Tuesday, 5 May 1987 Madam SPEAKER (Hon. Joan Child) took the chair at 2 p.m., and read prayers. Mr NEHL —I ask the Minister for Aviation: In view of widespread public disquiet and concern, will he initiate an urgent, open and external, not internal, inquiry into the efficiency of search and rescue operations carried out by following the extremely embarrassing and damaging revelation that the official search and rescue operation for a crashed Cessna 172 near Mount Banda Banda in the division of Cowper, costing over $1m and using nearly 40 aircraft, including 22 helicopters, failed to locate any sign of the aircraft but that a friend of the dead pilot, who had been excluded from the official search, was able to locate the wreckage in two hours after the week-long official search had been called off? Mr PETER MORRIS —The search and rescue service which operates in the event of emergencies-missing aircraft, missing vessels at sea-is, I believe, one that the House would recognise as an essential community service. In the case that the honourable member refers to, he would be aware that the gentleman to whom he has just referred participated in the very early stages of the search in reflying the route that it was believed had been taken by the pilot of the missing aircraft. The people who participated in the search were people of experience and professionalism and included some of the local operators. I am sure that I speak on behalf of everyone in this chamber when I express to the families, the bereaved, our deepest sympathy for the tragedy that has occurred. The crashed aircraft was located in about the centre of the search area. The area had been searched on several occasions. The crash site had been flown over a number of times by the searching aircraft. Various comments have been made about what kinds of aircraft could have been used-whether single-engined, twin-engined or helicopters. In this case, all three types of aircraft, including single-engined aircraft, were used. But in the main helicopters were used. In fact, helicopters overflew the crash site. The honourable member will appreciate that in a search of this nature, where there is dense foliage and rugged country involved, the aircraft is of very small dimensions in relation to the environment. It can be overlooked easily. In fact, in some cases in the past, exactly the same thing has occurred. The missing aircraft has punctured the tree canopy, crashed into the ground and not been sighted even though aircraft have constantly flown up and down over that site. I have no reason to believe other than that the best of professionalism was followed in the organisation and planning of the search. That is evidenced by the fact that the aircraft was located eventually in the centre of the area being searched. The search area was developed from the last known radar position of the missing aircraft. I am sure that no one in this chamber would want to reflect upon the professionalism, commitment or dedication of all those people who participated in the search. If the thrust of the honourable member's question were to be followed through, he really means that if searchers go out to look for a missing aircraft or vessel, they must find that missing aircraft or vessel. In this case the search was in the correct area, it was professionally organised, it involved members of the defence forces, chartered aircraft and local operators, but given the circumstances, the nature of the search that was undertaken and the nature of the area being searched, the searchers did not locate the missing aircraft. I have no reason to believe on the information available to me that other than the best of professionalism was followed in the conduct of the search. It is unfortunate that all those people who participated in the search were not able to locate the missing aircraft earlier. Mr BRUMBY —Is the Minister for Health aware of claims in recent Press reports that $5.8 billion could be slashed from Federal Government health spending while still providing protection for disadvantaged groups? Can the Minister inform the House as to the impact of cutting health expenditure by $5.8 billion? Dr BLEWETT —I am aware of suggestions that the health budget in this country should be cut by $5.8 billion. I understand that Mr McLachlan of the National Farmers Federation has called that rationalisation. It would be better described as the devastation of millions of families in this country. The first difficulty that I have with the proposal from the National Farmers Federation is that the health budget is only $5.3 billion, so it is just a little difficult to cut it by $5.8 billion. But let me give Mr McLachlan credit for meaning the whole of government health expenditures, including health related expenditure of departments such as Community Services and Veterans' Affairs. If one looks at the Budget papers one will see that total expenditure is $7.3 billion, so all Mr McLachlan will leave in direct expenditures for the Commonwealth Government in the health area is $1,500m. That is simply sufficient to cover the medical bills of pensioners and the disadvantaged. Therefore, what would go? All nursing home benefits and support for nursing homes in this country, which at present totals $1 billion, would go; $400m spent on medical expenses for veterans would go; the pharmaceutical benefits scheme would be simply destroyed. The honourable member for Cowper asked me last week about six particular medicines which had been removed from the pharmaceutical benefits list. Mr McLachlan's proposal would remove from the list 1,000 medications which are provided free to pensioners at the moment because the pharmaceutical benefits scheme would be ended. A whole host of other activities would be ended. There would be no money for flying doctor services, for example, which might worry National Party members. There would be no money for prevention campaigns. There would be no money for acquired immune deficiency syndrome services or drugs services. There would be massive impacts on the cost of health insurance to ordinary families and that would have a massive impact on the cost of living in this country. All I can say is that we on this side of the House repudiate proposals which would devastate millions of families in this country. Mr TUCKEY —Does the Prime Minister recall the introductory remarks to the Prime Minister's speech by the Chairman of the Australian Financial Conference, Mr John Baker, last night when Mr Baker said that in the last recession the incidence of business failure and bad loans for his members was contained to property developers and big business, but that currently bad loans were nearly all occurring in the area of consumer finance and small