the Aquino Government at a time when its energies and resources are already stretched to meet political and economic problems. Regrettably, recent developments appear to bear out that pessimistic assessment. The Committee's report concluded that a lasting nationwide ceasefire was not likely. Though negotiations between representatives of the Government and the insurgency have continued, the chances for success look very remote indeed. The recent murder of Rolando Olalia, the prominent political leader, will set back even further the prospects of a lasting ceasefire. Australian Policy The Committee's report strongly endorses the Australian Government's decision to extend political support and to increase development assistance to the Aquino Government. The emergence this year by peaceful means of a new Philippines government, committed to democracy and reform, was a better outcome than was widely expected in the closing stages of the Marcos regime. The Aquino Government deserved support and assistance in February this year. It continues to deserve that support and assistance now. Defence Co-operation Program Australia's defence relations with the Philippines have been the subject of controversy within the Australian community mainly because such relations have been perceived as providing support and assistance to the previous Marcos regime, and because of concern that they associated Australia with human rights abuses. The nature and extent of the defence co-operation program is not always clearly understood. No weapons or armaments are provided under the DCP. Funding for the program has remained at the very modest level of about $1.5m since 1979-80. The major element of the DCP in recent years has been training in Australia of personnel from the Armed Forces of the Philippines. The Committee does not consider that training of Armed Forces of the Philippines personnel in Australia contributes to human rights abuses in the Philippines or that it represented endorsement of the policies and practices of the Marcos Government. The conduct of Armed Forces of the Philippines personnel is a matter for the Philippines to resolve. If Australian training imparts useful skills and knowledge and encourages a professional and disciplined approach, it will have served a worthy purpose. I point out that Amnesty International told the Committee that it was unaware of any individual of the Armed Forces of the Philippines who trained in Australia and later became implicated in human rights abuses. The Committee believes that training in Australia of Armed Forces of the Philippines personnel may serve to instil in the recipients values that tend to discourage human rights abuses. The Committee believes that the time to make the Armed Forces of the Philippines more proficient and professional is now, and Australia's DCP can make a modest but useful contribution to this process. The Committee recommends that the Australian Government consult with the Government of the Philippines on the most appropriate form and orientation of the defence co-operation program, and give careful consideration to any proposals from the Philippines Government for reorientation of the DCP including any relating to human rights issues, such as the provision of special training courses. Development Assistance Although there was no disputing that the Philippines was a deserving recipient of aid, the forms and effectiveness of its delivery by Australia were questioned in many submissions received by the Committee. The Samar and Zamboanga projects have been criticised for an excessive emphasis on infrastructure on the basis that roads and bridges are of limited value to the poorest groups in the community and may also benefit the military. The Committee considers that this criticism misses the point that sustained economic growth, without which lasting poverty alleviation is unlikely to occur, requires the removal of major obstacles to development, one of which is poor infrastructure in the Philippines. The Committee has concluded, on balance, that large scale integrated development projects, such as those at Zamboanga del Sur and Northern Samar are a suitable vehicle for aid delivery and that these projects in the Philippines have increasingly met their objectives. In its current form, the Samar project represents a well-balanced combination of infrastructure and agriculture components with an appropriate emphasis on fostering community organisations and local decision making. The Committee is keen to see the benefits of this project sustained and improved. The Committee understands the Australian Government's decision to withdraw Australian personnel from Samar in 1985 on security grounds. It would be a pity, however, if project implementation were to lose momentum now. For this reason the Committee recommends that the Australian Government, in consultation with the Philippines Government, should arrange the return of Australian personnel to Northern Samar as soon as security conditions allow. Earlier this year, shortly after the Australian Government announced an increase in development assistance to the Philippines, the Australian Development Assistance Bureau outlined a series of proposals on how best to structure and implement an expanded aid program. The Committee agrees in general with ADAB's proposals and considers that they offer an imaginative and constructive approach to the problems confronting the Philippines. The Committee commends the proposed sectoral inputs program as an appropriate response to the Philippines' pressing budgetary and balance of payments difficulties. This proposal will require careful design to ensure that Australian exports to the Philippines will not be adversely affected. The Committee commends also the proposal for an Australian community assistance program which focuses on the pressing need to create jobs and generate income in rural areas, and which recognises the important and effective role which Philippines non-government organisations, and the Catholic Church can play in pursuing these objectives. This scheme should go some way towards addressing the criticism, raised by Australian non-government organisations, that Australian aid to the Philippines is inadequately focused on community needs and is excessively implemented through bilateral rather than community channels. Economic Relations Although Australia and the Philippines are not major trading partners, economic relations are an important aspect of the bilateral relationship. Domestic economic circumstances in both countries, and the state of the international economic environment, do not favour a rapid or substantial increase in bilateral trade or investment. The Committee believes, nonetheless, that several opportunities exist for an increase in Australian trade with the Philippines particularly in the sale of agricultural and mining equipment and technology. The Committee heard claims from a number of witnesses concerning the alleged abuses of Filipino workers by Australian companies operating in the Philippines. The Aquino Government has announced its intention drastically to overhaul industrial practices and improve labour conditions in the Philippines which currently leave much to be desired. Evidence submitted to the Committee would not appear to support claims of repeated abuses by Australian companies of Filipino workers. The Committee does not consider that the establishment of a code of conduct for Australian companies in the Philippines would be a useful or effective measure. Australian companies operating in the Philippines are subject to the laws of that land and it is ultimately the responsibility of the Philippines Government to enforce those laws. Social Concerns During the course of the inquiry the Committee also encountered a level of concern with the community about issues affecting Filipino women. These included the problems faced by Filipino brides in Australia, the organisation of so-called sex tours to the Philippines and prostitution. Whilst these matters go beyond the scope of this inquiry, the Committee believes that they require further investigation, particularly by the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (Mr Hurford). Conclusion Before concluding my remarks, I would like to express my appreciation to all who assisted with this inquiry. I would like to thank all members of the Sub-Committee who attended the series of meetings and public hearings and all organisations and individuals who placed submissions before the inquiry and assisted the Sub-Committee with its work. I thank the Hansard staff for their assistance during the formal proceedings. I would also like to thank Mr Peter Stephens, Secretary to the Sub-Committee; Mr Marcel Dimo, foreign affairs adviser; Ms Kelly Edwards who was responsible for typing of the report; and Ms Margaret Ray and Mr Jack Cassells for their valuable assistance with this inquiry. Mr PEACOCK(Kooyong) —by leave-I thank the honourable member for Rankin (Mr Beddall) for his presentation of this report tonight. He will understand when I say-indeed his words pointed to the same sort of view that I am about to express-that members of the Opposition regret that, through his injury, the honourable member for Kingston (Mr Bilney), in his capacity as Chairman of the Sub-Committee of the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and Defence, could not present the report to the Parliament. He did an outstanding job as Chairman, bringing to bear his background as a diplomat and a former officer of the Department of Foreign Affairs. But I congratulate the honourable member for Rankin on his presentation and introduction of the report tonight. My remarks will be more limited than those of the honourable member for Rankin. The tabling of the report on the Philippines is a timely reminder to us all of how swiftly political tides can change and of the volatility of international relations. This inquiry was born out of concern at the direction of Australian policy towards the Marcos regime and the growing instability in the Philippines resulting from the authoritarian nature of his regime and his refusal to implement meaningful reforms. Within months of the start of the inquiry, the political complexion had changed dramatically and the report was written with Cory Aquino as President of the Philippines. Now, nine months on, we table our findings during a period of renewed tension and uncertainty within the Philippines and concerns regarding the durability of the Aquino Government. As the polarisation within President Aquino's Administration becomes greater her immediate problem is to hold her Government together. The dangers at the moment are only too apparent. While the political wrangling and instability persists the Government will be increasingly distracted from the difficult tasks it has before it. In any revolution, particularly that which overthrows a stale, corrupt regime, there is a strong temptation to believe that the very act of overthrowing the regime is, in itself, the answer to all problems. Clearly, it is a major prerequisite and catalyst to change but the problems that still confront the Philippines cannot be minimised. Members of the Committee will know that, throughout this year, I have been perhaps a little more pessimistic as to the future and stability of the Aquino Government than many other members. I respect their views, but one has been issuing warnings about the instability that one has perceived, quite apart from the structural problems of the economy in the Philippines itself. That instability is very evident and before one and all who follow international affairs at present. That is not said in any way to put down the regime. I wish President Aquino well. She represents the will and the desire of the people and she deserves to continue in office. It is not for us to determine who should rule in given nations-that is a determinant that can only be indicated by those who reside and have jurisdiction or citizenship within a given country. I trust that matters there will settle. However, the Marcos legacy for the Aquino Administration is a formidable array of challenges, daunting in their number, scale and complexity. We believe the major priorities of the Government in the Philippines must now be to restore a stable political order, to regenerate the economy, to alleviate poverty and to deal with the threat of the communist insurgency. The political twists and turns now going on in Manila have the potential, of course, to benefit only one interest group in the Philippines, namely, the communist insurgency. In recent years the insurgency has grown to alarming proportions and has deeply penetrated Philippine society. Philippine Government estimates place the number of insurgents at around 23,000. The New People's Army is active in at least 59 of the nation's 73 provinces. The number of its armed regulars and irregulars is increasing. Its supply of weapons is growing and it is provoking more frequent and more violent incidents. In recent weeks it appears that the New People's Army has established itself in Manila. The NPA may well include within its support base disaffected individuals driven by poverty or unemployment and disillusioned by the corrupt political and judicial system under Marcos or by the poor discipline and related human rights abuses on the part of the armed forces. It is these very people the Government of President Aquino is attempting to woo away from the insurgency through negotiations, and economic and political reform. But we ought not be deluded, indeed we must not be deluded, about the leaders of the NPA, about its hardcore supporters, its philosophy, and its ultimate aim. Its members are not agrarian reformers. The Robin Hood image which is often argued by their sympathisers in Australia is far from the truth. They are ruthless and they are opportunistic. The recent establishment of extreme left wing political parties in the Philippines by members of the Communist Party is nothing more than a cynical abuse of the democratic process. Their professed allegiance to the Aquino Government is very hollow indeed. We have seen these people peddling their vision for the Philippines in Australia, in recent months-courtesy dare I say-of the Australian trade union movement. They do no represent democracy, they do not represent freedom any more than their comrades in Vietnam and Nicaragua. The emergence of a communist regime in the Philippines would have profound consequences for the region. It would be a major setback to Western interests, a major setback for Australia, and it would create significant instability in South East Asia, particularly among other members of the Association of South East Asian Nations. I turn briefly to these strategic concerns. A regime hostile to Western interests in such a strategic location would allow the Soviet Union unprecedented influence in the Pacific Basin. In my view the Philippines is a country of substantial strategic influence to our nation. For this reason, Australia cannot afford to remain indifferent to strategic developments in and around the Philippines. Without dwelling on the point, its strategic importance is derived from its alliance with the United States and is most evident when considering the role of the United States military facilities at Subic Bay naval base and Clark air force base. Clark air base is the major American tactical installation in the Western Pacific along with others in Japan and Korea. Subic Bay provides logistics support for naval operations throughout the Western Pacific and Indian oceans. The bases also contribute to the security of sea and air routes connecting the Indian and Pacific oceans and would play a major role in facilitating a United States response to a crisis in the Persian Gulf. Japan and South Korea, two of our major trading partners, rely on secure sea lanes for the supply of energy and raw materials for their industry as well as for United States strategic support. These facilities play a fundamentally important role in maintaining the predominance of current United States military influence in the Western Pacific. Without their facilities at Clark and Subic, even allowing for the possible development of alternative facilities elsewhere, the United States would find it considerably more difficult to sustain operations in those areas of greatest strategic significance to Australia. It would be hard-pressed to keep open vital lines of communication including sea and air routes, and to operate effectively in the Pacific and Indian oceans. In a time of conflict the objectives of United States naval and air forces would be to deter and to suppress the activities of Soviet aircraft and submarines and to be able to cut the Soviet supply lines to their bases in Vietnam from Siberia and the Indian Ocean. This would effectively neutralise the Soviet presence in Cam Ranh Bay. An American presence at Clark Field and Subic Bay, therefore, means that the Soviets cannot count on the long term use of their Vietnamese bases in a time of war. My comments have sought to identify major areas of concern to Australian interests. To be very frank, this is the analysis that I have sought to bring to bear in the few remarks that I make tonight. Of course, as the honourable member for Rankin indicated in his purview of elements of the report, the report is much broader and discusses important aspects of the bilateral relationship between Australia and the Philippines, covering, as he said, development assistance, defence co-operation, economic relations and community issues. I have indicated my pessimism. I trust I am wrong. I trust I am wrong because the Philippines is important not only to us. It is a nation of proud people. It is a country I have visited frequently. It has now been freed from the shackles of a corrupt and brutal regime and I trust that, beyond the February date for the ratification of the Constitution, it will be able to mirror the aspirations of Filipinos. After all, at root in the Philippines must be the interests of its people and that is for them, not for us, to determine. In conclusion, I would like to reiterate my appreciation, as an ex officio member of the Committee, of the work done by the honourable member for Kingston. I join with the honourable member for Rankin in wishing him a speedy recovery. I also thank Senator Robert Hill, who joined a multinational observer team for the Philippines election, at my request, and contributed much to the Committee's deliberations. I also thank the other members and senators of the Sub-Committee who, at times when they may have had many other pressing engagements, gave much of their time and energy to analyse the many submissions that were put to the Committee. That is appreciated greatly by honourable members on this side of the House. I would particularly like to thank all the officials who work for the Committee. I think of Peter Stephens, the Secretary to the Committee, Marcel Dimo, who is here and who is the Committee's foreign affairs adviser, as well as all the other staff who were involved in the preparation of what I believe was, although it was not perceived to be at the very outset of the inquiry, a most timely report. Dr THEOPHANOUS(Calwell)(8.28) —by leave-I also was a member of the Sub-Committee of the Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs and Defence. I also begin by congratulating the Chairman, the honourable member for Kingston (Mr Bilney), for the work he did and I wish him a speedy recovery from his accident. I appreciated many of the comments of the honourable member for Kooyong (Mr Peacock). I hope that there is a bipartisan approach as far as possible to the problems of the Philippines. It is true to say that both sides of this House were very uncomfortable with the Marcos regime, the actions it carried out, and the suppression of the Filipino people. It is true that the Australian Government took a number of actions to try to change things in the Philippines, without appearing to be too interventionist in the internal affairs of that country. Nevertheless, it is more a fortune of history than anything else that we have seen the fall of Marcos. It was a conjunction of events which might not have been predictable. They came together in quick succession. At the time the Sub-Committee was beginning its report, it looked as though Marcos would be there for many years. We are very pleased to see that there have been substantial changes and that the Aquino Administration has taken over. Having said that, I indicate that I take a slightly different approach to the problems of the Aquino Administration from that of the honourable member for Kooyong. In my view the problems of the Administration should be squarely put on the shoulders of Mr Enrile, the Minister for Defence. There is no question that Mr Enrile, who is a suspect individual at the best of times, is the person who has been encouraging dissension within the Government and has created many of the problems facing President Aquino. Mr Enrile attended a rally in support of the previous President, Mr Marcos-and he is a member of the current Administration. I think it showed extraordinary tolerance on the part of the President that she allowed him to remain in the ministry when he went to such a rally and was clearly seen putting his thumb down against the Aquino Administration, an administration of which he is a member. The situation in the Philippines is quite incredible in relation to the role of Mr Enrile as the Defence Minister. As honourable members will remember, this gentleman had a particular role to play in that he was a great friend of Mr Marcos. He was close to Mr Marcos. It was only at the key turning point in events that he turned against Mr Marcos and brought many of the armed forces with him. Nevertheless, he is playing an extremely dangerous and destabilising role in the Philippines. The Government of Mrs Aquino-I remind the honourable member for Kooyong of this-was embarking on a constructive dialogue with the New People's Army and with other forces in the Philippines in an attempt to reach a resolution of the conflict and an accommodation. I believe that resolution and accommodation would have been achieved if it had not been for the destabilising role of Mr Enrile. The brutal assassination of the left wing trade union leader, which has polarised the Philippines and brought the situation to crisis point, has been sheeted home to the supporters of Mr Enrile. One has to ask: What game is Mr Enrile playing? Is it his intention to try to destroy the democratic Aquino Government, or is it his intention to continue a destabilisation campaign because he disagrees with an agreement being reached which would bring peace to that nation and allow for much greater democratic participation in the forthcoming election? This is the issue that needs to be raised and faced. As the honourable member for Kooyong mentioned, many of the problems Marcos created through his oppressive administration, such as the problems of poverty and inequality, remain in the Philippines. Notwithstanding the best will in the world, the Aquino Administration has not been able to transform the situation in economic terms and in terms of social justice. But in the Aquino Administration there are Ministers who are concerned to try to achieve greater social justice and a better deal for the poor of the Philippines. If people like Mr Enrile have their way, the process of increasing democratisation, of moving towards greater social justice, will be stifled. The very things that the honourable member for Kooyong fears might be brought about by the destabilising activities by people like Mr Enrile. I believe that Australia should take a great interest in recent developments in the Philippines and make it perfectly clear that we oppose any attempt to overthrow the Government of Mrs Aquino or to destabilise the situation, especially in favour of someone such as the Defence Minister, Mr Enrile, with his short-sighted approach. Having made that general point, I want to say something about another aspect of the report which is of interest to Australia, and is particularly of interest to me as chairman of the Caucus immigration committee. It concerns relations between Australia and the Philippines especially in the context of Filipino brides. We received a lot of evidence on this issue, and there are many myths created about this matter. In particular, the myth has been created that in every case Filipino brides come to Australia under false pretences and are very unhappy. That is not a correct representation of the facts. There are problems; we recognise that. But we do not believe that these problems have led to disasters or catastrophes as so many people have suggested. On the contrary, many of the marriages between Australians and Filipinos have been highly successful and happy. It is a mistake to label the whole Filipino bride phenomenon as wrong and a mistake when in fact in many cases it is working out. That does not mean there are not some individual cases where there are problems, and there are actions we can take as a government to try to resolve some of these. The Aquino Government has expressed its desire for co-operation in this matter to try to ensure that people are fully briefed and understand what is involved in living in Australia and what is involved in marriage to Australians so that the relationship is not based on myths. If that spirit of co-operation continued, we could look forward to closer social relations with the people of the Philippines, and let us hope that people like Mr Enrile do not get their way and that the Philippines continues along the path of democratisation and becomes a dynamic, socially just society in the future. Mr SIMMONS(Calare) —On behalf of the Standing Committee on Expenditure, I present the report of the Committee entitled `Poles apart: Telecom's zonal and charging policies in rural and remote areas', together with extracts from the minutes of proceedings, the transcripts of evidence and submissions authorised for publication. Ordered that the report be printed. Mr SIMMONS —by leave-I am pleased to present this, the second report by the Expenditure Committee on Telecom Australia's zonal and charging policies. The Committee's earlier report, `Ringing in the Changes', dealt with metropolitan and near-metropolitan areas while in this report the Committee discusses the service provided by Telecom to residents of rural and remote areas. The two reports comprise a thorough review of Telecom's performance as compared to its statutory responsibilities. In both reports the Committee has concluded that Telecom's technical performance has been generally good but that the Commission has been insufficiently responsive to the needs of the Australian community in the 1980s. Telecommunications are particularly important among the needs of Australians who live outside the capital cities. A reliable telephone service is more than a convenience in many rural and remote areas; it is a necessity. This report, which focuses on the telecommunications needs of country people, is particularly important. The Committee has recommended a package of improvements which I believe will greatly benefit rural and remote telephone users at minimal cost to Telecom. Service Centres The first group of improvements relates to Telecom's Community Access 80 scheme which provides rural telephone customers with access on a timed local call basis to a service centre. Telecom defines a service centre as a community providing certain basic services such as schooling, medical services, banking and similar basic necessities. The Committee applauds Telecom's initiative in providing this scheme, which we recognise as a major concession for many rural subscribers. Most country people who gave evidence shared this view but there were some problems with the scheme. We have recommended that Telecom's list of minimum services available in a community selected as a service centre should be expanded to include agricultural service facilities, that medical services be specified as meaning at least one doctor and that schooling be defined as at least primary level. The Committee has also recommended that Telecom review a number of anomalies in the selection of service centres and in the allocation of subscribers to particular centres. Most importantly, the Committee recommends that subscribers in more remote areas have untimed local call access to their service centre. Telecom has estimated that this recommendation would cost $1.5m in capital expenditure and reduce call revenue by $1.8m per year. These costs are clearly not material to an enterprise reporting an operating surplus last year of $464.6m and the concession recommended is fully in accordance with Telecom's social obligations set out in its charter. The small number of subscribers affected by this recommendation would be given access at local call rates to a limited number of basic services; most of their telephone usage will remain at truck call rates. The Committee firmly believes that this concession should be made. Telecom argued strongly before the Committee that this would be the thin end of the wedge; that the concession would flow on to fringe metropolitan areas at very great cost. The Committee could not accept this argument; we did not believe that it would be impossible to quarantine the concession as Telecom argued. The Australian Taxation Office, by a system of zoning, is able to restrict remote area concessions to deserving cases. We see no reason why Telecom cannot do the same. Extended Zones As part of its program of modernising rural and remote telephone facilities, Telecom has introduced a system of extended zones covering most of rural Australia. The Committee understood the necessity for this approach but, again, we have recommended some minor improvements affecting such matters as the naming of some zones and anomalies caused by boundary changes. Many people living in the new extended zones sought untimed local call access to apply to all calls within the new zones. The Committee could not support this claim but we have recommended that some concession be made by extending the time period on which call charges are based. The present community rate calls are charged at the rate of one local call per three minutes. We have recommended that this time period be extended to as much as six minutes. Part-Privately Erected Lines Some thousands of rural telephone subscribers over the years have had to supply part of the line connecting their service with the Telecom network. Many of these privately erected lines have been of low quality. One witness told the Committee: In the old days, as long as you could hook onto the top wire of the fence and drop the shutter in the Post Office, you had communications. The Committee in fact saw photographs of at least one boundary fence still doubling as a telephone line. Telecom is now replacing these unsatisfactory lines with equipment capable of connection to the automatic telephone network. The Committee endorses this decision but has recommended some changes in the way it has been applied. In particular, we have recommended that applications by subscribers on former part-private lines for services which were not technically available on those lines be charged as conversions rather than new installations. We have also recommended that the charge for conversion from part-private lines to the new Telecom facilities recognise the contribution made by subscribers to maintenance costs of the former equipment since 1969. In addition, the Committee recommended that Telecom review some anomalies which have led to particular subscribers being connected to new exchanges far from their historic community of interest. Cross-Subsidy An important result of the inquiry was the production by Telecom of a district profitability study showing the extent of cross-subsidies between geographical districts. The study, which is reproduced as an appendix to the report, shows that about $460m of indirect costs attributed to rural and remote areas are met by revenue from metropolitan services. This represents a cross-subsidy from urban to rural areas averaging $259 per service for each of 1.5m rural telephone services. The average figure, of course, conceals some extreme examples. The Roma district, in south-western Queensland, for example, runs at an annual loss of almost $1,100 per telephone service. The scale of these figures shows the possible impact on country people if the cross-subsidy were to be replaced by totally cost-related pricing in the interests of a highly debatable economic theory. The Committee found that a reliable telephone service is a basic need in rural and remote areas, and it is an obligation of the telecommunications service to meet this need at an affordable cost. The Committee accepted the conclusions of the Ergas report on `Telecommunications and the Australian Economy' that the cross-subsidy to rural areas in the Australian telecommunications system is consistent in extent and direction with those applying in comparable Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development countries. We also accept Mr Ergas's conclusion that the present cross-subsidy is the most economically efficient way of meeting the Government's social obligations in regard to telecommunications. We recommend that Telecom reaffirm its commitment to cross-subsidising the rural and remote sector but that full information on the extent and direction of the subsidy be reported annually to Parliament. Telecom and the Public The Committee's two reports on Telecom represent a thorough overall review of the Commission. In our many public hearings and meetings across the country, we found that Telecom's field staff and local management were generally well regarded. There was some feeling that the Commission's head office in Melbourne was seen to be remote from customer needs and opinion. This is, of course, a common problem in large organisations and, although the Committee sees the need for some improvement in this area, we do not believe that Telecom's performance has been so bad as to justify severe condemnation or to require major changes. The Committee has recommended that Telecom markedly improve its processes for consulting with customers before introducing changes which affect them. We have recommended that Telecom properly research the social impact of its decisions and pay appropriate attention to the results of that research. We have recommended that the Commission pay greater attention to the quality and accuracy of its publicity material, including the advisory sections of telephone directories. We have repeated a recommendation contained in our earlier report that Telecom should establish complaints bureaus in each State. Most importantly in the customer relations area, we have recommended that Telecom make better use of its greatest asset-its networks of field staff-by ensuring that they are fully aware of the Commission's policies, practices and corporate objectives so that they can serve as a first line of information and defence. Billing Arrangements A section of the report which will be of interest to metropolitan as well as country subscribers relates to billing arrangements. The report points out that Telecom already has the facility to provide itemised accounts to a large proportion of its customers and is testing a new metering system which will improve this. The Committee has recommended that Telecom work towards providing acceptable detailed billing facilities to all subscribers as soon as practicable. It would probably be technically feasible for Telecom to provide for single line users a telephone record keeping facility which would allow the cost of calls to be monitored. Such a facility is already available for PABX and PBX customers and extension to single line users would clearly benefit farmers and small businessmen. The Committee has recommended that Telecom develop and provide such a facility. Conclusion This report is the outcome of 600 submissions by individuals and groups and extensive travel by the Committee to rural and remote communities throughout Australia. During the inquiry the Committee took the opportunity to hold public meetings in many areas to hear from country people about the quality of Telecom's performance. The Committee has fulfilled an important role in establishing the needs of these isolated groups and developing feasible proposals for meeting those needs. None of the recommendations implies any great cost to Telecom, but many of them will provide important benefits to particular groups of subscribers. In its two reports the Committee has shown that Telecom, while admirably meeting its public obligations in terms of technology, could improve its knowledge of and responsiveness to the needs of its customers. I hope that this report will help Telecom in that process. In its two reports the Committee has shown that Telecom, while admirably meeting its public obligations in terms of technology, could improve its knowledge of and responsiveness to the needs of its customers. I hope that this report will help Telecom in that process. I would like to take this opportunity to thank my fellow members of the Committee who undertook a rigorous and demanding program of travel, often a long way off the beaten track, to collect the evidence for this inquiry. The Telecom project team which co-ordinated the Commission's response to the inquiry showed great professionalism and I would particularly like to thank Mr John Taylor, who is in the Parliament tonight, who headed that team and who not only answered the Committee's many questions but also braved the numerous public meetings we organised. There are many other people associated with Telecom who are too numerous to mention in this context but I also place on record the Committee's appreciation of their support. Thanks are also due to the Committee secretariat, especially to Sue Harlow, Anne Hazleton, Dorothy Miles, Peter Ratas, Peter Hamburger and Penny Maher. Most of all, I would like to thank the many hundreds of residents of rural and remote Australia who took the trouble to make submissions and attend public meetings and hearings to give the Committee their views. This inquiry has drawn more public interest and response than almost any other conducted by the Expenditure Committee. The level of interest shows clearly how important the telecommunications network is to rural Australians. I commend the report the House. Mr MOUNTFORD(Banks) —by leave-As Chairman of the Standing Committee on Expenditure I would like to add some comments to those of the honourable member for Calare (Mr Simmons) who, I must say, did an excellent job as chairman of the sub-committee on Telecom's zonal charging policies in rural areas. Pettifer's House of Representatives Practice states that the functions of parliamentary committees include the sifting of evidence to draw reasoned conclusions to `in a sense . . . ``take parliament to the people''.'. This inquiry, which has been one of the largest undertaken by the Expenditure Committee, fulfilled both of those functions. The Committee heard and considered a large amount of evidence, much of it technical in nature, and produced recommendations which will provide important benefits to many of Telecom's rural customers at minimal cost. Fewer of the Committee's inquiries have done more to take parliament to the people. As well as receiving 600 submissions, the vast majority from individuals in rural and remote areas, the Committee travelled throughout Australia and convened both public meetings and formal hearings to allow country people to have their say on Telecom's performance. Telecom representatives, to their credit and probably to their benefit, attended the public meetings arranged by the Committee and were able to resolve some of the problems raised. The honourable member for Calare has mentioned that the Committee visited many areas off the beaten track. It was very useful for the Committee to hear the views of residents of such areas as Charleville, Richmond, Hughenden and Flinders Island, to mention just a few of the rural communities visited. I would like to thank those members of the Committee who took part in the rigorous program of hearings, meetings and inspections required in this inquiry, including you, Mr Deputy Speaker, when you were Chairman of the Committee. Like the honourable member for Calare, I would like to thank those members of the rural and remote communities who offered their opinions and advice to the Committee. This report, together with the Committee's earlier report on Telecom's zonal and charging policies in urban areas, provides a useful overview of Australia's largest public authority. Focusing as it does on rural and remote areas, this report draws particular attention to the effect of uniform national pricing for Telecom services. The effect is, of course, a cross-subsidy from low cost to high cost services. As Telecom advises the Committee, there are cross-subsidies from metropolitan to non-metropolitan areas, business to non-business users and telephone services to telegram services. Transfer from metropolitan to non-metropolitan areas is the largest of these and the report shows that Telecom's latest assessment of its value is about $460m per year, or an average of $259 for each telephone service in rural areas. This is a very large concession to country people. The Committee accepted that it is justified both for social and economic reasons. The Telecom district profitability study included as an appendix to the report shows that if Telecom's services were priced closer to cost almost all country people would face large increases in telephone charges. The Dubbo district, for example, runs at a loss of $508 per telephone service per year. In Armidale it is $531; in Darwin, $587; and in Roma, $1083. The Committee could not accept that the social costs of imposing charges of this level on rural and remote residents would be outweighed by any benefit available under a somewhat dubious economic theory. The Committee saw at first hand that a reliable telephone service is not a luxury in these areas; it is necessary. For country people a telephone is necessary for normal social contact, for many forms of business and, in some cases, literally to save lives. Like comparable Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development countries, Australia, under successive governments, has recognised this and made some concession in charges. It has been argued that if the concession is justified it should be given openly rather than hidden in Telecom's charges. The Committee supported the need for openness and recommended that Telecom explicitly report to Parliament on this issue each year. We did not accept, however, that there would be any value in replacing the cross-subsidy with a direct subsidy. We accepted the arguments of the OECD administrator Henry Ergas that, if a subsidy is desirable, a cross-subsidy is the most economically efficient way of providing it. As Mr Ergas argues, the cross-subsidy has several advantages over a direct subsidy; it is more fiscally neutral, it is more equitable in the way it accounts for externalities available from the telecommunications network and it is less costly to administer. This, of course, has been recognised by successive governments for many years. It is encouraging to see the principle reaffirmed by a committee comprising members of all three parties. In the evidence presented to it, the Committee found a tendency for some to argue that, because rural and remote residents benefit from the cross-subsidy, they should not complain about the standard of Telecom's service. We rejected this view; country people have as much right to a reliable telephone service as do their city cousins. There are several recommendations in the report which give force to this principle. In particular, the Committee has recommended that Telecom recognise the contribution made over many years by those rural subscribers who have had to erect and maintain part of the telephone line to their property. We have also recommended that Telecom give sympathetic consideration to a number of cases where modernisation of equipment has led to subscribers losing local call access to their traditional community of interest. The Committee has also recommended small additional concessions to many rural subscribers; specifically, untimed local call access to a service centre for all subscribers, and a maximum charging rate within extended zones of the community call rate of 18c per three minutes. These concessions would lead to small losses of revenue or slightly increased costs to Telecom but would not significantly reduce the Commission's operating surplus or the extent of the cross-subsidy. They are targeted at particularly disadvantaged groups in rural and remote areas. They would provide an important benefit to the relatively small number of country residents that they would affect. The Committee found that Telecom could improve its performance somewhat by making greater efforts to identify the needs of its customers and improving its customer relations. A typical example of the type of problem we identified