business. In the light of this clear message and soaring bankruptcy rates amongst small business, when will the Prime Minister stop believing his own rhetoric and admit that his Government's policies are working to the extreme disadvantage of ordinary Australians on middle and low incomes. Mr HAWKE —Modesty forbids me from conveying to the House all that the gentleman said last night, not only publicly but privately. I can assure honourable members opposite that if I were to convey to the House what he said they would not be very pleased at all. So I will not go to that. As I have said before, the macro-economic policies of this Government that were necessary to meet the circumstances imposed upon us-that is, the loss of $9 billion from our national economic capacity-are working. If the honourable gentleman who has asked the question believes that this country can be hit with a loss of $9 billion from its economic capacity and that need not be reflected in the level of activity in the community, that is simply another area of political and economic affairs about which he knows nothing. Mr GRIFFITHS —Will the Prime Minister inform the House of the annual savings in outlays being achieved as a result of the Government's decision to apply an assets test to pensions? Mr HAWKE —In the coming financial year the savings from the assets test which this Government has imposed are estimated to be some $160m. Mr Nehl —Ripped off pensioners! Mr HAWKE —I am glad to know that the Opposition opposes not only the Government but also its own parties' structures. Undoubtedly within the community as a whole there is a widely held view that government pensions should be needs based, and that, of course, is the principle which this Government followed in applying the assets test. That is a principle which is clearly embraced by the President of the Liberal Party. We know of the famous video of Mr Valder, in which as Federal President of the Liberal Party, he said quite clearly that he agreed with the principle. So we know that that is his position; and we know it is the position of the Federal Treasurer of the Liberal Party, Mr Elliott, who is reported in the Weekend Australian of 18 and 19 April as having attacked the Opposition's vote buying pledge to abolish the assets test. So, their Federal President and their Federal Treasurer opposes members opposite, and last night, fortunately, we saw the emergence on national television of some men of principle in the Liberal Party, when the honourable member for Goldstein and Senator Peter Baume also expressed the same view as that held by the Federal President and the Federal Treasurer of the Liberal Party. The simple fact is that the Government's assets test is preventing millionaires and others who do not need assistance from getting the pension. Of course, in promising to abolish the assets test the Leader of the Opposition himself is abandoning yet another principle which he has formerly enunciated. I remind the House of what he said on the Sunday program of 27 November 1983. I quote the Leader of the Opposition, though of course he was not the Leader of the Opposition then. Perhaps he was closer to principle in that former capacity. He said: `I am personally in favour-- Mr Spender —On a point of order, Madam Speaker. The Prime Minister has been asked a question by a member of his own back bench, and the question was: `Will the Prime Minister tell the House about savings on pensions through the assets test?' By no conceivable view of relevance in this House could what he is now saying be said to be relevant. If Question Time is to be a serious exercise, the Prime Minister should be advised by the Chair that he is not being relevant and he should be asked to be relevant. Madam SPEAKER —The House gave the Chair the responsibility of making those decisions. I call the Prime Minister. Mr HAWKE —As I was saying in conclusion, let me quote in full again what the present Leader of the Opposition said when he was closer to principle on 27 November 1983. He said: I'm personally in favour of a needs approach to the payment of welfare. The position is clear from the Federal President and the Federal Treasurer of the Liberal Party and from the Leader of the Opposition in his previous incarnation. All those people are recognising that no government which is serious about expenditure restraint and fairness could contemplate abolishing the assets test. Mrs SULLIVAN —My question is directed to the Minister for Social Security. Does his statement of last Friday that the Government will not proceed with its proposal to change the definition of de facto spouse in the Social Security Act mean that the Department of Social Security will continue to determine eligibility of a social security recipient for a spouse benefit in accordance with the 25 November 1985 determination of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal, namely to pay spouse benefits in a case where the de facto spouse is under the age of consent? Mr HURFORD —The Minister for Social Security is unavoidably absent today, and the House will have to behave itself better than normal in order to be able to hear me in my delicate state of health. I am able to tell the honourable member that it is my understanding that the administration will remain the same as it was prior to the Minister's announcement. Mr FREE —Will the Minister for Trade advise the House of the results to date of the Australian Trade Commission's marketing of education services? Mr DAWKINS —I thank the honourable member for his question and acknowledge his very long-standing interest in education policy. About nine months ago the Government decided to change the policy in relation to the admission to universities, colleges of advanced education and other similar kinds of institutions of overseas students paying full fees. I am pleased to be able to say that that has been a very successful change and that, from the results of a survey which does not cover all institutions which have joined this program, it indicates that some $18m has been paid in fees by full fee paying overseas students. When we add about another $18m, which it is estimated is what those students would be paying for their living costs in Australia, and when we also add the cost of travel, which would be coming via Qantas Airways Ltd into our balance of payments, we can see that in this year alone this change of policy has added some $50m to our export income. Therefore, I think the earlier estimate that was made, as a result of a mission which reported on this matter, of this being an area where we can expect to earn some $100m a year is obviously very conservative. We would expect next year the total export income from this change to amount to about $100m. I want to congratulate those universities and colleges that have taken up this important challenge to offer opportunities to overseas students. I wish that more universities and colleges would emulate their efforts. Mr HUNT —I refer the Prime Minister to Friday's welcome assurance from the Japanese Government that it has no intention of settling trade issues with other countries at the expense of Australia. Is the Prime Minister aware that Australia's share of the quota beef market in Japan has already fallen from 80 per cent to less than 60 per cent? Is he also aware that the United States of America has secured 80 per cent of the offal beef market? In view of this unfortunate outcome for Australian beef producers of the last four-year beef agreement negotiations with Japan due to the political pressures from the United States, will he on this occasion match the status of the negotiations of the United States in 1983 when Vice-President Bush on several occasions led the negotiations personally? Will he visit Tokyo during the forthcoming negotiations on the new beef agreement as requested yesterday by the Cattle Council Australia President, Mr Peart? Mr HAWKE —I thank the honourable gentleman for his question. I quite readily acknowledge the continuing real interest that he has in the matter canvassed in his question. Let me say that the Government is very closely monitoring, as I think the honourable gentleman knows, developments in the United States-Japan trade issues, including, of course, the question of access to the Japanese beef market. I am aware of the trend in the statistics to which the honourable gentleman referred in his question. The United States has apparently asked Japan to remove all import quota restrictions on beef from 1 April next year. Australia should benefit from any substantial liberalisation of the Japanese beef market provided, of course, that it was done on a non-discriminatory global basis. But we are concerned that Japan and the United States might be inclined, as the honourable gentleman implied, to resolve their trade differences bilaterally on a basis which could even further disadvantage Australia's beef trade after the current beef access agreements between Australia and Japan and the United States and Japan expire on 31 March next year. I remind the honourable member-of course, he knows this-that negotiations for a successor bilateral agreement between Australia and Japan are expected to commence in the second half of this year. The Japanese have been made fully aware, I can assure the honourable gentleman, of our concerns about the present agreement and its discrimination in favour of United States beef which, again, was reflected in the honourable member's question. Without any doubt, the Japanese know that we expect this issue to be addressed in the new agreement to be negotiated between us. I can say that the matter was raised, for example, at the Australia-Japan ministerial committee meeting in January of this year. I believe that my personal intervention at this early stage would be premature. I remind the honourable gentleman that the Minister for Trade, during his forthcoming visit to Washington, will be making very clear this Government's concern that the United States should not seek to resolve its problems with Japan at the expense of our beef producers. That will be made very clear by the Minister when he goes to Japan. Let me say also that the Minister for Primary Industry is scheduled to visit Japan in June. Again, I assure the honourable gentleman that the beef trade will be one of the priority matters for his discussions with relevant Japanese Ministers. So I can assure the honourable gentleman that the Government, in the ways I have been describing, will be taking every step that it can to maintain and, if possible, increase our beef market in Japan. Our beef producers, who are amongst the most efficient in the world, are entitled, I believe, as I am sure all honourable members would believe, to that share. I say finally to the honourable gentleman that I have the greatest confidence in my two Ministers who are directly responsible in this matter, the Minister for Trade and the Minister for Primary Industry. I think that is a confidence that the honourable gentleman would share with me. I simply say in conclusion, however, that, should my Ministers believe that at some stage of the negotiations my personal involvement would significantly assist, of course I would be prepared to respond positively to that suggestion. Mr SCOTT —Can the Prime Minister advise the House of how the Government's housing package has been received within the housing industry? Mr HAWKE —Well, Madam Speaker-- Mr Tim Fischer —I rise on a point of order, Madam Speaker. I would point out that under standing order 144 (a) questions cannot ask for an expression of opinion. The question clearly seeks an expression of opinion and interpretation and as such is out of order. Madam SPEAKER —Order! I think that the honourable member was asking for the facts, not an opinion. Mr Donald Cameron —Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. You placed an interpretation of what you thought, and that is not quite how it should be. It is not your construction of a question to be asked that is relevant. Madam SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member for Hindmarsh is asking for facts. He has asked the Prime Minister to give him information as to how the policy has been received. I find it quite in order. Mr HAWKE —I can understand the concern of honourable members opposite. I remind the House and the honourable member for Hindmarsh, who has a continuing interest in the area of housing, that the Government's recently announced housing package continues the strong support of the Government for public housing, it increases assistance for first home buyers, it maintains the 13.5 per cent ceiling for pre-April 1986 loans, and it changes savings banks legislation regulations, as the honourable member will recall, to release up to an additional $900m for home lending. I am pleased to say that through the first home owners scheme nearly 250,000 people will have been assisted in buying their first homes by June of this year. I also remind the honourable gentleman that under this Gov- ernment, the funds available for public housing have been increased by about 42 per cent. I can advise the honourable member that I have received a letter very recently from the Housing Industry Association. Mr Hollis —Read it. Mr HAWKE —Very well. This is a letter written to me by the National Executive Director of the Housing Industry Association, National Office. It is addressed to me as Prime Minister and it states: Dear Mr Hawke, On behalf of