was Telecom's replacement of the red coin telephones available for lease by private customers with the new gold phone. The gold phone has many technical advantages but is only available for sale, not lease. The purchase price puts it out of the reach of many welfare organisations, such as refuges and hostels, which have a particular need for coin telephones. If Telecom had recognised the effect that a transfer from rental to purchase would have on such customers it could easily have made alternative arrangements. I said earlier that this inquiry was a good example of the valuable work that parliamentary committees can do. The quality of committee work is affected by the standard of staff available to assist members in their work. During the years that I have been a member of the Expenditure Committee I have been impressed by the quality of its staff. This year the Committee has tabled a record number of reports, several of them covering large and important issues. The Committee greatly benefited during most of the year from the professional support of its former Secretary, Mrs Sue Harlow. Her predecessor in that position and first Secretary to the Committee, Mr Malcolm Aldons, kindly agreed to return to the position on a temporary basis on very short notice when Mrs Harlow left in September. We would have had great difficulty in completing the Committee's heavy work load for the year without his support. The position of Secretary to the Committee is most important and the Expenditure Committee has been fortunate in having very able parliamentary officers in that position throughout its existence. This report will be a useful contribution to the telecommunications debate in Australia. I commend it to the House. Mr HAWKER(Wannon) —by leave-In speaking to this report of the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Expenditure, I also will confine my remarks to the topic of cross-subsidy. Before doing so, I commend the honourable member for Calare (Mr Simmons), who has done an excellent job in chairing the sub-committee. He has been extremely conscientious. He has been very accommodating and very willing to listen to all points of view at all times. The way he handled the sub-committee, and the general impression that has been given to people wherever we have visited during this fairly large inquiry, certainly became him. In fact, he was even prepared to travel all the way to Hamilton, in the middle of the Western Districts of Victoria, to hold a special hearing. I thank him for that. Mr Beale —There is a good member down there, isn't there? Mr HAWKER —My word, there is. I also point out the tremendous value of the Committee travelling around as it did. As the honourable member for Banks (Mr Mountford) said, it has allowed the Committee, as part of the Parliament, to visit the people rather than the people having to visit Canberra to see what the Parliament is all about. Apart from the fact that the Committee was always willing to listen to and inspect problems at first hand, it demonstrated that members of parliament are prepared to obtain their knowledge first hand. I think it also demonstrated to these groups the enormous value of having an all-party committee, a committee made up of members from both sides of the House. It showed that, away from the spotlight of this chamber, Federal members of parliament from all parties can work together for the betterment of our fellow Australians. Turning to the question of the cross-subsidy, I was rather heartened, I might say, Mr Deputy Speaker, to hear both you and the honourable member for Calare talk about the value of the cross-subsidy being about $450m. It interested me that over the period of the hearing the figure initially started at $490m, and then fluctuated. The Minister for Communications (Mr Duffy) in a recent Press release referred to it as $459m. During the inquiry it became more and more obvious that the figure was an approximation. That is not a criticism of Telecom Australia, because I think it was obviously expected to try to come up with a reasonably precise figure, and so it did. In fact, as the inquiry proceeded, we found that the figure was a good ballpark figure. During the inquiry it became obvious that it was in the range of $400m to $500m. I make this point because I think it is important that it is understood that it is an approximation. In future, when the Government or whoever is speaking about the level and value of the cross-subsidy gives an approximate figure, we will know that it is about $450m or $460m; but that it is very difficult to be more precise than that. As the matter has already been canvassed at some length, I do not want to go into it in a great deal more detail. As the honourable member for Calare said in his tabling speech, when we talk about cross-subsidy, and I refer to chapter seven of the report, it can just as easily be argued that private users in metropolitan areas, because they use Telecom less than most commercial customers, are cross-subsidised at the expense of business users. So the whole question of cross-subsidy is quite complex. While it is recognised that people in the country do receive a cross-subsidy, it is a little more complex than it might initially appear. When we talk about the difficulty in working out the level of cross-subsidy, we should consider the comments of Mr Ergas and some of the transcripts of the inquiry. At one stage Mr Pitt, the Manager for Financial Studies and Development, said: . . . our best estimate of the cross-subsidy, metro to country, in 1984 and 1985 was of the order of $400m to $500m. I think that is sufficient for our purposes because it does indicate the general extent of the transfer. That really puts it in perspective and we should recognise that point. I draw attention to another point mentioned by the honourable member for Calare when he spoke about recommendation No. 18, that Telecom should produce a district profitability study. In other words, every district should be able to produce a figure to show how profitable it was and whether it was receiving a cross-subsidy. While I certainly support that, I also caution the Parliament against expecting too much detail because we could end up asking for more detail than it is worth Telecom's while trying to compile. The other point I wish to mention briefly relates to paragraph 7.24 of the report. Talking about the question of cross-subsidy again, the report said: If the overall level of cross-subsidy is to be reduced, subsidies to metropolitan private users at the expense of business users would be as much in question as the transfers to rural and remote customers. As the honourable member for Calare rightly pointed out, the social effects of any changes in Telecom's cross-subsidies could be very substantial. I think that comment sums it up. I wish to put that point on the record because there may well be some time in the future when people may question the value of these cross-subsidies. In conclusion I very much support the words of the Chairman of the sub-committee and also yourself, Mr Deputy Speaker, as Chairman of the Expenditure Committee. I also commend the staff of the Expenditure Committee for doing a marvellous job. I think the Parliament and the Committee have gained a lot. Telecom also must have gained a lot from the inquiry. As well as being a good public relations exercise for both Telecom and the Parliament, I feel that if the recommendations of this report are accepted and adopted many people in the country will feel that this inquiry has been well worth while. Mr LEO McLEAY(Grayndler) —by leave-Unfortunately the honourable member for Aston (Mr Saunderson) has just left the House. He and I share a somewhat dubious distinction of being the only two telephone technician members of this House at present. Obviously the honourable member for Aston had a more interesting life in the Department than I did because in the last few years, while the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Expenditure has been looking at Telecom Australia, the honourable member for Aston has become a great apologist for Telecom. Sometimes I go to bed at night and pray that I will not lose my seat in Parliament because I am pretty sure that I would never get my job back in Telecom. I must pay a compliment to the Chairman of the sub-committee, the honourable member for Calare (Mr Simmons), and his colleague the honourable member for Lindsay (Mr Free) who was the Chairman of the sub-committee that investigated the first part of this inquiry into Telecom's zonal policy. Telecom, being the largest public authority and probably the largest business in Australia, posed a daunting task for any parliamentary committee charged with looking into it. Telecom has great battalions of people to tell others what they are doing and where they are doing it, but parliamentary committees, as you would know, Mr Deputy Speaker, have only quite small staffs. While the Expenditure Committee may have been the David going into bat against Goliath at the beginning of this inquiry some three years ago, the outcome has been quite an experience for the Committee, of great benefit to the Parliament and, I believe, of benefit to telephone subscribers in Australia. I think it has also been of some benefit to Telecom because it would have required Telecom to look at its relationship vis-a-vis the Parliament and its subscribers. As a member of the Committee I travelled to many of the places mentioned in this report, to outback parts of Queensland, southern parts of Australia-- Mr Chynoweth —The Mornington Peninsula. Mr LEO McLEAY —And even to the more exotic parts of Melbourne on the Mornington Peninsula, with the honourable member for Dunkley. Mr Beale —And with the honourable member for Flinders. Mr LEO McLEAY —With the honourable member for Flinders (Mr Reith) and the honourable member for Deakin (Mr Beale). Telecom really got its money's worth out of the House of Representatives Expenditure Committee. I hope that Telecom's response to this report will be a little more positive than its response to the previous report, because I think the Committee did identify a number of areas where Telecom has to have a close look at what it is doing. It is no good the largest public authority in Australia deciding that its main function is to deliver the best engineering services and to make money. Telecom also has a social objective in its charter and I think that, in many of the areas where the Committee went, subscribers of Telecom were of the firm belief that it was not actually living up to parts of that social commitment in its charter. I believe that it was a great experience for the Committee members to travel to those outback parts of Australia, to visit Aboriginal settlements on Bathurst Island in the Northern Territory, and to find out how important Telecom is to people in a large country like Australia. Even the members of the Opposition who travelled around with the Committee became of the firm view that a privatised Telecom might not be the smartest thing to do. Even the honourable member for Deakin, although he may not admit it, saw some small positive benefits in Telecom while we were travelling around looking at its activities. Mr Beale —He was not on the sub-committee. He was a fellow traveller. Mr LEO McLEAY —He was not on the sub-committee, but he took an interest. I believe that committee reports such as this add to the sum of knowledge of all members of parliament and show that the committee system in the Parliament plays a very important role in the education of members and in identifying areas in the community that are of interest to all our constituents. Of the parliamentary committee reports to be tabled in the House tonight, only one contains a dissenting report. In the other four committee reports-one from the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and Defence, two from the Expenditure Committee and one from the Joint Committee of Public Accounts-all members agreed with the recommendations of their various committees. On all those committees are members of the National Party, the Liberal Party and the Labor Party. Too often we see newspapers write up the areas where we are all in disagreement, but the parliamentary committee system, in my opinion, is the last remnant of the Westminster system in the parliamentary system in Australia in that people get together to work out something for the benefit of all Australians. That is done pretty well unanimously. As I said, in only one of the five reports was there disagreement amongst the members and in that report there was not disagreement on all matters in the report. In the seven years that I have been a member of the Expenditure Committee I can recall only one report where the members of the Committee disagreed. All the other reports that that Committee has brought down in those seven years-there must have been at least 20 of them-have had the unanimous agreement of members of parliament. The outcome of those reports has been of considerable benefit to all the people in Australia. I congratulate the honourable member for Calare and the honourable member for Lindsay on the two reports they have brought into this Parliament on Telecom's zonal and charging policies in both rural and remote areas and in metropolitan and provincial areas. I think members of the Committee have learned a lot and they have been very ably assisted by staff members. Parliamentary committee staff do a lot of hard work often running to deadlines with our pushing them along. It is pleasing to see in the officials' box tonight two current members of the Committee's staff, one who left recently and one who left three months earlier. Those people put in the work; they do most of the background work for the members and ensure that the briefing papers are there on time, that travel arrangements are made properly and that witnesses are lined up to attend the hearings. The outcome of reports is very much a partnership arrangement between the members and staff who serve the Committee. I put on record, as you did earlier, that when I was Chairman of the Expenditure Committee the staff were more than up to scratch. As you said earlier this evening, the Expenditure Committee has been exceptionally well serviced by the staff whom it has had. That is a credit to both Mrs Harlow and Mr Aldons who have been the two secretaries to that Committee in the 11 years that that Committee has been in existence. The staff have kept up a consistently high standard of reporting and I guess, in some ways they have also kept the members up to a high standard of interrogation of witnesses. In closing, I also thank the people from Telecom who, I think, sometimes thought I was the worst tormentor they had ever had. I would like to seek some assurance from them that if I were ever unfortunate enough to lose my seat I would be welcomed back to a job. I would probably be doing banks and wipers for the rest of my life. John Taylor, who was an engineer in the Department of Communications, would remember what that was like. All in all, the report that the Committee has brought down tonight on Telecom and the report that the honourable member for Wannon (Mr Hawker) will be tabling in a few minutes on the Overseas Telecommunications Commission (Australia) show that the Expenditure Committee has kept up a high degree of reporting. The reports are of benefit both to the Parliament and the people of Australia. As I said earlier, I am sure even Telecom learned something of the way both the Parliament and some of its internal operations work and that may be of benefit to it as well. I thank the House. Mr SCHOLES(Corio-Minister for Territories) —In accordance with section 12a of the Seat of Government (Administration) Act 1910, I table the eighty-eighth series of variations to the plan of the layout of the city of Canberra. Mr HAWKER(Wannon) —On behalf of the Standing Committee on Expenditure, I present the report of the Committee entitled `Call us again: Review of the Auditor-General's efficiency audit report on the control over manpower and property by the Overseas Telecommunications Commission (Australia)', together with extracts from the minutes of proceedings, the transcripts of evidence and submissions authorised for publication. Ordered that the report be printed. Mr HAWKER —by leave-The efficiency audit report of the Auditor-General on the control over manpower and property by the OTC is the seventh review that has been undertaken by the Expenditure Committee. The objectives of the Committee were, as in the case with other reviews of efficiency audits, to examine the response of the Commission to the audit report, and to assess the substantive content of the audit exercise and the quality of the efficiency audit report. In April 1985 the Committee inspected OTC's international radio operating room in Martin Place, Sydney and its facilities in Paddington. Evidence was taken at two hearings in Canberra in April and September 1986. The efficiency audit of OTC examined several matters, namely, the procedures used by OTC to control the use of technical manpower and property resources and areas of declining activity and areas incurring losses. In relation to technical manpower, the Audit Office examined OTC's methods of estimating technical staff requirements and made recommendations covering new systems for this activity. It expressed concern about the fluctuating intakes of technical trainees and suggested that a more efficient use of resources could be obtained if the intakes were more regular. Audit considered that the four-year training period for technical trainees could be reduced by one year without any diminution of quality or standards. Audit also examined radio operations and suggested that efficiency would be improved with the application of new technology and that an improved management system would reduce losses. Finally, Audit looked at OTC's utilisation of property resources and recommended that it regularly review its property needs to ensure that it disposes of any unused properties. It also considered that the Commission should keep under review opportunities to obtain lower cost head office accommodation than the present site in Martin Place, Sydney. If an assessment of the success or otherwise of an efficiency audit rests on the fact that the majority of the recommendations have been implemented or resulted in action being taken, I think we can say that this audit was successful. Fourteen of the 16 recommendations identified by the Committee in the audit report have been implemented; one has been partially implemented; and some action has been taken on one; but further action rests with another agency. However, what does this tell us about OTC, the organisation? It tells us that there were some matters in some areas of OTC that required some updating. In response, the Commission claimed that most of these matters were receiving attention and, for example, a new financial management information system was on the drawing board before the audit was even contemplated. This tends to be the standard response of organisations under external review and it is obviously quite difficult to be certain about the causal connections between what an external review identifies and what action is taken or the speed or direction of that action. It does seem, however, that the audit was the catalyst that resulted in OTC disposing of 16 surplus properties and taking action to dispose of a further 11. But then, the audit took two years to complete and this does seem to be an inordinately long time for a report that is quite narrow in scope. OTC is a dynamic commercial organisation that must be responsive to rapid technological change. For an audit report to avoid the risk of being outdated and irrelevant it would seem essential that the report be prompt and timely. It was the Committee's view that the time span of the audit reflected, at least in part, the Audit Office's lack of familiarity with government business enterprises, a deficiency that could have been remedied by the use of consultants. In examining the fluctuating yearly intakes of technical trainees the auditors did not question why the fluctuations had occurred and the intake had dwindled to zero, or whether there was even a need to continue with the intakes. This is another instance of Audit's failure to appreciate the technological aspects of OTC's products. A drop in wastage rates coinciding with an increase in salaries and the development of new technology gave rise to a situation where OTC not only did not need to take on any more trainees in the short term, but also would require fewer people in the years to come. In another area Audit's lack of skills about markets and market behaviour was apparent. In examining the substantial losses of the telegraphic service Audit identified the wrong problem. The losses of the international telegram service should have been examined by means of a market analysis. This would have shown that the market share was falling because consumers preferred other services such as facsimile and international subscriber dialling. Audit should have then suggested a market survey to test the long term viability of the telegraphic service. Overall, the Committee was disappointed with the narrow scope of the audit, especially when considering the length of time it took. OTC is a large enterprise earning more than $400m a year. One would think that an examination of OTC's specific services, with an emphasis on the efficiency of resource use, as well as a wider examination of its financial structure, could have been a worthwhile exercise. As I said earlier, if Audit felt that it lacked all the skills necessary for such an exercise, consultants could have been used. It is four years since Audit commenced its examination of OTC's control over manpower and property and the Committee fully appreciates that the Commission has undergone considerable change since then. There has been some debate in the media about the telecommunications authorities, especially since the publication of a report to the Department of Communications by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development economist, Mr Henry Ergas. The report is called `Telecommunications and the Australian Economy'. The debate has centred on the levels of investment funds that are needed by the authorities if they are to recover from past shortfalls that occurred as a result of financial constraints in the early 1980s and keep pace with worldwide developments in telecommunications. OTC is a profitable organisation funded from internal sources and, unlike most other Commonwealth statutory authorities, it pays all Commonwealth taxes and duties, including corporate income tax and a dividend. In fact, in the past five years income tax payments and dividends to the Commonwealth totalled more than $267m out of pre-tax profits of $341m; that is, 78 per cent of its profits have gone back into the public purse. So, whilst its financial performance is strong, it has a relatively low level of equity capital invested in the business. In 1983 the Government agreed to set a dividend target for the five-year period to 1987-88 of 10 per cent of capital and reserves. However, the 1985-86 target was altered to 12.5 per cent and the 1986-87 target has been set at 15 per cent. All this makes it difficult for the Commission to plan its capital expenditure program and utilise a combination of debt and equity to finance large projects. OTC has suggested that a more equitable basis would be an agreed percentage of after-tax profits and suggests 40 per cent as appropriate. This would allow growth to continue without increasing new debt finance; costs and hence prices could be kept down. Honourable members can be sure that if the dividend continues to go up, so will the tariffs. The Committee felt that this view was reasonable and recommended that the Government review the basis for determining the dividend and, in so doing, take into account the requirements for capital reinvestment. Finally, the Committee learned that OTC has a submission before the Government seeking a widening of its powers to enable it to diversify into activities beyond its current charter which allows it to provide only international communications. These would include areas such as consultancies, design of equipment and joint ventures. Given the obvious advantages, such as reducing dependence on overseas technology and increasing the utilisation of skills already existing in OTC, the Committee wholeheartedly supports the thrust of OTC's submission. I conclude by noting, however, that it would be self-defeating for the Government to amend OTC's legislation to allow it to branch out into other activities but at the same time shackle it by requiring increased payments of dividends without new injections of capital. I thank my fellow Committee members. In particular I thank the Committee secretariat who worked on this report-Mrs Harlow, who was the Secretary of the Committee until the beginning of September; Mr Aldons, who has taken over since then; Ms Cathy Stobo; and also Ms Alison Standord and Ms Heather Chapman. I commend the report to honourable members. Mr SIMMONS(Calare) —by leave-I would like to be associated with the comments made by the honourable member for Wannon (Mr Hawker) on the report that he has just tabled. The honourable member for Grayndler (Mr Leo McLeay) in his comments on the tabling of the earlier report, entitled `Poles Apart', of the Sub-committee of the Standing Committee on Expenditure that I chaired, made a number of rather significant comments about the importance and the nature of parliamentary committee work, and I endorse those comments. I would also like to take this opportunity of thanking the honourable member for Wannon for his comments about my chairmanship of the Committee and for his very strong support during the inquiry into Telecom Australia. The honourable member for Grayndler made the point that there is a significance associated with parliamentary committee work in that the usual situation is that most committees bring down a unanimous report, and as far as the powerful and influential Expenditure Committee reports are concerned, that has certainly been the case over a number of years. During the Committee's hearings into Telecom during 1985 it travelled throughout the more remote parts of western Queensland, to towns such as Hughenden, Richmond, Longreach and Charleville. Four or five members of parliament descended upon those rather small communities, and there was a great reaction by the communities as they saw for the first time in many years a number of Federal members of parliament taking an interest in their communities and listening to their points of view. I must admit that they were rather surprised in many cases to find that most of the honourable members associated with those public hearings and inspections were in fact members of the Government party, accompanied by the honourable member for Wannon. There was a significant absence of members of the National Party of Australia, three of whom are members of the Committee, and that was commented on on a number of occasions. I would also like to thank the members of the Committee who were prepared to make those inspections. I also thank the honourable member for Wannon for his stewardship of the report `Call us again', which I hope, as with the report that I tabled a few moments ago, makes a significant contribution towards the telecommunications debate in Australia. Mr ROBERT BROWN(Charlton) —by leave-I want to be identified with the comments that have been made by the honourable member for Wannon (Mr Hawker) who chaired the Sub-committee of the Standing Committee on Expenditure in the review of the Auditor-General's efficiency audit report on the control over manpower and property by the Overseas Telecommunications Commission. I think that may have been the first inquiry of the kind that the honourable member for Wannon chaired, and in that capacity he did an exceptionally competent job and he deserves the commendation of all of us. I would also like to endorse the general nature of the comments that were made by the honourable member for Calare (Mr Simmons) in connection with the effort that was put into some of those inquiries. I think it is significant that tonight attention was drawn to this fact by the honourable member for Grayndler (Mr Leo McLeay) who is a former chairman of the Expenditure Committee, which is now being so very competently chaired by the honourable member for Banks (Mr Mountford). But tonight there has been the presentation of three reports of committees of the Parliament and another one, from the outstanding honourable member for Canberra (Mrs Kelly), will be tabled from the Joint Committee of Public Accounts. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Drummond) —Order! Is the honourable member for Charlton speaking to the report? Mr ROBERT BROWN —Very much so, Mr Deputy Speaker. The particular report to which I am making reference is the report that was tabled by the honourable member for Wannon. Mr Deputy Speaker, because of the very extensive and very committed work that you have put into a lot of the committees of this Parliament you would know that each of those reports involves a great deal of effort on the part of those honourable members who participate. This is one of the chief means by which members of the Parliament can actually get out into the field, conduct these inquiries, take evidence and, with the very competent support and assistance we get from members of the Secretariat, then bring reports before the Parliament. They are reports of substance. People, organisations, institutions and interests throughout the community as a whole are familiar with the nature of those reports, and I hope that more people and organisations will become aware of their contents. Their contents are of substance. They make a very important contribution to the consideration of those issues, questions and problems that have arisen. Those people who have taken advantage of the opportunity to act on committees, as you have, Mr Deputy Speaker, will realise not only the great value of those committees for the development of members as members of parliament fulfilling their responsibilities, but also their great importance to Parliament as an institution, to Australia and to the Australian community generally. Mrs KELLY(Canberra) —On behalf of the Joint Committee of Public Accounts, I present the 260th report of the Committee, relating to the medical fraud and overservicing inquiry-response to report on pathology (Department of Finance minute on the Committee's 236th report), and I seek leave of the House to make a short statement in connection with the report. Leave granted. Mrs KELLY —This is the fourth and final report of the Committee's medical fraud and overservicing inquiry. It contains responses from the Government, the medical profession and others to the Committee's report on pathology-PAC report 236. The Committee welcomes the Government's response to the 236th report. As I make reference to the Government's response, let me say that I think the Government has set a new record in the speed of its response to a parliamentary report-the Public Accounts Committee report. In 11 months the Committee had the support of the Government, the recommendation enshrined in legislation and administration. That is a new record in the Government implementing the recommendations of a parliamentary committee. I want to thank the Minister for Health (Dr Blewett) for his timely response. The response is timely and established an appropriate legislative framework to address many of the problems outlined in the Committee's report. The development and introduction of this legislation represents a major step forward for the Government in tackling the issue of pathology laboratory accreditation and creating effective mechanisms to review the rendering of excessive pathology services. Frameworks have been established for the administration of approved pathology practitioner undertakings, approved pathology authority undertakings, the creation and operation of a Pathology Services Advisory Committee and Medicare participation review committee. In particular it is noted that the provisions of section 129 of the Health Insurance Act, covering false statements relating to Medicare benefits, have been revised. I am sure that all honourable members would welcome that. As previous reports for this inquiry have emphasised, a legislative response to medical overservicing is appropriate only to establish the framework within which professional review mechanisms can operate effectively. It remains that medical overservicing is a problem where the judgment of providers by their peers is required. The continued development of co-operation and consultation between the profession, the Minister and the Commonwealth's administration is essential if improvements are to be made in this area. This report also details other responses to the Committee's pathology report. The support for the Committee's recommendations of the Royal College of Pathologists of Australasia, the Australian Medical Association, major specialist pathology practices, practitioners generally and members of the public is welcomed. The Committee remains resolute in its opposition to those medical entrepreneurs who rank the pursuit of profit and market control over and above patient care. The Committee believes it is now the responsibility of Commonwealth and State governments, in conjunction with the medical profession, to examine the activities of these so-called medical entrepreneurs and bring them to public account where their actions are judged not to be in the public interest. The Committee is concerned that the problems that it has uncovered in the pathology area also appear to be developing in radiology and psychiatry. In particular, some medical entrepreneurs appear to be moving to exploit these areas. The Committee believes that it is the joint responsibility of the medical profession and the Government to pre-empt these moves. The Committee has also carefully examined the responses of Dr Edelsten. Because of sub- judice principles, comment on Dr Edelsten's submission will be tabled at a later date. I take this opportunity to thank the staff of the Public Accounts Committee and members of the Committee for their support. I would like to make particular reference to the clerk of this Sub-committee, Mr Peter Mason. He has pursued this area over many years and I thank him for his continued support and efficient handling of this very complex issue. I recommend this report to honourable members. Debate resumed. Mr HAWKER(Wannon)(9.42) —Prior to the dinner break this evening I was talking about plant variety rights and the benefits they would bring to Australian farmers, to consumers and to Australians in general with the increase in export income. I also mentioned some of the arguments put by some honourable members opposite who seem to be against plant variety rights but who obviously will not vote against the Plant Variety Rights Bill. I can put their minds at ease; their fears are not founded on sound ground. In fact, if they analysed the legislation carefully they would relax, because plant variety rights will not cause any of the problems mentioned by some groups which have been against plant variety rights. They think that for some reason or other we should be against it. As far as I am concerned, the down side is virtually nil and the advantages will improve the whole aspect of plants and crops in Australia. I turn to the point that Professor Lazenby made in his report on Australia's plant breeding needs and how we could best correct the lack of resources being directed into plant breeding. The House might recall that earlier I mentioned the fact that the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Kerin) seemed rather appalled by the lack of resources going into plant breeding. I pointed out that I was rather galled by the Minister's comments; if he was so appalled he might have moved a bit faster rather than taking 3 1/2 years to bring in legislation which had already been tabled once before in this chamber in 1981. If we see what Professor Lazenby had to say on this matter we may get the answer. He said: Evidence, largely from other countries, leads me to conclude that incentives based on protection would probably ameliorate many of the constraints facing our crop improvement program. These include increased breeding resources; better use of germplasm; better access to varieties bred overseas; better use of public, and total, breeding resources; possible better integration with breeding of basic research and new developments in technology; and a more vigorous and stable seed industry. On balance, therefore, I believe that some form of proprietary protection provides a better means of developing Australia's crop improvement programs than do the options not involving such protection . . . That sums it up very clearly. Let us look at some of the comments Professor Lazenby made. When we talk about whether Australia should be involved in PVR and when we consider that many other countries have also been involved, we see that New Zealand has been involved in plant variety rights for over 12 years. Professor Lazenby said: Further, it is neither desirable nor logical for Australia to stand outside the mainstream of developed countries in the hope of providing intangible benefits to Third World countries. I think that sums up some of the fears that some honourable members opposite seem to have. On the question of how we might go about it, whether it be by plant patenting or some other form, Professor Lazenby said very clearly: . . . I am strongly of the view, that in Australia, PVR is much to be preferred; What are the benefits of plant variety rights? Very briefly, as I see that the clock is running on, they can be summed up in four ways. Firstly, it will give farmers access to better varieties from overseas, something which at the moment is restricted. It will also provide incentives for farmers to breed better varieties locally. That will also provide the opportunity to open up new export markets. Consumers will also benefit because we will have better varieties of fruit and vegetables, and in many cases, I suspect, they will be cheaper because of the increased productivity. I will expand on some of those points. The overseas market is worth about $1.3 billion in western Europe and the United States of America alone. This market is growing at about 8 per cent per annum and it is anticipated that Australia could easily penetrate it to the tune of $12m in the first year. The opportunity to export material from Australia is enormous, but we have an additional advantage which may not be immediately obvious. As we are in the southern hemisphere, there will be a tremendous opportunity for what is known as bulking up of seeds, that is, seeds that have been grown in the northern hemisphere but are in short supply can be sent to the southern hemisphere and, as our growing seasons are opposite, we can produce that additional seed, which can then be exported back to the northern hemisphere. I guess the process could happen vice-versa, subject of course to our quarantine laws. I would like to make some other points about the critics of plant variety rights. As I have already mentioned, the fears are really rather unfounded because farmers are a group more than blessed with common sense. People who are critical of the system do not understand the farmers. If farmers have learned one thing, it is that one does not put all one's eggs in one basket. I received a letter from someone very concerned about plant variety rights who referred to the problem of a virus that wiped out most of Ireland's potato crop last century. Farmers have certainly learned from experiences like that and I do not think we will have a problem of farmers sticking to one particular variety for that reason and also, as I have already mentioned, because we have a wide variety of climates, a type of plant suited to one area will not be suited to another area. I also noted that the Minister, in his second reading speech, talked about the improvement of plant genetic resource centres. Of course, these resource centres would be there to preserve existing varieties and to ensure that we do not lose them. I certainly agree with the comments of the honourable member for Dunkley (Mr Chynoweth) earlier when he said that we should encourage the setting up of privately owned plant genetic reserves. It is interesting to note that in the Press a couple of days ago Australia's two largest consumer groups attacked the idea of PVR. If one looks at some of their arguments, one finds that they are really very hollow and that they demonstrate a complete lack of understanding of what plant variety rights is all about and what the likely impact will be. The point that they seem to miss all along is that, because PVR is introduced and new varieties are brought in, it does not automatically follow that the existing varieties in use in Australia will suddenly disappear. They will not; they will continue to be used and will be available for anyone who wants them. In many cases, those varieties have been around for decades, and they will still be available. Any fear about the foreign multinationals or whoever getting hold of new varieties is really rather unfounded and it is a very hollow argument. Another comment was that Australian farmers could lose money planting varieties suitable for European and North American soils but not for Australia's diverse climatic conditions. That was from a spokesman for the Australian Consumers Association. Frankly, that is a load of rubbish. It is insulting and patronising. The Australian Consumers Association should do its homework before it comes out with stupid statements like that. We could also look at what effect PVR will have on public plant breeding. As Professor Lazenby said, there is every reason why public plant breeding should continue. He made some points about the current arrangements. He said, in part that present arrangements do not sufficiently recognise the high cost and long term nature of plant breeding programs. The Victorian Government would be the worst offender in this regard. It has cut back senior staff in the Department of Agriculture and Rural Affairs by something like 100 in each of the last two years. This is a rather serious matter. Professor Lazenby goes on to talk about funding for and the use of public breeding. He says, in part: . . . these activities in no way justify the fragmented and dispersed nature of plant breeding programs existing in Australia. There is no doubt that this fragmentation prevents the most effective utilisation of breeding resources in this country. He calls for better integration, I sincerely hope that the Minister will take up and consider this point because obviously there is quite a deficiency. As he has been bold enough to take the step of bringing in plant variety rights, he should go one step further and work on public plant breeding programs. The other bonus that will result from the introduction of the plant variety rights legislation is that the opportunity will be there for private plant breeders to take advantage of the Government's 150 per cent tax write off for research and development. I believe that the introduction of plant variety rights will be a great step forward for agriculture. It will be a great step forward for this nation and of great advantage to the farmers. It will be of benefit to consumers. It will help our export earnings. The delay in introducing plant variety rights is quite disgraceful. Mr MILTON(La Trobe)(9.53) —I was interested in the comments of the honourable member for Wannon (Mr Hawker). I did not disagree so much with some of his last comments, but I profoundly disagreed with some of the earlier comments he made in his speech, as I disagreed with some of your comments, Mr Deputy Speaker, when you spoke on the Plant Variety Rights Bill. In a speech in the House on 21 April 1982 when the previous Liberal-National Party coalition Government introduced a plant variety rights Bill I spoke against it. The case I made against the Bill at that time applies in general measure to the Plant Variety Rights Bill 1986 which is presently before the House. In essence, the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Kerin) has claimed that the legislation will not have a detrimental effect on public plant breeding producers and consumers. I find it difficult to accept that view. Mr Hawker —Why? Mr MILTON —If the honourable member will listen, he will hear why. As I said, I find it difficult to accept that view. I have mounted my argument against such claims, together with other honourable members and senators, including the honourable member for Cowan (Ms Jakobsen) and the honourable member for Dunkley (Mr Chynoweth) who preceded me in this debate, through all the forums of the Australian Labor Party with the final defeat at the hands of the Federal Caucus primary industry policy committee. Nevertheless, I believe that I would be evading my responsibilities if I did not express my concerns during