the National Board of Directors of Housing Industry Association we should like to convey our appreciation to your Government in once again affirming its very high priority for housing. It goes on: Since its election in March 1983, your Government has established a special role for housing within the economy and broader community. Your commitment to housing is particularly significant at this time in light of the many pressures on the Government to scrutinise all areas of public sector spending. Not only will the new housing assistance package help to revitalise housing prospects, but of no less importance it will enable the States to alleviate housing-related poverty within our country. No doubt the honourable member will be pleased to know that the letter concludes with this paragraph: The Housing Industry Association and its 16,000 members owe you and your Government a debt of gratitude. Mr MACPHEE —My question is directed to the Minister for Aviation. Regardless of the Government's decision regarding the sale of airport terminals, would the Minister see merit in selling airports to State governments so that they can compete with each other for tourists and therefore for air traffic? Would the Minister raise this matter with the Treasurer so that it can be dealt with at the next Loan Council meeting so that the States can borrow on a basis to enable efficiently managed State owned airports to make a profit after making debt and interest repayments? Mr N.A. Brown —Is this privatisation? Mr PETER MORRIS —This is a suggestion from those in exile, from the honourable member's Party. Mr Macphee —Take it seriously, though. Mr PETER MORRIS —I am taking it seriously but I was responding to the honourable gentleman on the front bench, which is where the honourable member ought to be. I would have been much happier to have received the question from him, were he there. However, we will bear with him and look forward to his return to the front bench. Mr Porter —You will be here in a minute; don't worry. Mr PETER MORRIS —The honourable member will never be there. Mr Porter —No; I will be there. Mr PETER MORRIS —I took the honour- able member's voice to be that of the honourable member for Fadden. I withdraw the comment I just made; it was directed to the honourable member for Fadden. The suggestion made by the honourable member for Goldstein has been heard by the Treasurer. I think in the past the Treasurer may have contemplated such a move. If one were in the business of selling to the States, the net financial outcome would simply be a rearrangement of numbers rather than the transmission of hard cash. Mr Macphee —Not if they were competing with each other. Mr PETER MORRIS —I am talking about payment by the States to the Commonwealth if such a course were followed. This matter is not in the area for consideration but the Treasurer has heard the honourable member's question and I am sure that in his generous manner he would be keen to grab any opportunity to get fresh dollars. If he thought some fresh dollars were in this move, he may have already looked at it. From another point of view, if we were to pursue the suggestion the honourable member made we would have only to look at the operation of ports. The provision of port services is a key element in the shipping industry and they are controlled by the States. One of the main criticisms from conservative politicians of transport services is what they allege to be the inefficient and costly operation of ports. Where States have control of port services we have seen the duplication and triplication of investment, the operation very much of a cost-plus type of charging system and almost a complete lack of co-ordination in investment in the provision of port services around Australia. On that evidence it would be reasonable to assume that if States were to have control of airports we would see a repetition of the experience that has been exhibited in respect of port investment and the complete lack of co-ordination of any national approach to port investment and port management. Mr TICKNER —I ask the Minister for Science whether he can inform the House of the significance of supernova SN1987A. What role has Australia played in the observation of that supernova? Finally, can he inform us what those observations will tell us about the formation of the elements? Mr BARRY JONES —The supernova called SN1987A is the greatest phenomenon of its kind seen since Kepler's supernova in 1604 and the first to be seen since the invention of the telescope. It is only the third one in this millennia that can be seen with the naked eye. It was first observed in Chile, then New Zealand and on the next day-25 February-it was observed in Australia. We are witnessing the sudden explosive death of an unidentified star which occurred 160,000 light years away; that is, it has taken light, travelling at 300,000 kilometres per second, 160,000 years to reach the earth. This supernova is actually older than Kepler's supernova, which was only 130,000 light years away. So, in terms of relativity, it has not happened yet. Mr Hawke —It's like an Opposition policy. Mr BARRY JONES —It is like the Opposition's tax policy. We may see another supernova before we get the Opposition's tax policy. The 1987 supernova was also observed in a tunnel under Mont Blanc in France when a stream of neutrinos passed through the earth and while Europe was turned away from the Large Magellanic Cloud. That is impressive confirmation that neutrinos actually exist-it was by no means certain-and that they can travel unimaginably vast distances, arriving here just slightly sooner than light. They had 160,000 light years to come, and they clocked in to earth three hours before the light. So, when neutrinos travel, they really travel. As the Treasurer says, it is like putting one's money on self-interest; one knows that the neutrino will get there first. The phenomenon was also picked up in Japan, the United States of America and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. If we understand how supernovae work, it may be possible to understand how rare metals like platinum and gold and the radioactive minerals are cooked by fusing ions, other atoms and spare neutrons under conditions of extraordinary heat and pressure. Every atom of gold on Earth presumably was created in some ancient supernova involving the sun. The very matter that is our earth, or even ourselves, came from past supernovae. Our understanding of such explosions is mostly theoretical and quite imperfect. We do know, however, that all atoms of matter heavier than hydrogen and helium are formed in the cores of stars-- Mr Carlton —On a point of order, Madam Speaker: How can you tell whether this is relevant to