the debate on this Bill. In joining the debate tonight, I have mixed feelings, as I am aware that the Federal Labor Party policy platform states that the Australian Labor Party will not introduce plant variety rights where this would have a detrimental impact on the public breeding program, producers or consumers. I am also aware, as the Minister for Primary Industry claimed in his second reading speech, that the Government's objectives in introducing legislation for a plant variety rights scheme are to stimulate plant breeding effort in Australia and to encourage the development of new varieties of plants for our domestic industries and for export. He also claims that the legislation incorporates particular provisions for the protection of the food supply to consumers and that proprietary rights will provide plant breeders, both public and private, with the means to recover some of the high research and development costs involved in breeding new varieties. In other words, the Minister has assured the House that there will be no detrimental impact as a result of the legislation. Labor Party policy has always recognised that a comprehensive inquiry into plant variety rights schemes would be undertaken before a Labor government introduced such legislation. I am aware that two inquiries have taken place into plant variety rights schemes. The inquiry by the Senate Standing Committee on National Resources was completed in May 1984. In February 1986 Professor Alec Lazenby, who has been commissioned by the Minister for Primary Industry, presented his report. Both reports recommended the introduction of a plant variety rights scheme in Australia, although the Senate Committee recommendation was not accepted by two Committee members, Senator Zakharov and Senator Georges. The problem with both inquiries was that they were not sufficiently wide ranging or comprehensive and did not cover all the aspects of public and private plant breeding. In the case of the Senate Committee report, although my name was not mentioned in appendix 1 as a result of a printing oversight, submission No. 80 was jointly made by Mark Cole, of the Free Access to Seeds Committee, and me. The bulk of the work was undertaken by Mark Cole while working temporarily on my staff, but I had some input into paragraph (b) of the submission which proposed an alternative means of satisfying the requirements of plant improvement work in Australia without the need for a plant variety rights scheme. In an individual submission to Professor Lazenby's inquiry I elaborated on the proposed establishment of an Australian plant improvement organisation which would report to the Parliament and perform four main functions: First, to collect and maintain germ plasm for all plants of significance to Australian consumers; secondly, to control the importation of improved plant varieties from overseas through a consultative process involving existing State and Federal bodies and secure the imported varieties with a lump payment covered by a levy on the purchase price of the reproductive material; thirdly, to ensure that the level of the levy encompasses the need for funding support to maintain and if necessary expand the quantity and quality of plant improvement schemes, in both the public and private sectors; and, fourthly, to oversee, if the Government deemed appropriate, a royalty reward incentive scheme for private breeders based on across-counter sales of varieties registered under the existing registration system. The Australian plant improvement organisation should be a statutory body with a managing board representing industry, State and Territory departments of agriculture, the Commonwealth Department of Primary Industry, the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation and the tertiary education institutions. It should be given sufficient financial support by the Commonwealth Government, and it would be expected to be able to undertake the presently neglected functions of co-operation and co-ordination in relation to the plant improvement work of the various public bodies throughout Australia. Regrettably, Professor Lazenby rejected my proposal and, as I indicated in a letter to the Minister on 19 May, I was basically disappointed with the report because Professor Lazenby made it clear that he has a profound faith in the market-place as the medium by which any adverse effects of plant variety rights can be remedied. Whilst I concede that a free market-place could give the consumer the opportunity to reject undesirable varieties of food or plants, I do not concede that a free market-place exists in the real world. In the context of my above comment it is important to note that Professor Lazenby has dismissed the evidence of monopolisation by agro-chemical companies contained in the submissions by myself and others to the Senate Standing Commitee and to the Lazenby inquiry with little investigation as to the merits of our arguments. His report indicates an ideological faith in free market forces which is not supported by the facts. In this respect it is also regrettable that the Lazenby report has not made mention of a most important recent critical report of the operation of plant variety rights in Europe contained in working documents of the European Parliament, and mentioned by the honourable member for Cowan. I submit that it is vital that the findings of the European report be studied before any move is made to introduce plant variety rights legislation in Australia. The Minister, in his reply of 8 August to my letter, pointed out that Professor Lazenby was not asked to inquire into plant variety rights, which was the subject of an earlier inquiry by the Senate Standing Committee, but to report on the expected impact on plant breeding with the possible introduction of plant variety rights or its alternatives. In view of the Minister's reference to the Senate Standing Committee report, it is important to look at that report and to note the critical comments contained in the minority report submitted by Senator Zakharov and Senator Georges, with which I concur. Whilst I do not have time to quote all their remarks, I will quote three major criticisms. First, in paragraph 9 of the minority report, it is stated: In the Committee's report, the claim that PVR will stimulate plant breeding is backed up by reference to European and UK experience, where there is some evidence that private corporations noticeably increase their plant breeding activities after the passing of Acts granting PVR (e.g. Plant Varieties and Seeds Act 1964 in UK). The assumption of PVR proponents is that this increase in private breeding activity has had universal benefits. I ask: Benefits for whom? It is clear that the United Kingdom and the United States Acts have allowed large agricultural chemical corporations to make considerable profits out of plant breeding. The evidence offered does not establish that there have been proven benefits to the consuming public or the growers. Some evidence suggests that there has actually been a deterioration in the flavour and nutritional properties of food which has been improved by breeding under plant variety rights legislation. In paragraph 12, it is stated: Even if it were shown conclusively that PVR has increased private breeding overseas, Australia's situation is not parallel. There has been a long history of strong direct government intervention in the economy, which is exemplified by the existence of large numbers of government-financed plant breeding research agencies. Unless the activities of these agencies are severely restricted subsequent to the introduction of PVR, the small size of the Australian market will certainly restrict opportunities for profit-making from private plant breeding which is aimed at this market. Given the long successful history of government plant breeding and improvement in Australia, and the unconvincing nature of the evidence tendered concerning the likelihood of benefits of increased private plant breeding in Australia, it would be an act of the most wilful vandalism to diminish the plant breeding activities of such agencies as the CSIRO or State departments of agriculture. Finally, one of the most telling criticisms was contained in paragraphs 15 to 17. They state: The second supposed benefit advanced by the supporters of PVR legislation is also not supported by convincing evidence, that is, the claim that with PVR the Australian seed and nursery industries will have vastly increased access to overseas varieties. The DPI document `Restriction of Access to Overseas Varieties' . . . lists instances where Australia has been refused access to plant varieties (on the basis of our lack of PVR) which, according to the Department, are held under patents in overseas countries. In all of the instances listed there is a lack of documentation . . . to support the Department's contention that these varieties have been refused to the Australian industry because of the absence of PVR here. Coming back to my criticisms of the Lazenby report, it also does not deal with the lack of specific documentation relating to the claim that Australia has been denied access to overseas varieties. If there is overwhelming evidence, as stated in section 4.6, paragraph 3 of the inquiry's report, why is it not listed? While the evidence may exist, neither report publishes it and, as this argument is central to the PVR question, specific documentation must be made public for the argument to be substantiated. I would now like to deal with the Minister's claim to me that the European parliamentary report, which, incidentally, covered 20 years of the practical effects of PVR legislation, was not a criticism of the operation of plant variety rights in Europe. I find the Minister's comments surprising as the report identified a number of major areas of concern, all of which have been voiced by PVR critics from all over the world for the past decade and which have been detailed by the honourable member for Cowan. In my view, and I think in the view of unbiased observers, it is clear that the report referred to the effects of plant variety rights. I am sure that that was the majority view of the European Parliament, where 205 members out of a total of 211 voted in favour of the motion. The report specifically refers `to the seed trade being increasingly concentrated in a few hands thereby eliminating the small-scale producers from the market'. All the evidence shows that plant variety rights legislation supports and encourages the control of seed production in the hands of a few powerful multinational companies. The monopoly control of food resources is particularly dangerous for the consumer and should not be dismissed as just being a universal problem, as the Minister has indicated in his letter to me. He wrote: Multinational companies have developed in many industries, not just the seed industry over the past 20 years. While some of their practices are of concern, the benefits in terms of technology transfer and communication must also be recognised. In all fairness to the Minister, his criticism of the European report extended to two pages of detail which I do not have time to cover at length in this debate. Suffice to say that the Minister said that he was disappointed to find the argument of the European report unsubstantiated, superficial and very one-sided. He also made a number of technical points which, of themselves, do not, in my view, detract from the conclusions of the report. With regard to the claim of unsubstantiality and superficiality I can provide the Minister with a bibliography of articles and other documents which would support the conclusions contained in the report. If the Minister perceives the report as being one-sided, it is only because he has been convinced that plant variety rights can be beneficial when the conclusions of the European report indicate a contrary result. Since my time to speak in this debate has been limited, I will not say very much more. I would like to bring to the attention of the Minister a number of amendments to the Bill but, as I have run out of time, I might be given the opportunity to deal with some of these matters in Committee. Mr Charles —I would rather hear you speak. Mr MILTON —The honourable member would like me to carry on, but I had better keep to my agreement with the Whip. Mr SHARP(Gilmore)(10.06) —I thank the honourable member for La Trobe (Mr Milton) for limiting his speech to the minimum time suggested. I would dearly love to speak in counter to some of the comments made by the honourable member for La Trobe and the honourable member for Cowan (Ms Jakobsen) and suggest that some of their comments are purely mumbo-jumbo. However, due to the limited time that I have available tonight I will resist the temptation to engage in that, and I will speak more to the Plant Variety Rights Bill. This Bill has been quite hotly debated in the electorate of Gilmore. On balance, I am quite sure now that the feeling in the electorate is that it is, indeed, a most beneficial one and something that will give a great impetus to a number of the industries in the electorate. Many agricultural industries will benefit as a result of plant variety rights legislation. The electorate of Gilmore has a very large cherry industry. In fact, my home town of Young is considered to be the cherry capital of Australia. I think it is a very accurate description. The cherry industry will benefit substantially from this piece of legislation. For some time now a strong lobbying exercise has been undertaken by the cherry growers of Young to encourage people such as me and other honourable members on both sides of this House to agree to this legislation. I congratulate those people because, as a result of their diligence and their intelligent use of their democratic right, they have been successful in reaching their goal, and that is to get this Bill through the House. If the Plant Variety Rights Bill goes through all stages in both Houses, the cherry industry will benefit because it will enable the industry to be much more competitive and a more viable option on the export markets. At present the cherry growers of Young export to South East Asia, Germany, parts of Europe-France and the United Kingdom-and even to Israel. There is hope that eventually they will be able to export to Japan when the various quarantine restrictions that currently apply are lifted. Hopefully, with the co-operation of the New South Wales Government and the Federal Government, that will be within about four years. Plant variety rights legislation will ensure that we have better varieties of cherries grown in Young so that we will be able to market better our cherries overseas. Presently only a very small number of cherry varieties can be brought into Australia to try to improve the existing varieties. Because of the very small numbers, the industry really cannot get any clear example of what different varieties of cherries will be like in different circumstances in Australia. Plant variety rights legislation will enable us to bring in large quantities of different varieties of cherries, and this will speed up the improvement of the gen- etics of the cherries in Australia. One of the great advantages will be the fact that we will be able to reduce the incidence of cherry splitting. When the cheeries are ripe for harvest and it rains the cherries split. That is taking place at present. Sadly, in the last three or four days the cherry growers of Young have experienced serious bouts of hail. There have been substantial falls of rain and a large quantity of the cherries have been ruined as a result of the recent late seasonal rain and, unfortunately, hail. This is a big impost on the cherry growers of Young because, even though the cherries have no commercial value, they still have to be picked. They cannot be left on the tree; they have to be disposed of. Plant variety rights will enable the Australian cherry growers to develop cherry varieties which will not have the high incidence of splitting when there is late seasonal rain. That will be a substantial benefit to the cherry growers of Young and indeed to the economy of Young, which depends so much upon the cherry industry for its survival. Some other things would greatly help the cherry industry at the moment. My friends in the cherry industry in Young tell me that such things as high interest rates and spiralling wage costs have also added to the difficulties of trying to survive in very difficult economic circumstances. I hope the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Kerin) will take that into consideration and see whether he can work towards reducing interest rates and keeping spiralling wage costs down because they leave very little margin for people in the cherry industry to survive in the long term. Plant variety rights will give the people in the cherry industry just that little edge to enable them to survive in the long term. It is not only the cherry growers in the electorate of Gilmore who will benefit from this legislation. Quite a substantial wine industry exists in the electorate. The Hilltops wineries near Young, the Barwang wineries, the Cartobe wineries and Cowra wines are quite well known now. The wine industry will benefit from plant variety rights, as will a whole range of agricultural pursuits. I congratulate the House on having this Bill put before it because I think it will be of great benefit to all people, not only those in agricultural industries but people throughout the country. It has taken an extraordinarily long time for plant variety rights to get into this House. I think it was 15 years ago, in 1971, when the debate started. It is extraordinary that in those 15 years 22 countries have adopted plant variety rights but Australia has not. New Zealand, one of our closest neighbours, in 1977 introduced plant variety rights. The performance of New Zealand's stone fruit industries has given testament to the great financial benefits which can accrue from plant variety rights. There has been a dramatic increase in stone fruit exports from New Zealand because New Zealand producers now have access to high quality varieties through plant variety rights. According to the third report of the Senate Standing Committee on Industry and Trade, Australia is now New Zealand's largest market for stone fruits. Stone fruit imports from New Zealand by Australia have risen from 215.9 tonnes in 1980-81, valued at $298,000, to 1,549.9 tonnes in 1984-85, valued at $3.568m. There is a clear example that the New Zealanders have shown us here in Australia what can accrue as a result of plant variety rights. I find it extraordinary that it has taken this Parliament so long to introduce this Bill into the House. There are many obvious examples of why we ought to have plant variety rights. I shall take just a few moments to outline those. They will protect the rights of breeders of new varieties and so will provide a boost to private plant breeding. They will provide a stimulus to develop varieties of Australian native plants for domestic consumption and export. They will provide benefits to the consumer in the form of a wider range of better quality products, and they will stimulate plant breeding and lead to the development of plants with greater genetic resistance to pests and diseases, and therefore reduce dependence on agricultural chemicals. They will enable Australian breeders to enter into reciprocal schemes giving protection for seeds in overseas countries and will allow Australians to multiply seed for export. All reasonable people in the electorate of Gilmore consider that this Bill is of great benefit to agricultural industries and, indeed, to Australia. Debate interrupted. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Drummond) —Order! It being 10.15 p.m., I propose the question: That the House do how adjourn. Mr BURR(Lyons)(10.15) —At this point in Australia's history many people throughout the country are asking the very serious question: What is likely to happen to wage fixation mechanisms in Australia? I think that is a very serious question that needs to be posed to the Government, and the Government is obliged to provide meaningful answers not only to business people but also to the rest of the working community throughout Australia. We are aware that the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission is presently conducting its inquiry into the wage fixing system and its national wage hearing, and we understand that there has been an agreement between the Australian Council of Trade Unions and the Government that a joint policy or proposal should be put by those two bodies suggesting that Australia should in fact move to a two-tier wage fixing mechanism. Many of us, particularly on this side of the House and throughout the business community, are uncertain as to what a two-tier wage fixing system or mechanism will be and what precisely is being proposed by the Government and the ACTU. We have yet to know the details of that proposal. It concerns me and many people throughout this country that that wage-fixing mechanism may do nothing more than give malcontent unions unrestrained opportunity to demand wage increases far beyond the capacity of the economy and the country to pay. I believe that if unions-either with the blessing of the ACTU or otherwise-pursue unrestrained wage increases it will be extremely detrimental to this country. It has been pointed out by the Business Council of Australia that Australia is not in a position to afford wage increases at the moment. I believe that it is unrealistic to expect that the Arbitration Commission will not grant any wage increase as a result of its present hearing. But I believe that there is every need to restrain wages to the maximum extent possible. That is not to say that people on this side of the House are trying to deny workers their genuine right to have meaningful wage increases; but it is a realistic reflection of the serious economic problems that this country faces. We are all too well aware of Australia's massive overseas debt and the massive problems that we face with servicing that debt. We are also very conscious of the fact that our balance of trade and our balance of payments are very precarious. In those circumstances, when Australia is desperately trying to improve its position in world trade and in the world economy, it is most unrealistic to expect that unrestrained wage increases be granted or demanded on behalf of workers throughout the country. If that were to happen it would no doubt set the economic recovery of this country back many years. No doubt it would bring about a lowering of the standard of living for all workers and their families throughout the country. I urge the Government not only to advocate the loose two-tiered system that it seems to be advocating at the moment but also to tell the country and the business community what mechanisms will be put in place to ensure that unions do not go beyond the decisions granted by the Arbitration Commission and go into the market-place demanding wage increases that industry is simply unable to pay. What mechanisms can the Government establish? What guarantee can the Government give us that that procedure will not be pursued by individual trade unions? I agree with the arguments that the Government is presently putting before the Arbitration Commission hearing that increases should be limited to the capacity of the economy to pay. But if the Government is to propose this mechanism and pursue that argument it must also have procedures in mind to ensure that unions do not go beyond that system and demand further increases in the market-place. Unless it has that mechanism and unless it can enforce it, I do not believe that the policy of the Government has any credibility whatever. Mr CHARLES(Isaacs)(10.20) —I take the opportunity this evening to inform the House of the efforts of some of my constituents towards the rescue of a unique and endangered piece of Australia's maritime history. HMVS Cerberus, the former flagship of the Victorian Navy-I repeat, it is the HMVS Cerberus of the Victorian Navy-holds an unrivalled place in maritime architecture and in the formation of the Royal Australian Navy. It is a vessel of world significance. Its colourful past continues an important chapter in the history of what was then known as the Port Phillip district. The Cerberus today represents a singular opportunity for us to reclaim and restore an irreplaceable part of our heritage for succeeding generations. The City of Sandringham has joined with local residents, community groups and the National Trust in a campaign to restore the Cerberus, and to have the vessel displayed alongside the famous Polly Woodside as a permanent feature of a maritime museum. There is a degree of urgency involved, however, in the battle to save the Cerberus. After more than 50 years of service in and around Port Philip Bay, the Cerberus was sold for scrap in 1926. Fortunately, rather than being dismantled, it was purchased by the Sandringham Council and scuttled-although largely intact-off Half Moon Bay, where it continues to serve as a breakwater no more than a straight hit for four from where the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) used to live in Sandringham. A detailed submission for the restoration of the ship prepared by the City of Sandringham contains a report by an independent firm of naval architects, confirming that the Cerberus can be salvaged. However, the cumulative effects of time, tide and neglect are catching up with this remarkable vessel. Another extended period of inaction could see the hull deteriorate to the point where salvage is rendered impossible. Time is running out for local citizens and groups and municipal, State and Federal governments to find the funds needed for restoration, which is estimated at about $3.5m. Age alone makes the Cerberus important. Over 115 years have passed since it was completed in September 1870. The Cerberus, a steam-powered iron-clad warship, is 17 years older than the sailing ship Polly Woodside. Perhaps of more significance is her unique design. The first naval vessel built specifically for a colony, it was ordered by the Victorian Government in 1866. This was an experimental era in naval architecture, a time when wood, sail and cannon were gradually being replaced with iron, steam and turrets. Designed by E. J. Reed, chief constructor for the Admiralty, the Cerberus was a prototype of a new type of warship, referred to as a turret ship or breastwork monitor. It was the first armoured ship and the first designed without sails or masts to serve in Australian waters. The arrival of Federation saw the transfer of HMVS Cerberus, the flagship of the Victorian Navy, to the fledgling Royal Australian Navy, of which it become a major element. Decommissioned in 1911, it was used as a floating explosives store during World War I. It was renamed HMAS Platypus II and used as a submarine depot ship until being sold in 1926. The RAN naval base at Flinders was named after the Cerberus in recognition of the importance of the ship to the formation and development of the Navy and the Port Phillip area. Of course, the honourable member for Dunkley (Mr Chynoweth), who raised this matter last night, is a keen follower of this project. In the 60 years that the Cerberus has languished off Black Rock, in the northern part of my electorate of Isaacs, numerous attempts have been made to raise public awareness of the value of and urgent need for restoration. Regrettably, these previous attempts have been fragmented and poorly funded and promoted. Previous State and Federal governments remained totally oblivious to appeals for salvage and renovation. We now have, at long last, a detailed submission on the cost and method of restoration. We have an active and co-ordinated campaign to make the public aware of this long neglected and little publicised relic, so unique by world standards. Most importantly, we have a government which is actively working towards the realisation of an Australian maritime museum. The Minister for Arts, Heritage and Environment (Mr Cohen) visited the area earlier this year and made a personal inspection of the Cerberus. It is my hope that, as a result of the wider campaign being created by my constituents, members of this House and the Australian people will have a greater appreciation of the urgent need for action in this matter. It is not, however, a matter solely for the Federal Government. Citizens, community groups and bodies such as the National Trust need to work with local, State and Federal governments if the Cerberus is to be saved from destruction by the elements. Its unique historical significance will ensure that it becomes a tourist attraction of world proportions. It is Australia's-and the world's-first iron clad war ship. Aside from its value as a tourist attraction, the restoration of the Cerberus would be a worthwhile endeavour-- Madam SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr RUDDOCK(Dundas)(10.25) —I have wanted to speak for some time about the funding cuts for the Northern Districts Education Centre which is the centre of education in my electorate of Dundas. It serves the northern districts of Sydney and probably half of Sydney's population. Honourable members may not be fully aware of the nature of education centres. The Northern Districts Education Centre was a co-operative of a semi-autonomous nature in the suburb of Cheltenham. The centre was founded in 1974 after a public meeting attended by educators, teachers and a large number of community people. It is involved in the professional development of teachers and the provision of services to the education community of Sydney, particularly the northern suburbs and nearby areas and, in fact, it contributes significantly throughout New South Wales. It has a small staff including three full time people-a director, a librarian and an administration officer-and eight part-time teachers and clerical staff. Amongst those are four consultant project officers and four clerical staff. It was announced in the recent Budget that the Northern Districts Education Centre will receive no further recurrent grants from the Commonwealth Schools Commission from the beginning of 1987. The centre was not alone in this, but it has relied on this grant as its major source of income. In 1986 the grant represented 62 per cent of the centre's annual turnover of $230,000. The announcement was totally unexpected. In fact there had been discussions previously with representatives of the Schools Commission which indicated that if there were to be any reductions in grants to education centres, these would occur in centres with fewer than two full time professional staff. Larger organisations would not be affected. The Northern Districts Education Centre has always employed two professional full time staff and was not considered to be under threat. There are 32 Commonwealth-funded education centres around Australia-six in New South Wales, seven in Victoria, 11 in Queensland, three in South Australia, two in Western Australia, two in the Northern Territory and two in Tasmania. From January 1987 the Commission's grants to education centres will be reduced from $2.5m to $1.7m, a reduction of 33 per cent. Nine centres, including the Northern Districts Education Centre and the Inner City Education Centre at Stanmore in Sydney, will no longer receive a Commonwealth Schools Commission recurrent grant. Of these nine, two are in New South Wales, one in Victoria, four in Queensland, one in Tasmania and one in South Australia. The 24 remaining centres will receive on average 10 per cent less next year. New South Wales has 35 per cent of the students and 32 per cent of the schools and teachers in Australia, yet it has received through education centres less than 28 per cent of the total funds for that program. The decision to cut nine centres nationally, including two in New South Wales, means that in future less than 23 per cent of the available funds will be spent in New South Wales. One of my concerns is that in the aftermath of the Budget, decisions appear to have been taken to restore funding to some centres and it seems that the funding was held out first as a carrot to try to get organisations to stop protesting about the extent of the cutbacks in the grants they received. In fact, I would like to been assured that the amounts that have been made available have not been distributed on a political basis. It has been suggested that one of the centres that is being retained after an amount of lobbying, is in a marginal Labor seat in Queensland. If that were the case and if that were the criterion on which funding decisions were reviewed I would be appalled. During 1986 the Northern Districts Education Centre published new indexes to the collection of programs and developed an information network for community members. It has marketed four new computer programs, run in-service activities in a number of curriculum and skilled areas and managed a major evaluation project for the regional participation and equity program. Undoubtedly it has fulfilled a first class role. I am aghast at the decision that was taken and I would like answers to the large number of outstanding questions as to the way in which decisions were made in this instance. The answers I have received from the Minister for Education (Senator Ryan) have been quite unsatisfactory. This centre will not close. The community is determined to see that it continues to operate. It has rationalised its activities to this point but, if it is to fulfil a useful role in the community, ongoing support will be required. Madam SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr PUNCH(Barton)(10.30) —I wish to speak tonight about the dumping of used secondhand Japanese reconditioned automotive engines in Australia. I do this for two reasons: Firstly, because the Government has just received the Industries Assistance Commission report on reconditioned automotive engines and, secondly, because it has been brought to my attention by four prominent local small business constituents in my electorate that the Australian market is being undermined by the dumping of cheap Japanese engines. The Australian reconditioned engine industry has declined over the last five years from a vibrant, efficient industry to an industry facing real problems. The cause of the decline, in very large measure, has been the massive and accelerated dumping of secondhand engines from overseas and especially from Japan. My constituents have pointed out a number of disturbing matters that arise from the dumping of Japanese engines. There is no quality control of these engines which results in an inefficient use of Australia's natural resources such as petrol and oil. The engines do not meet State pollution control laws. On this point, the Department of Arts, Heritage and Environment made a submission to the IAC that there be no reduction in import duties for used engines relative to other engines so as not to encourage their use. Tests undertaken by the Victorian Government's Environment Protection Authority reveal that emissions from secondhand engines are also considerably greater than those from reconditioned engines. There is no protection for Australian consumers, for example, when purchasing these secondhand imported engines, as consumers have no guarantee as to how many miles these engines may have done. Also, it is often difficult for consumers to get spare parts for these dumped Japanese engines. Further, it must be said, they take work out of the hands of Australians, which concerns me very much in regard to the local small businesses in this industry in my electorate. For example, the constituents who have approached me have been established for 30 years or more in their respective workshops and currently employ some 60 people. This is all now under threat from the dumping of Japanese engines. The impact on domestic industry investment by the influx of overseas secondhand engines has been dramatic. Estimates suggest that retrenchments as a result of imported engines are occurring at the rate of 1,000 per annum. The deskilling of the industry is becoming critical, especially in the area of apprenticeships. My constituents have expressed concern that some importers of engines are engaged in arrangements which reduce their sales tax obligations, although I stress that this requires much further investigation. My constituents tell me that these Japanese engines are being dumped in Australia at as little as $A70, and retail at anywhere between $350 and $795. Evidence provided by my constituents shows that used Japanese engines are selling at up to $200 below the Australian market equivalent. At present a general rate of 25 per cent applies to imports of engines irrespective of whether the engine is new, used or reconditioned. The IAC has now recommended that imports of used and reconditioned engines be dutiable at a general rate of 15 per cent. Figures in the IAC report show that imports of used spark ignition automotive engines from the United States of America and elsewhere have tapered off since 1982-83, while imports from Japan have risen from 767 in 1979-80 to 33,574 in 1985-86-a massive 43-fold increase in just five years. The consequences are reflected in national statistics which show that the total reconditioned engine market in Australia fell by 6.27 per cent between 1980 and 1982, while over the same period the level of imported engines increased by a massive 300 per cent, with their share of the domestic market tripling. The flood, and it is a flood, of used Japanese automotive engines into Australia is the result of the introduction in Japan of stringent vehicle regulations. The result is that many automotive engines, having failed to satisfy Japanese legal requirements, are discarded and therefore end up being dumped in Australia where the regulations are less demanding. In conclusion, let me say that there is a clear distinction between fair competition and unfair competition. At present the Australian engine reconditioning industry is experiencing what I believe amounts to unfair competition. These imported Japanese engines are not being landed in Australia because of a desire to compete in or supplement the Australian market. They are simply being dumped here because their usefulness has been exhausted elsewhere. They are being dumped here with no consideration for our environment, our economy, our consumers or our industries, and all in the name of making a financial killing at the expense of the Australian industry. These imported engines are not competing freely. Their disregard for environmental consideration-- Madam SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr TUCKEY(O'Connor)(10.35) —I thought I would say a few words tonight for the people who vote in the Australian electorate, in the hope that whoever listens to me might get a better deal in getting some information from the government of the day. In the last fortnight we have had substantial evidence of the Government demonstrating its great political skills but denying any opportunity for anyone to discover whether it has any economic or practical skills at all. I have said frequently in recent times that if this Government could match its political skills with an upgrading of its economic skills the country would probably be run quite well. I am talking about Question Time. Some very serious issues are before the Parliament at the moment. The identity card would present great problems for certain people in the community. Many of the people who would be affected by the requirements of the card are people who vote for the Australian Labor Party. They could be confronted with a $100,000 fine just because they happen to be the secretary of a club. They could be responsible for their club, an incorporated body, being fined $100,000 because they mistakenly employed someone without sighting his identity card. I think that is an issue worth debating in this place. A householder may find himself in a similar position. We certainly have not had any explanation from the Government on what would happen to a real estate agent, an employer, a produce merchant or a stockbroker who got a piece of paper in the mail purporting to be from a `community leader'. How would that person know whether that piece of paper was genuine? How would he explain at a later date to the Commissioner of Taxation or one of his officers, or some new policeman whose job it is to police the identity card, that he accepted that certificate on face value? Would he be fined $20,000, or as a corporation $100,000, for failing to get proper evidence and record it before transacting business with someone? Those are reasonable questions but we have not had answers to them. Is it all because the Government thinks that this request for information is some Opposition plot? The Government does not think it is obliged to give this information to the Opposition. I am drawing to the Government's attention that the Opposition, for better or worse, also represents the community and, in seeking and obtaining that information, for whatever reasons, it is supplying information to the community. Mr Howe —It would have to be for the worse. Mr TUCKEY —The Minister should not be smart about it, because I am not being smart. If he would listen for once he might learn something to his political advantage. People in the community are being hurt, as the Government learned with its fringe benefits tax. The stupidity of it was that, when all the dust settled over the fringe benefits tax, we discovered that the wealthy people are advantaged under the Government's law but the poor people have lost the use of the company utility. Mr Milton —That is not right. Mr TUCKEY —It is no good the honourable member arguing with me. I can give him the figures. After I have finished speaking I will give them to him in black and white. The Government, through its fringe benefits tax, has created a regime that now requires those on high incomes to take the benefit instead of the money-it makes it advantageous to them to do so. Mr Milton —Get back to the Australia Card. Mr TUCKEY —The honourable member will not listen, will he? We have seen the honourable member for La Trobe show his courage tonight. He has criticised the Government on a Bill. Why? It is because he knows that the Opposition will support it. That is the first time he has come out of his burrow since his Party has been in government. The reality is that these circumstances are bad. Ministers are procrastinating. As I have said, if the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) could only match his economic skills with his political skills he might be able to run Australia. We know a little about that. In the last couple of days he has called for price watches on small business people. He wants them persecuted. It is just too bad when the price watchers do their surveys because they do not price everything in a shop. They take a selected group of articles; they have a checklist. If a person happens to be in the know and reduces the price of the goods that are on the check list, he gets his name in the paper with the words: `A good retailer'. If he happens to be running a special on a product that is not on the check list that day, he is a bad retailer. But who knows better how difficult it is to make a profit in retailing than the Prime Minister? He went broke in one of those stores, didn't he? He failed with Bourke's store. Mr Howe —I take a point of order. Mr TUCKEY —Don't give me that, you silly little man. Madam SPEAKER —Order! Mr TUCKEY —He went broke, didn't he? Madam SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member for O'Connor will resume his seat. The honourable member's time has expired. Mr MILTON(La Trobe)(10.41) —Following upon the most commendable action of the Australian Labor Government in initiating a nuclear free zone in the South Pacific, an equally commendable joint initiative is taking place in Europe between the Social Democratic Party of West Germany and the Socialist Unity Party of East Germany. A joint communique draws attention to the Palme Commission's warnings of the danger which the large number of North Atlantic Treaty Organisation and the Warsaw Treaty Organisation deployed nuclear weapons close to the dividing line posed for the peoples of central Europe. In order to raise the nuclear threshold and to reduce the temptation to make early use of nuclear weapons, the Palme Commission recommended the creation of an area free of nuclear weapons initially extending 150 kilometres on each side of the border. As a consequence, the Chairman of the SDP, Willy Brandt, and the Chairman of the State Council of the German Democratic Republic, Erich Honecker, agreed to set up a joint working group to discuss the setting up of a nuclear weapon free corridor in Europe in accordance with the Palme Commission's recommendations. During a number of sessions, the joint working group explored the possibilities of implementing the proposal. The discussions resulted in a set of principles for a nuclear free corridor in central Europe which was accepted by the Social Democratic Party and the Socialist Unity