the question? Madam SPEAKER —I was wondering the same thing myself. Mr BARRY JONES —The question was: What does it tell us about the creation of elements? Our understanding is very imperfect, but we know that all atoms of matter heavier than hydrogen and helium are formed in the cores of stars and scattered through space by such explosions. Australia is very well placed to observe, because the phenomenon can be seen only from the Southern Hemisphere. Valuable work is being done at Siding Spring through the Anglo-Australian telescope, the Schmidt telescope, and at the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation Division of Radiophysics. The supernova and Comet Wilson are both shining up there between the Southern Cross and Canopus. They are well worth looking at. All members who can get access to a telescope or binoculars are well advised to look for themselves. Mr Porter —I ask the Minister to table the notes or document from which he was reading. Madam SPEAKER —Was the Minister reading from a document? Mr Barry Jones —They are hand written. Mr McARTHUR —My question is addressed to the Prime Minister. I remind him of the commitment he made as part of the Priority One publicity campaign to give Australians more opportunities to continue their education. How does the Prime Minister reconcile this commitment with the current situation whereby students are still waiting for their Austudy grants to be processed two months after the beginning of the academic year? Is the Prime Minister aware that in Victoria, at least, members of this Parliament are being frustrated in their attempts to assist constituents with their genuine and often urgent inquiries about their Austudy applications because of a union directive currently banning Austudy office staff from handling telephone inquiries made by members of parliament and their staff? What action is the Government taking to resolve this quite unacceptable situation? Mr HAWKE —Let me pick up the first part of the honourable gentleman's question in which he referred to the commitment of this Government to increase the opportunity for Australia's young people to have access to the education systems. At any stage between now and the next election, I can assure the honourable gentleman, we will be prepared to discuss our respective records in the area of access to education on any occasion that he wants. The facts are simple: After seven years of the miserable, conservative coalition Government, it went out of office with just about the worst rate of retention in the education system in the Western world. Thirty-six per cent was its record; 36 per cent of kids stayed on beyond the compulsory age. That is how good it was at giving Australian kids access to the education system. I am proud to say that at the end of this year, after only four-odd years of government, we will have increased that retention rate from the previous Government's miserable 36 per cent to over 50 per cent. As we get to the beginning of the 1990s we will have lifted that to 65 per cent. So if honourable members opposite want to talk about records in terms of access of kids to education, they can go for their life, because they will be decimated. Having said that, let me also compare the record of honourable members opposite in making access available to the tertiary sector. Their miserable record in their period of office-- Mr Tuckey —Madam Speaker, I take a point of order. Again, my point of order is in respect of relevance. There are a lot of very disadvantaged young people out in the community who want the Prime Minister's answer. Madam SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member for O'Connor will resume his seat. The Prime Minister is quite in order. Mr HAWKE —Madam Speaker, in terms of access to secondary education, I remind the House of the tremendous record of honourable members opposite in their four years. In terms of access to the tertiary sector, we have in fact increased the number of places by about 37,000-36,800-compared with 8,000 over the last four years in which the conservatives were in office. In other words, there was between four and five times the rate of increase of access. So, if honourable members opposite want to talk about access and records, I am quite happy at any stage to look at the record. The delay in Austudy is something to which Ministers have directed their attention. We recognise the problem that has arisen. As I understand it, it has arisen from a combination of factors, not just those to which the honourable gentleman referred. I share with him the proper concern that he expressed. I give him our assurance that, having been made aware of the problem, we are doing everything we possibly can to accelerate the payments because we recognise the considerable hardship that has been suffered by a number of students, not only in Victoria but also in other parts of Australia. Mrs DARLING —I ask the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations to address a couple of concerns expressed by the Queensland electorate. First, what is the future of the community employment program, which is very popular in Queensland? Secondly, what programs and/or policies does he and his Department have for groups with special needs-I refer to unemployed people in the 40-plus age group, women and Aborigines-particularly in respect of training, retraining or work experience? Mr WILLIS —The community employment program has been important in the sense that it has addressed important needs of the people who are long term unemployed. It is not the only program which has addressed that task. We also implemented the Jobstart program, which similarly provides assistance for long term unemployed people in the private sector. So there have been two arms to the process of addressing the job creation needs of long term unemployed people. However, the Government's effort goes beyond simply providing job creation. We have also been concerned where possible to provide longer term unemployed people with training opportunities. In that respect, we have developed the adult training program. That program in particular has been an important means of providing retraining to unemployed people who have been unemployed for six of the previous nine months and giving them a capacity to obtain a skill that will give them a better chance of obtaining work in the ordinary labour market. So, rather than aiming just at job creation, we are trying to give people skills that will make them more able to obtain jobs that currently exist. We have a situation in the labour market at present where, despite a still substantial level of unemployment of a little over 8 per cent, job vacancies are being caused by a shortage of skills in quite a number