Party. Whilst I do not have time in this debate to deal with all of the details contained in the set of principles, I would like to give an outline of this most historic agreement. Part I is a preamble which makes it clear that this new initiative has a place in the process in global and European endeavours for arms limitation and disarmament. It is intended to create greater trust and greater security in central Europe without calling into question the alliance membership of the sides involved. Part II defines the objective of the principles: A nuclear weapon free corridor is to be established along the dividing line between the two alliances in central Europe. It is to encompass parts of the territories of the German Democratic Republic, the Federal Republic of Germany and Czechoslovakia and to extend initially to 150 kilometres on each side-that is to say 300 kilometres in total. On the territory of the GDR, it would run approximately along a line connecting Stralsund, Berlin, Wittenberg and Dresden; on the territory of Czechoslovakia, along a line still to be defined; and, on the territory of the FRG, along a line connecting Cuxhaven, Bremen, Bielefeld, Siegen, Mannheim, Ansbach and Munich. Three years after the corridor is established, the governments are to negotiate about extending the corridor to become a central European nuclear weapon free zone. Part III defines the weapons which are to be removed from the corridor or zone. This refers to all delivery systems capable of carrying nuclear munitions, as well as the munitions proper, including atomic demolition munitions. Since the development of modern weaponry has made it impossible positively to distinguish nuclear and non-nuclear weapons systems, all dual-capability weapons systems will be classified as nuclear weapons. This applies to artillery, aircraft and missiles. This is also an initial and important step towards conventional disarmament. Part IV sets out the obligations of the participating states, including those which have deployed nuclear weapons on the territory of the corridor. Part V contains comprehensive stipulations on national and international verification which are entirely suited to guarantee abidance by a future treaty. The working group also considered the following complementary measures: First, the establishment of an early-warning system concerning nuclear incidents of any kind, taking into consideration the decisions of the International Atomic Energy Agency; secondly, the establishment of data banks in connection with the creation of the nuclear weapon free corridor and with the verification of strict observance of its status; thirdly, annual treaty conferences; and, fourthly, the marking of the localities belonging to the corridor, for example by a place-name sign of a different colour or an extra sign. The principles refer to weapons systems in central Europe which are currently not the subject of negotiations, either in Geneva or in Vienna. It is precisely these weapons systems which would keep the nuclear threshold very low in case of a military incident. Their inclusion in a treaty and its implementation would harm nobody and benefit everyone. Coming as it does after the meeting in Reykjavik, the initiative is based on the precept that the Soviet Union and the United States of America must have a shared interest in reducing the extremely high concentration of weapons in central Europe. I hope the Government and, indeed, the Parliament can endorse the proposed nuclear weapons free corridor in central Europe, coming as it does so close on our own nuclear free zone in the Pacific. Mr TIM FISCHER(Farrer)(10.45) —Tonight I want to offer to the House and to the nation a salute to a water storage in my electorate just upstream from Albury, namely, the Hume Weir, on the eve of next week's celebrations to commemorate the fiftieth anniversary of the construction of the Hume Weir and the creation of Lake Hume. It has conferred a massive economic benefit over so much of south-eastern Australia, including the many towns and cities of southern New South Wales, northern Victoria, and indeed, South Australia, ranging right through to the provision of water in this day and age to the capital city of Adelaide in South Australia. I think it is very commendable that the House pause for a moment to recognise the significance of five decades of service rendered by the Hume Weir storage and by Lake Hume. This service has generated economic benefit across the board through massively increased irrigation activity in three States. Economic activity has prevailed as a consequence of hydro-electric power generated through the hydro-electric power station built at much the same time at the foot of the Hume wall. Economic activity has also been generated by the recreational and tourism dimension of the area immediately surrounding Lake Hume-Albury and Wodonga and beyond-and of the enhanced flows of the Murray River, a tourism and recreational dimension which exists right along the Murray Valley. There will be an appropriate ceremony at the Hume Weir storage wall next week. If Parliament were not sitting, I know the honourable member for Wakefield (Mr Andrew), the honourable member for Mallee (Mr Peter Fisher), the honourable member for Murray (Mr Lloyd), myself and others would have been at the Hume storage wall to participate in that ceremony because we rate very importantly indeed the fiftieth anniversary of this great storage. It is also worth recording that the storage has given its first birthday present by spilling not once but twice during November, its fiftieth anniversary month, since it was originally completed in 1936. This time last year the storage was at only 71 per cent capacity-some 1 million megalitres less. As a consequence, the salinity factor crept up, there were irrigation restrictions downstream, and there were great difficulties for many tourist operators on Lake Hume. I am pleased to say that Hume will celebrate its fiftieth anniversary with 100 per cent capacity, with some water spilling through valves and possibly over the main spillway, over the top gates. There could be no better way to celebrate the fiftieth anniversary of this vital storage. Madam Speaker, I know you pass over this weir at least twice a sitting week as you travel to and from Melbourne. There could be no better way to celebrate the fiftieth anniversary than by its being 100 per cent full. Related to the operation of Hume storage is the complex question of the activity associated with Dartmouth Dam and its operation. It has now reached an all time record of 76 per cent capacity. I am sure the authorities are aware of the need to operate those storages to maximum advantage in accordance with the charter of the River Murray Commission. We do not want to see any irrigation shortfall, but within that constraint we do want to see a maximisation of recreational and tourist pursuits associated not only with the two storages I have named but also with all the other storages right along the Murray Valley within the purview of the River Murray Commission. I salute the Hume storage on the tremendous role it has played in the economy of three States and in the economy of the nation as a whole. Mr HOLLIS(Throsby)(10.50) —I sometimes wonder whether there is no end to the benevolence of the Hawke Labor Government. Not only have we filled the Hume Weir for its fiftieth anniversary, but we have even managed to have it overflowing. What a magnificent achievement that has been for the Hawke Labor Government. What I want to speak about tonight is the fact that today many in the community are quick, and in my opinion, too quick to criticise schools and to criticise both teachers and students. I regularly visit the schools in my electorate of Throsby, and I am always impressed with the students and their dedication. Indeed I-and I guess many honourable members-am looking forward over the next three weeks to going to all the speech nights that I can possibly manage in my electorate. The Warilla High School is in the electorate of Throsby. This school caters for a largely working class area in the Shellharbour municipality. I have in my hand a book produced by the students of that school entitled First Take. This book is part of a set of three books that have been written and illustrated by students from Year 12, Senior A at Warilla High School. The book is designed to provide suitable reading material for intellectually disabled teenagers. It is age specific and involves Australian content. I think this is very important because many of the books that these children, especially the intellectually disabled children, get do not have Australian content; but this book does. The project forms part of a community service course at the school. Since this set of books was launched in October over 300 sets have been distributed to libraries, special schools and activity therapy centres in New South Wales. Next year the students at this school hope to promote further copies to cope with the demand that has already been generated. Since the book was published in October there has been a tremendous response to it. This group also assists in a voluntary capacity at the Kiama riding school for the disabled. I have a particular interest in this group. It recently obtained some land not far from where I live and it is developing a school there which will cater for riding for the disabled. These students from Warilla High also run an extremely innovative program of computer awareness for developmentally disabled students from the Balgowrie Human Resources Centre at Peterborough Special School. My congratulations go to the students of Warilla High, not only on the publication of this book but also on the voluntary work they do in the community, especially that for the disabled. While I am speaking about Warilla High, I mention that I have here yet another book published by this school. This is a computer book entitled Apple Bytes for use by students in high schools. The book was written by Mr W. Erven to fill the need in many schools for a student workbook in computer studies and computer awareness. It deals primarily with the use of Apple computers in secondary education. This book will be distributed free of charge to all secondary schools in the South Coast region as well as every regional computer consultant in New South Wales. This will ensure that most secondary schools will come into contact with this book in 1987. Warilla High is a state high school. These are examples of only two of the activities that this school has engaged in over the last 12 months. I am extremely proud of this school and the work it has done-time and time again we hear teachers and students being criticised-but Warilla High School is not an exception. There are many schools and students doing work such as this and community and other work, not only in the electorate of Throsby but also in the electorate of my friend the honourable member for Eden-Monaro (Mr Snow) and other schools throughout New South Wales. I say well done to the students and teachers at Warilla High School. Mr ANDREW(Wakefield)(10.55) —I was prompted to rise tonight following the comments of the honourable member for Barton (Mr Punch) and the concern he expressed about the dumping of inferior quality Japanese engines on to the Australian market. I felt that his speech gave an appropriate backdrop to the comments I would like to make tonight, which follow the decision of the citrus growers of Australia to hold a mock funeral on the lawns of Parliament House on Monday this week. The citrus growers were protesting at the dumping of Brazilian juice on to the Australian market. They were suggesting that the funeral was marking what might well be the end of the Australian citrus industry. I am aware that concern about this matter has already been aired in this House by the honourable member for Riverina-Darling (Mr Hicks) and the honourable member for Hinkler (Mr Conquest), but I think the point that the House needs to appreciate is that citrus juice is currently being dumped in Australia and that its source country is Brazil. Too few people realise that the Australian nation as such fails to produce enough citrus of its own and must be an importer of concentrated juice. Too little citrus fruit is grown in Australia to meet the demands of the Australian community. We must be importers. But the current position that growers find themselves in is that the Brazilians have been prepared effectively to dump concentrated juice on to the Australian market. I want to make the point that the citrus industry is a rather extraordinary one in that, as I understand it, it is not seeking any protection for whole Australian oranges. The citrus industry is prepared to export whole Australian oranges to any destination in the world against any one of its world competitors. Of course, it is important that we encourage the Australian citrus industry to continue to develop its export market. So successful have South Australian exports of citrus fruits been that last year, while horticultural exports from South Australia rose by 63 per cent, a large proportion of that increase was made up of citrus fruit. However, in order to export citrus fruit or put citrus fruit on the local market, in an effort to acquire the best quality fruit one inevitably has a quantity of overrun that results from the export pack or, in some cases, from the local market pack. This overrun finds its way into the juice market. Unless there is a viable Australian juice market there is no outlet for the overrun that results from effectively accumulating fruit for export. Sixty per cent of Australia's citrus fruit finds its way into the juice market while only 40 per cent finds its way into either the export market or the local market. The protest on the lawns in front of Parliament House on Monday was all about 1c per orange. Growers are quite happy to grow whole oranges for the juice market for 2c each-no more. In recent years, in what have been relatively good times, they have been getting 3c for each orange that finds its way into the juice market, which is effectively $150 a tonne. Growers claim that their cost of production is something like $120 a tonne but I put it, for the convenience of the Parliament, that 2c would be the sort of price that growers would be prepared to accept for what is the base juice market. As a result of dumped Brazilian juice coming into Australia, growers have found themselves receiving only 1c for every orange produced. This has been a totally unacceptable situation in which the growers have found themselves. During Monday morning's protest the Government announced that the Australian Customs Service, on a quick evaluation of the Australian citrus scene, had found that a case could reasonably be made for the simple truth that Brazilian fruit was being dumped in Australia and announced that some short term protection would be offered to citrus growers. What growers now seek from the Government is an indication of some longer term protection from dumped juice in the Australian market so that they can ensure that, this season, they face realistic prices for their juice fruit. Madam SPEAKER —Order! It being 11 p.m., the House stands adjourned until 2 p.m. next Tuesday. House adjourned at 11 p.m. The following papers were deemed to have been presented on 20 November 1986: Customs Act-Regulation-Statutory Rules 1986, No. 328. Defence Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1986, No. 331. Export Control Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1986, No. 327. Health Insurance Act-Regulation-Statutory Rules 1986, No. 326. Income Tax Assessment Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1986, No. 325. National Health Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1986, No. 330. Naval Defence Act-Regulation-Statutory Rules 1986, No. 332. Navigation Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1986, Nos. 334, 335, 336. Nursing Homes Assistance Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1986, No. 329. Seat of Government (Administration) Act-Ordinances-1986- No. 73-Parole (Amendment). No. 74-Magistrates Court (Amendment) (No. 3). No. 75-Co-operative Societies (Amendment) (No. 4). Superannuation Act-Regulation-Statutory Rules 1986, No. 333. The following answers to questions were circulated: (Question No. 4485) Mr Cadman asked the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs, upon notice, on 22 August 1986: (1) How many applications made since 5 March 1983 by migrant welfare organisations for grant-in-aid assistance have been rejected. (2) What are the names of the organisations concerned. (3) Why were these applications rejected. Mr Hurford —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) Since 5 March 1983 459 applications have been rejected for the 201 grants-in-aid available in the financial years 1983-84, 1985-85 and 1985-86. (2) The names of the organisations not approved are set out below. It should be noted that some organisations listed: (a) may have sought reaward of an existing grant (b) may have already held a grant-in-aid but sought an additional grant (c) may have been successful with another application in the same financial year (d) may have been successful with another application in another financial year. (3) The unsuccessful applications were not rated as highly in the assessment process when considered against standard criteria set out in the annual guidelines for applicant organisations. The criteria include: type and intensity of needs of the community or target group to be served by the applicant levels of existing services in the area to be covered by the applicant viability of the organisation applying for a grant and the suitability of the proposed program to meet the identified needs. In accordance with Government policy, priority has been given to funding ethnic agencies rather than general agencies, and to those applicants proposing services to newly arrived groups in view of their greater needs. NOT RECOMMENDED 1983-84 Organisation NEW SOUTH WALES Al-Mina Charitable Association Annandale Neighbourhood Centre Apostolic Catholic Assyrian Church of the East Arab Children Education Goodness Society Australia Chinese Community Association-(2nd grant) Australian Chinese Descendants Mutual Association Australian Lebanese Association Australian Palestinian Association Australian Railways Union Autistic Children's Association of NSW Baptist Church, Wollongong Belmore-Lakemba Youth Committee Botany Multicultural Resource Centre-(2nd grant) Building Workers Industrial Unions of Australia Burnside Home for Children-(2nd grant) Cabramatta Community Centre Canterbury Community Aid Careforce-(5th grant) Careforce-(6th grant) Christian In-Care Centre Centacare-(1st grant) Centacare-(2nd grant) Co. As. It.-(5th grant) (Wollongong) Co. As. It.-(6th grant) (Sydney) Combined Pensioners Association of NSW Co-ordinating Committee of National Communities from Yugoslavia Co-ordinating Council for Organisations of Immigrants from Yugoslavs in Wollongong Cringila Community Co-op Ltd. D4 (Darlinghurst) Diocese of the Armenian Church of Australia and New Zealand Dulwich Hill Community Centre Estonian Mission, Sydney (through the Baptist Union of NSW) Ethnic Child Care Development Unit Federation of Netherlands Societies Finnish Immigration Community of NSW Forest Alliance Church Friends of Refugees from Eastern Europe Friends of the University of Wollongong-(1st grant) Friends of the University of Wollongong-(2nd grant) General Union of United Palestinian Workers Granville Multicultural Centre Greek Community Council of Sydney Greek Orthodox Archdiocese-(4th grant) Hungarian Council of NSW Hy-Vong Community International Social Service ( 1/2 grant) Islamic Council of NSW ITIM-Inter-church Trade and Industry Mission (2nd Grant) Khmer Community of NSW-(2nd grant) Kindergarten Union of NSW Inc. Latin-American Welfare Service Lusitanos Social Centre Macquarie Legal Centre Magyar Social Club Maltese Welfare Group Migrant Workers' Committee MRC, St George MRC, Wollongong-(3rd grant) Newcastle Youth Centre Newtown Neighbourhood Centre NSW Federation of Democratic Turkish Associations NSW GIA Migrant Welfare Agencies & Workers Co-op Ltd. NSW Timorese Chinese Association Overseas Teachers Association Philaust Country Club Public Interest Advocacy Centre Romanian Welfare Centre Salvation Army Serbian Cultural and Artistic Society Serbian Orthodox St Sava Association (additional 1/2 grant) Shalom Organisation South Granville Baptist Church Spanish Club Ltd St Bail's Homes St Christophourus Homes for the Aged Association St Vincent de Paul Society, Wollongong Sydney Jewish Centre on Ageing Turkish Welfare Association-(2nd grant) UNIFAM Uniting Church-(2nd grant) Vietnamese Baptist Church in Sydney Welfare Rights Centre Women's Council of Arab Education Yugoslav Australian Association-(3rd grant) VICTORIA ANFE-(Association Nazionale Famiglie Degli Emigrati) (2nd grant) ( 1/2 grant) Armenian Cultural Society in Australia Armenian Welfare Society Association of Ukrainians in Victoria Australian Ceylon Fellowship Australian Croatian Catholic Community Australian Greek Welfare Society/Greek Orthodox Community of Melbourne & Vic Australian Turkish Cultural Association Australian Turkish Welfare Federation Australian Vietnamese Women's Welfare Association Broadmeadows Community Health Centre-(2nd grant) Brunswick Community Health Centre Catholic Family Welfare Bureau, Dandenong Catholic Family Welfare Bureau, Footscray-(2nd grant) Church of All Nations Co.As.It.-(Child Care) Co.As.It.-(Women in family conflict) Co.As.It.-(Women in Industry) Croatian Community Welfare Association-(2nd grant) Cyprian Community of Melbourne and Vic. Daughters of Charity Eastern Districts Polish Association Ethnic Alcohol and Drug Dependence Committee Federated Ironworkers Association (Vic) Federation of Polish Organisations Fitzroy Advisory Service Friends of Refugees of Eastern Europe Greek Orthodox Archdiocese Greek Orthodox Community of Brunswick Greek Orthodox Community and Parish of North Carlton Hellenic Community of the City of Moorabbin Hospital Employees Federation of Australia Hungarian Community Aid ICRA (Vic)-(2nd grant) Islamic Society of Vic. Lebanese Welfare Committee of the Australian Lebanese Association-(2nd grant) Macedonian Ethnic Community Council of Australia Melbourne Cyprus Turkish Community Centre Montefiore Homes for the Aged MRC, Footscray-(3rd grant) MRC, Preston-(3rd grant) Nursing Mothers Association of Australia Overseas Chinese Fellowship Association of Australia Polish Community Association in Geelong Portuguese Association of Australia Ltd Spanish Latin American Welfare Committee-(2nd grant) St Albans Turkish Community Child Care Co-operative St Kilda Community Health Programme Victorian Council of Social Services Victorian Council of Social Services-(2nd grant) Victorian Mauritian Association Vietnamese Community Association of Vic. Vietnamese Community Association of Vic.-(2nd grant) Vietnamese Welfare Assistance and Development Association-(2nd grant) Western Region Maltese Community Council Family Planning Association Geraldton Community Education Centre Goldfields Community Action Greek Orthodox Archdiocese-(2nd grant) Italo-Australian Welfare Centre Inc.-(2nd grant) Latin American Association Macedonian Community of W.A. (Inc) Muslim Community Services of W.A. Workers Information and Research Centre TASMANIA Catholic Family Welfare Bureau-(2nd grant) MRC, Southern Tasmania Inc. (Hobart) Polish Association in Hobart NORTHERN TERRITORY Greek Orthodox Community of NT AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY Catholic Social Services Slovanian-Australian Association of Canberra Inc. QUEENSLAND Catholic Family Welfare Bureau, Cairns Greek Orthodox Community of St George-(2nd grant) Italian Welfare Committee-(2nd grant) Qld Ethnic Welfare Development Association Qld Islamic Society SOUTH AUSTRALIA Australian Society for Inter-Country Aid to Children (SA) Inc. Australian Spanish Latin American Institute Inc. ( 1/2 grant) Bowden and Brompton Mission Inc. Cambodian Australian Association Ethnic Communities Council of SA Inc.-(2nd grant) Federation of Polish Organisations in SA Inc.-(2nd grant) Greek orthodox Archdiocese-(2nd grant) GROW Group Indo-Chinese Australian Women's Association Inc. Lithuanian Women's Association of SA ``Moteru Sekcija'' Inc. Lutheran Counselling and Welfare Centre Port Adelaide Central Mission Inc.-(2nd grant- 1/2 grant) Service to Youth Council Inc. Slavic Independent Welfare Committee in Adelaide United Ethnic Communities of SA Inc. Whyalla Counselling Service ( 1/2 grant) WESTERN AUSTRALIA Burmese Association of WA Chinese Community Centre Council of WA Jewry Inc. Council of the Ageing Czechoslovak Association of WA Dutch Society Neerlandia of WA Inc. Ethnic Communities Council of WA NOT RECOMMENDED 1984-85 Organisation NEW SOUTH WALES Age-Concern of Albury-Wodonga Al-Minia Charitable Association Arabic Charitable Association of Campbelltown and District Association of Bhanin and El Mineh Association of Ethnic Chinese from Indo-China Australian Chinese Descendants Mutual Association Australian Colo Colo Sports Social and Cultural Club Ltd Australian Jewish Welfare Society (Reaward) Australian Lebanese Association Australian Lebanese Cultural Union Australian Palestinian Association Cabramatta Community Centre Catholic Immigration Office Central Coast Community Health Centre Centrecare Christian-In-Care Co. As. It. (Wollongong) Combined Pensioners' Association Coptic Orthodox Church Czechoslovak Welfare Association (Czech Country Club) Dulwich Hill Community Centre Ethnic Child Care Development Unit (for additional grant) Europol Club Family Planning Association Family Support Service of Cooma Fairfield Community Aid and Information Service (Reaward) Federation of Democratic Turkish Associations Federation of Netherlands Societies French Benevolent Society General Council of the Hasroun Community in Australia Greek Community Council Greek Orthodox Association Illawarra Ethnic Council Illawarra Islamic Society (Arabic) Illawarra Islamic Society (Turkish) Illawarra Migrant Resource Centre Inter Church Trade and Industry Mission (Reaward) Inter Church Trade and Industry Mission (2nd application) International Social Service Italo Australia Pensioners Association Kindergarten Union of NSW Lebanese Fraternal Society of Tripoli and Meenar Districts Leichhardt Women's Health Centre Macedonian Welfare Association (Wollongong) Macquarie Legal Centre Maltese Welfare Group Manly-Warringah Pregnancy Help Marrickville Liaison Centre for Human Services (Reaward) Metropolitan Addictions Referral Service New Chilean Club of Sydney Newtown Neighbourhood Centre Philippine Australian Friendship Association Riverina Australasian Club (Wagga Wagga) Royal Blind Society Salvation Army Save the Children Fund (Blacktown Family Services) Serbian Orthodox St Sava Association South Sydney Community Aid (for additional grant) South Sydney Women's Centre St George MRC St Maroun's Diocese Tenosynovitis and Overuse Injuries Association Uniting Church (Board of Social Responsibility) (Reaward) Warilla Women's Refuge Wollongong Parish of the Uniting Church Wollongong Womens Centre Wollongong Womens Centre Yugoslav-Australian Association (for third grant) VICTORIA Action on Disability within Ethnic Communities Anglican Diocese of Melbourne Association for the Blind Association Nazionale Famiglie Degli Emigrati (ANFE) Association of Ukrainians in Victoria Australian-Dutch Community Services Australian-Dutch Community Services Australian-German Welfare Society (Reaward) Australian-Greek Society for Care for the Elderly Australian-Greek Welfare Society Australian-Jewish Welfare and Relief Society (Reaward) Australian-Polish Community Services Australian-Turkish Cultural Association Australian-Vietnamese Women's Welfare Association ``Care'', Broadmeadows Uniting Church (Reaward) ``Care'', Broadmeadows Uniting Church Catholic Family Welfare Bureau (Refugee Section) Catholic Family Welfare Bureau (Footscray) Co.As.It. (for additional grant) Community Health Centres-Kensington/Flemington and North Melbourne Community Health Centres-Kensington/Flemington and North Melbourne Coptic Orthodox Church Corio Community Health Centre Croatian Community in Springvale Croatian Community Welfare Organisation (Footscray) Cyprian Community of Melbourne Czechoslovak Sokol Gymnastic Association Eastern Districts Polish Association Ecumenical Migration Centre (for additional grant) Finnish Society of Melbourne Greek Orthodox Community and Parish of North Carlton Greek Orthodox Community of Mentone and Districts Holland-Australia Retirement Foundation Hungarian Community Aid Indian Community Service Centre Islamic Society of Melbourne (Eastern Region) Islamic Society of Victoria Japan Club of Victoria Korean Community of Victoria Lao Phattin Association Latvian Friendly Society Lebanese Welfare Committee Melbourne City Mission MRC-Melbourne (for additional grant) MRC-Prahran (for additional grant) MRC-Preston/Reservoir (for additional grant) Montefiore Homes for the Aged Muscular Dystrophy Association of Victoria North Richmond Family Care Centre Nunawading North Neighbourhood Centre Polish Community Association of Geelong Polish Community Council of Victoria Prahran Multicultural Community Benevolent Centre Ltd Region 14 Turkish Community Project Spanish Latin American Welfare Committee St Albans Turkish Community Child Care Co-operative St Kilda Community Health Program Sunraysia District Turkish Association Turkish Association Springvale Turkish Islamic Society of Victoria Victorian Arabic Speaking Community Workers Network Victorian Council of Social Services Victorian Elderly Chinese Welfare Society Vietnamese Community Association of Victoria Westvale Community Centre Yooralla Society of Victoria QUEENSLAND Finnish Club of Brisbane (Reaward) WESTERN AUSTRALIA Burmese Association Christian Welfare Centre Fremantle MRC (for additional grant) Islamic Association of NW Australia Italo-Australian Welfare Centre 2 Pakistan Association of W.A. SOUTH AUSTRALIA Adelaide Central Mission Australian-Spanish Latin American Institute Catholic Education Office FILEF MRC of South Australia (for additional grant) Slavic Independent Welfare Committee United Ethnic Communities of South Australia Inc. TASMANIA Centacare (for additional grant) MRC Hobart AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY Melba Neighbourhood Centre MRC-Canberra (for additional grant) Vietnamese Buddhist Association Philippine Australia Association NOT RECOMMENDED 85-86 Organisation NEW SOUTH WALES Alzahra Muslim Association Arabic Charity Association of Campbelltown and Districts Arabic Welfare Interagency. (For 2 Grants) Association of Italian Families of Handicapped Children (HANDITAL)-NSW Australian-Arabic Senior Citizens Centre Australian-Chinese and Descendants Mutual Association Australian-Yugoslav Community Centre Autocephalic Greek Orthodox Church of the Illawarra Independent Community Belmore-Lakemba Youth Committee Botany Multicultural Resource Centre Cabramatta Community Centre Community Development Worker (Fairfield) Canterbury Community Aid Scheme Co-As-It (Italian Committee of Assistance) (for additional grant) Christian Community Aid Coffs Harbour Neighbourhood Centre Coptic Orthodox Church-NSW (R) C.O.R.E.-Illawarra Corporation for Redevelopment and Employment (R) Cyprian Community of NSW Cyprus Turkish Association Egyptian Association for Islamic Culture Ethnic Child Care Development Unit (R) Federation of Democratic Turkish Associations of Australia Federation of Ethnic Communities Councils of Australia The Federation of Netherlands Society Ltd Australian Philippine Assn-Illawarra Branch Interagency Migration Group Iranian Cultural and Education Society Islamic Council of NSW The Islamic Society of the Illawarra (i) Half Grant Lebanese Caseworker (ii) Half Grant Turkish Caseworker Italian Australian Pensioners' Association of NSW Italian Welfare Association in Newcastle (I.W.A.) Lady Gowrie Child Centre (R) Lebanese Fraternal Society of Tripoli and Mena Districts National Spiritual Assembly of the Bahai's of Australia Portuguese-Australian Co-operative Ltd ( 1/2 grant) The Salvation Army St Maroun's Diocese of Sydney Spanish Migrant Co-ordinating Committee of NSW Vietnamese Women's Association Women's Council of Arab Education Women's Legal Resource Centre Workers' Compensation Centre Workers' Health Centre-Lidcombe (Industrial Health Research) Foundation-(LTD) (R) VICTORIA Australian Arab Educational Cultural Centre Australian Asian Community Welfare Assn Australian German Welfare Society Australian Greek Welfare Society (R) Reduction of (1) one grant; non-recommendation of 2 new Grants Australian Islamic Society of Dandenong Australian Jewish Welfare & Relief Society The Australian Lebanese Welfare Committee Broadmeadows Community Health Services Catholic Family Welfare Bureau (R) CO-AS-IT (R) Reduction of (1) one grant; non-recommendation of 1 new Grant Ecumenical Migration Centre (R) Grant No 2 Egyptian Community Services Centre Family Assn of Vic Flemington-Kensington Turkish Child Care Co-operative Flemington Tenants Assn Inc. Friends of Refugees Inc. (FREE) Greek Orthodox Community of Lalor, Thomastown, Epping & Districts Greek Orthodox Community of Melbourne & Vic ``Hoan-Thien'' Community Hungarian Community Aid Inc. Macedonian Cultural Community Welfare Assn Maltese Community Council of Vic Inc. MRC Melbourne North Melbourne Social Service MRC Prahran Inc. 1/2 Grant Noah's Ark Library for Children with special needs Pan-Pontian Greek Community Polish Youth Association Portuguese Association of Vic Ltd The Returned Services League Russian Ethnic Representative Council of Vic Southern Family Life Service Assn Spanish Latin-American Welfare Centre (CELAS) St Albans Multicultural Consultative Council Inc. St Albans Turkish Community Child Care Co-op Timor Ethnic Chinese Community in Vic Tongan Old Boys College Assn Turkish Assn of Springvale Turkish Islamic Society Victorian Assn of Citizens Advice Bureau Inc. (R) Victorian Elderly Chinese Welfare Society Victorian Playgroup Assn VINAWADA Women's Information & Referral Exchange The Working Party-Italo-Australian Community QUEENSLAND Australian Lebanese Assn of Qld Brisbane MRC 2nd Grant Chinese Fraternity Assn of Qld Inc. Community Advice & Information Centre, Innisfail (R) East Brisbane Community Centre (R) Ethnic Broadcasting Assn of Qld Ltd Polonia Polish Assn (R) The Spanish Centre SOUTH AUSTRALIA Australian Spanish Latin American Institute Inc. The Bowden Brompton Mission Inc. Chinese Association of South Australia Inc. Citizens' Advice Bureau Ethnic Communities' Council of SA Inc. (R) The Family Planning Association of SA Inc. FILEF (Italian Federation of Italian Migrant Workers and Families) GROW (SA Branch) Indochinese Australian Women's Association Inc. Latin American Community Inc. Migrant Resource Centre of South Australia Inc. (Indo-Chinese communities) (R) Prospect Community House Inc. Vojvodina Australian Yugoslav Club Inc. WESTERN AUSTRALIA Australian Jewish Welfare and Philanthropic Society Family Planning Association Jesus People Welfare Services Perth Asian Community Centre (R) Turkish Assn of W.A. TASMANIA Migrant Resource Centre, Hobart NORTHERN TERRITORY Migrant Resource and Settlement Centre, Alice Springs (For One New Grant) AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY Age Concern of Albury/Wodonga Australasian Club of Wagga Wagga Canberra Vietnamese Community Melba Neighbourhood Centre Vietnamese Buddhists of the A.C.T. (Question No. 4566) Mr Donald Cameron asked the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations, upon notice, on 18 September 1986: Further to question No. 3339 placed on notice on 13 March 1986, (a) have more than 6 months passed since the question was first placed on notice, (b) have 19 Ministers already replied to a similar question, (c) when can I expect an answer to the question and (d) what does this delay say about the efficiency of the internal reporting system in his Department. Mr Willis —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: The reply to question No. 3339 appeared in the House of Representatives Hansard of 13 November 1986, on pages 2915-2918. (Question No. 4580) Mr Mildren asked the Minister for Primary Industry, upon notice, on 18 September 1986: (1) How many farmers in the Electoral Division of Ballarat were assisted by the Rural Adjustment Scheme in 1985-86. (2) What was the (a) form and (b) value of the assistance. Mr Kerin —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) 8 farmers were assisted. (2) (a) 1 farmer received debt reconstruction assistance and 7 farmers received household support. (b) Interest subsidy of $8 775 in respect of a $90 000 loan for debt reconstruction assistance and $31 072.98 for household support. (Question No. 4674) Mr McArthur asked the Minister for Social Security, upon notice, on 23 September 1986: (1) What has been the cost of appeals made to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) against decisions of his Department in each year since 1982-83. (2) Has the cost of appeals been borne by (a) his Department or (b) beneficiaries. (3) What legislative or regulatory action has his Department taken or does it propose to take as a result of AAT rulings in these cases. Mr Howe —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) There are several factors which contribute to the cost of AAT appeals that cannot be quantified by my Department, eg AAT Administration costs, Legal Aid, Federal Court costs, all of which are met by other authorities. Estimates of the cost to my Department, in terms of staffing and administrative overheads (expressed in current prices), for each year since 1982-83 are set out below: 1982-83-$1.9 million 1983-84-$2.3 million 1984-85-$2.7 million 1985-86-$2.7 million (2) The cost of an appeal is borne by each party; in exceptional circumstances the Department will provide some assistance to an applicant. Often an applicant is assisted with Legal Aid. (3) There have been some 1200 decisions handed down by the AAT. Each decision is studied by my department and its implications considered. Where it has wide application, amendments may be made to the department's Manuals of Instruction. Where a decision suggests that the law is not in accordance with policy, amendment of the law may be proposed. (Question No. 4676) Mr Hunt asked the Minister for Primary Industry, upon notice, on 24 September 1986: (1) Has he responded to criticism by the Wool Council of Australia that growers have been effectively disenfranchised in the selection of members to the Wool Industry Research Council. (2) Have appointments been made against the wishes of the Wool Council. (3) What is the membership of the Wool Industry Research Council. (4) For what skills were each of the appointees selected. (5) Having regard to his statement in the House (Hansard, 17 April 1985, page 1290), what action will he take to ensure future appointments take in to account the desires of the industry. (6) What is the annual contribution by woolgrowers to the funds which are allocated by the Wool Industry Research Council. Mr Kerin —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) I assume the honourable member is referring to the Wool Research and Development Council (WRDC). I am aware of the concern of the Wool Council of Australia regarding selection of members to serve on the WRDC and have discussed these with the President of the Wool Council. (2) Four members of the WRDC were selected on the nomination of the Australian Wool Corporation (AWC). I have not heard any suggestion that these nominations were not fully supported by the Wool Council. The other four members were nominated by the Wool Research and Development Council Selection Committee (WRDCSC). The Selection Committee consists of three Wool Council members; Messrs H. S. Beggs, G. W. Mack and K. M. Sawyers and a `core group' of four; Dr K. J. Foley (Chairperson), Mr T. J. Flugge, Professor J. P. Kennedy and Mr G. H. Knowles. The core group have been involved in selections for 14 new Research Councils established under the Rural Industries Research Act 1985 and have extensive experience in the wool industry. Mr Flugge, the National Farmers' Federation representative, is a wheat and woolgrower and Professor Kennedy, Head of the School of Fibre Science and Technology has extensive experience in wool research and the husbandry of a number of sheep flocks owned by the University of New South Wales. The AWC made their selections to the WRDC first and I was informed by the Chairman of the Selection Committee that members felt obliged, under the criteria specified in Section 46 of the Rural Industry Research Act 1985, to primarily concentrate on applicants with expertise in the areas of science, technology, economics and the administration of research and development, to achieve a balanced Council. (See answer to question 4). I understand the Wool Council has not been critical of the skills and competence of the individuals chosen by the Selection Committee. However, the Chairman of the Wool Council in a press release stated that he and his two Wool Council colleagues on the Selection Committee were critical of the mixture of skills and expertise in the Research and Development council members appointed. I have examined the nominations in this light and have no reason to reject the recommendations communicated to me by the Chairman of the WRDCSC according to the requirements of the relevant legislation. (3) Membership of WRDC is as follows: Dr Arthur Farnworth, MBE, M Sc (Chairperson), former Chief General Manager of the AWC Mr John Silcock, MBE, Deputy Chairman AWC, woolgrower Mr John Barr, AWC Board member, woolgrower Mr Tony Gooch, AWC Board member, woolgrower Mr David Fletcher Jones, Managing Director Fletcher Jones Organisation Pty Ltd, AWC Board member Dr Alan Donald, Chief, CSIRO Division of Animal Health Dr Ken Whiteley, Chief, CSIRO Division of Textile Physics Professor Brian Fisher, Professor of Agricultural Economics, University of Sydney Professor Craig Pearson, Professor of Agronomy, University of Sydney. (4) The AWC nominees to the WRDC have experience in production, processing, marketing and business management. The Selection Committee nominees complement the AWC nominees with expertise in the areas of science, technology, economics and the administration of research and development. The WRDC members, therefore, possess the skills specified in the legislation. (5) The selection and appointment procedures for the WRDC have been developed with attention to the desires of the wool industry. The seven man WRDCSC has three members appointed on WCA nomination, one on National Farmers Federation nomination (WCA is a commodity council of NFF) and one scientific appointee whose academic career has primarily been involved with the Australian wool industry. I have advised the President of the WCA that I am prepared to consider proposals from him on this matter and I will discuss the industry desires with the Chairman of the WRDCSC before it next considers persons for selection to the WRDC. (6) The estimated woolgrower contribution to the funds which are to be allocated by the WRDC in 1986-87 is $13.5 million. (Question No. 4804) Mr Lloyd asked the Minister for Aviation, upon notice, on 17 October 1986: (1) Has his Department provided finance for the Ashley Computer Aviation Maintenance System (ACAMS); if so, (a) what funds were provided, (b) over what period of time and (c) what funding mechanism was used. (2) Is he aware of any other Department providing finance to ACAMS; if so, is he able to provide details. (3) Has his attention been drawn to an article in the Aircraft magazine of September 1986 associating him and his Department with favourable comments concerning ACAMS. (4) What non-financial assistance has he or his Department given to the group developing the system. (5) Has there been any commitment by the government to promote this system. (6) Are similar systems already operational in Australia; if so, has he considered offering them financial or other assistance. (7) If he has not considered assisting similar systems, why not. Mr Peter Morris —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) No. (2) No. However following an inquiry to my Department it was suggested that the company might consider applying for a grant from the Australian Industrial Research and Development Incentive Board. (3) Yes. The article contained a number of factual inaccuracies concerning financial assistance to ACAMS. However my Department does support the use by the Aviation industry of any systems which may improve the efficiency of maintenance operations and thereby enhance the safety of aircraft operations. (4) My Department has from time to time provided technical advice to Ashley Computers when requested. (5) No. (6) Yes. I understand Lloyd Helicopters in Adelaide operate a similar system, using the Daniels Columbia Aviation Management System. No assistance has been sought from my Department. (7) My Department would provide technical advice to assist any company with a similar system when requested.