of areas. Part of the Government's aim in addressing the problem of unemployment is to ensure that people are given the skills to enable them to take up those jobs. We have also introduced the community training program. That program is addressed to those with special difficulties-the very long term unemployed and others such as those mentioned by the honourable member for Lilley-who have particular problems, over and above the problems of those who are just unemployed, in getting jobs in the labour market. The community training program has been a very substantial program which we have developed. There are over 70 projects around Australia and every one I have visited has been commendable and has great support, not only from the Government but also from community organisations which sponsor it and provide a substantial amount of the money. There is a combined approach by the Government to tackling the difficulties of longer term unemployed people and disadvantaged people generally in the labour market. This involves a combination of job creation and training. In the last year or so we have put greater emphasis, it must be said, on the training side. That is a trend that prob- ably will continue in the future. Mr SHARP —Will the Minister for Communications confirm comments attributed both to senior Telecom Australia officials and union officials that, firstly, Telecom is planning to raise the charge for a local call at a public telephone booth from 30c to 60c and also will reduce substantially the number of public telephone booths available; secondly, Telecom will be placing a three-minute time charge on local calls instead of the flat rate of 18c; and thirdly Telecom will be charging 72c for calls made to the 013 directory information number? Mr DUFFY —The honourable member raised various matters. The first one related to public telephone call charges and reports of some official within Telecom talking about the charges being doubled. As far as I am aware that matter has not been considered by Telecom. It is a matter for Telecom to consider. In relation to the reduction in the number of public telephones, two things ought to be clearly understood although again, as far as I am aware, this has not been considered. If it has been considered I will receive a report in due course. The reduction in the number of public telephones would be based, if it is intended, on two matters: Firstly, for public telephones in areas where vandalism is a grave problem; and secondly on the basis that public telephones run at a huge loss. In areas where they are not used sufficiently-and from time to time Telecom undertakes surveys-they may well be removed on that basis. The next matter the honourable member raised was that of time local calls. I am advised that that matter currently is not on the agenda but it is always in the background as an issue which Telecom may have to consider. It is a matter which, I am advised, is not under consideration at the moment. I have dealt previously at some length with the matter of the 013 directory assistance number. That service was operating at a loss of around $54m. The reason was that many people-and as telephones are used mainly in the business area this must include a lot of people in business-were just too tired to look up a telephone book and rang directory assistance. Considerable cross-subsidies operate at the moment within Telecom. That is not one subsidy that Telecom is prepared to allow to continue as a drain on other services. There will be no charge for directory assistance: Firstly, where the telephone number is not in the book-people will be charged only if they are not prepared to look up the number-secondly, if people are out of the area and therefore do not have access to the book; thirdly, in relation to public telephones; and, fourthly, Telecom will make special arrangements for people who may be visually impaired or who, for other reasons, are unable to use the phone book. Those people who are not prepared to take the time to look up a phone book when the entry is there will be charged. Mr DAWKINS(Fremantle-Minister for Trade) —For the information of the House, I present a report to the Minister for Education by Mr Joseph Lo Bianco entitled `National Policy on Languages', together with the text of a statement. The Clerk —Petitions have been lodged for presentation as follows and copies will be referred to the appropriate Ministers: To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled: The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth that: Any proposals to abolish the Department of Veterans' Affairs gravely concern ex-servicemen, ex-servicewomen and their families because they renege on clear and unequivocal commitments from various Commonwealth Governments to properly care for Australia's veterans. Your Petitioners humbly pray that the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled, urge the parliament to: Ensure that the Department of Veterans' Affairs continues to exist as a separate and distinct Department of State servicing the needs of veterans and their families. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Peter Fisher,Mr Nehl,Mr Ruddock and Mr Sharp. 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 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 Dr Blewett,Mr Cadman and Mr Hawker. 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) are ``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,Mr Hawker and Mr Wilson. 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. We call on the Government to immediately ban the importation of radioactive Cobalt 60 or other radioactive substances and to immediately disallow the regulations that permit the irradiation of food here in Australia. by Ms Jakobsen,Mr Milton and Mr Scott. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of 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 Dr Harry Edwards and Mr Connolly. 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: Any proposal to establish memorials to peace, the so-called Aboriginal War and anti-war activists and other left wing causes at the Australian War Memorial at Canberra would desecrate the memorial as a fitting and solemn monument to those who served in Australia's Armed Forces and to those who died in defence of their country. Your petitioners humbly pray the House of Representatives acts to prevent anything which would desecrate the nation's memorial to Australia's former servicemen and women and war dead. And your Petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Cadman and Mr Peter Fisher. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth that your petitioners are gravely concerned at the failure of the government to show restraint with equity. In particular, the decision to defer the November pension adjustments has resulted in a loss of $25.62 for a single pensioner and $21.36 for each married pensioner. The prospect of a further deferral of the May adjustment will result in the loss of another $35.10 for a single pensioner and $29.10 for each married pensioner. When you are scrimping and saving to make ends meet, as is the case with many pensioners, you can't afford such a cut in living standards. Pensioners are looking for a new deal from politicians-more of the same is not good enough! Your petitioners request an immediate return to payment of May and November C.P.I. increases, and as is duty bound will every pray the Government grant this request now. by Mr Conquest and Mr Reith. To the Honourable The Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: That we consider the 2% discounting of Commonwealth Occupational Superannuation Scheme pension adjustments on 10 October 1986 to be a serious breach of trust by the Government. The Commonwealth has reneged on an established commitment as incorporated in Commonwealth legislation and benefit promise pensions are not being paid in full. In particular we resent the long-term effect of the discounting. The pension loss is compounded throughout the life of a pensioner and surviving dependants-into the 21st century for many. We consider this Government induced penalty to be out of all proportion to the short-term ``extraordinary circumstances of the economy'' given as the reason for the discounting. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Government: 1. limit the pension discounting effect of the Superannuation and Other Benefits Legislation Amendment Act 1986 to the period 10 October 1986 to 1 July 1987 so that pensions are restored to the 9 October 1986 level as a base for the 1987 pension adjustment; and 2. consult with organisations representing pensioners before changing the terms and conditions of Commonwealth Occupational Superannuation Schemes. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Peter Fisher and Mr Lloyd. 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 the legislation to tax fringe benefits is iniquitous, inequitable and unfair. Your petitioners humbly pray that you do not proceed with the legislation by Mr Beale. To the Honourable The Speaker and Members of the House Representatives in Parliament assembled. Receive the humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia. We the undersigned petitioners, being users of the Collingwood Community Health Centre, or citizens aware of the great value of that Centre to its users, urge the Government to restore funding of the pharmacy services at the Health Centre. These services have been an important part of the Health Centre for 113 years, and are integral to health care delivery from this Centre. They are also a major part of the social wage for citizens in this area. Collingwood Community Health Centre is the only community health centre left in Australia with fully integrated services, and this model of health care delivery will be destroyed if the pharmacy funding from the Government is not restored. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Dr Blewett. 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 Dr Blewett. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in the Parliament assembled. This petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth that: 1. Podiatrists are State registered primary contact health practitioners with the right of diagnosis and therefore should have available to them the highest possible standard of education, viz. degree standard. 2. The podiatry assessment panel appears to have lacked understanding of current podiatric practice, not only in Australia but throughout the world. The majority of recent graduates worldwide enjoy degree status and Australian graduates should not be pegged to a standard lower than that of their overseas counterparts. Standards of podiatry education in U.S.A., the highest in the world, were not considered. 3. From an industrial point of view, a podiatrist who has his/her qualifications arbitrarily depressed to a level lower than that enjoyed by his/her fellow health professionals will be severely disadvantaged in terms of reward for labour and respect and credibility. Future Victorian graduates will be disadvantaged because the Victorian Health Professional Services Award provides for persons holding a Lincoln Institute degree to be paid at a rate one year in advance of the rate to which they would otherwise be entitled. 4. The Commission was required to use a panel consisting of independent assessors yet it consisted of two medical practitioners out of a total of three members. This could appear to amount to one health profession sitting in judgment upon another. Your petitioners therefore pray that the above decision and recommendation not be implemented. by Mr N.A. Brown. To the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in the Parliament assembled. The petition of certain citizens respectfully showeth that: The Hawke Labor Government's ID Card proposal is the most far reaching and intrusive piece of Australian legislation yet introduced, and that on all the evidence available, it will not tackle in the most cost-efficient and effective manner tax and social security fraud. Your petitioners humbly pray that the House of Representatives, in Parliament assembled, urge the Government to: Reject Labor's ID Card proposal to prevent a gross waste of taxpayer's money and a significant infringement of civil liberties. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Cadman. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives. The petition of the undersigned respectfully showeth that the Fringe Benefits Tax is an iniquitous and unjust impost which will further damage the Australian economy and further increase costs to employers. The tax will: (1) further increase the level of unemployment; (2) increase the administrative costs and overheads for business and Government; (3) particularly disadvantage small businesses and farmers; and (4) act as a disincentive to those who are the most productive and skilled; and we the undersigned call upon the Government to immediately repeal the Fringe Benefits Tax. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will every pray. by Mr Cadman. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of certain citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: That, as a consequence of the Hawke Government's decision to introduce a two dollar coin in 1988. Whereas the introduction of a one dollar coin was only a twofold increase in the maximum value of coinage, the elimination of the two dollar note represents a five-fold increase before a note can be used. It will have taken eighteen years from decimalisation to go from the fifty cent piece as the highest value coin to a one dollar coin, but only a further two years to replace the two dollar note with a coin. The lowest value paper note will be five dollars, forcing a dramatic increase in the weight of coinage carried and dislocation of the retail industry. Many people, particularly the elderly, will mistake the value of the coin for that of another value coin just as many now confuse a one dollar coin with the ten cent piece. That the addition of two new coins in four years will lead to the removal of the one cent and two cent coins and this will accelerate the cost of living, particularly the cost of food where numerous items are involved and future price rises would need to be five cent increases on every item on every occasion. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the proposed two dollar coin not be proceeded with by the Hawke Government, and no future Government proceed with this proposal for several years. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Donald Cameron. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. We, the undersigned citizens of Australia, being concerned that the Federal Government is permitting a discrimination to continue in the training of Primary Teachers, in that the teacher-trainee students at Canberra College of Advanced Education and at Australian Universities are able to complete the four years of their Bachelor of Education award pre-service whilst teacher-trainee students at other Australian Colleges of Advanced Education are required to undertake the equivalent of a year's teaching following completion of a Diploma of Teaching before proceeding to the fourth year of the Bachelor of Education award, request that the Federal Minister of Education instructs the Commonwealth Tertiary Education Commission to end this discrimination so that all Colleges of Advanced Education are able to offer a pre-service fourth year in the Bachelor of Education for Primary teacher trainees. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Hand. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: That in the light of the Labor Government's failure to act to correct the many anomalies in the Assets Test on pensions brought to its notice, the Labor Government's legislation should be repealed before it has an unduly unfair impact on pensioners. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled should immediately seek the repeal of the Labor Government's iniquitous and unfair Assets Test. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Hawker. To the Honourable the Speaker and 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 that it properly reflects the immutable characteristics of Australia namely: (a) The Union Jack, itself the creation of three Christian Crosses, represents the nation's historical origin and the source of its language and law; (b) The Southern Cross on an azure blue background signifying its geographical location on this planet Earth; (c) The large star depicting the advent of Federation in 1901. 3. They know the Flag has been a source of inspiration to generations of Australians in peace and war. 4. They recall that millions of native-born Australians and newcomers to these shores from other parts of the world have become united under its proud symbolism. 5. They are certain that any change to the Flag will produce divisions 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. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. To the humble petition of the undersigned electors of Australia respectfully showeth that: The conflict in Sri Lanka arising out of the attempt by small groups of people in that country to partition it on racial lines through the exercise of terrorists violence, has several aspects which are vital to the interests of Australia, to wit (a) international terrorism has been introduced into a region of concern to Australia leading to its destabilisation; (b) the smuggling of narcotics has been one of the principal ways of financing the terrorist operation, and Western countries have been the major victims of this traffic in narcotics; (c) several terrorist groups are self-proclaimed pro-Soviet Marxists, and in the eventuality of their success they could introduce a Soviet military presence into the parts of Sri Lanka which they hope to control, which include Trincomalee, a prime site for a naval base that could control much of the Indian Ocean; (d) terrorist agents and economic adventurers are smuggled into Western countries in the guise of ``refugees'' in an attempt to circumvent immigration rules in force in these countries; (e) the international press has reported that Sri Lankan terrorists are supplied with funds and arms from their supporters in Western countries including Australia; and (f) Indian support for Sri Lankan terrorism through the provision of bases, weapons, training and even diplomatic support, has made that country, which is close to Australia, a sanctuary for international terrorism. Your petitioners humbly pray that the House of Representatives, in Parliament assembled, urge the Australian Government to take into consideration the above facts in the formulation of its policy on the Sri Lankan question. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Moore. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in the Parliament assembled: The humble petition of certain electors of Australia respectfully showeth: That the North Coast section of the Pacific Highway, from a point just south of Port Macquarie and just north of Woolgoolga, is in urgent need of major road improvement works in order to bring it up to road safety standards. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that: The Federal Government immediately divert national highway funds or make available other funds towards the improvement of this section of the Pacific Highway. And your Petitioners as in duty bound, will humbly pray: by Mr Nehl. 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 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 a speedy passage to the Flags Act Amendment Bill which provides that the Australian National Flag can only be changed by a Referendum. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Saunderson. 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, Felixstowe 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 Dr Blewett. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Richmond electorate respectfully showeth that: 1. We the undersigned are totally opposed to the introduction of a $2.00 fee on prescription drugs for pensioners; 2. 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 humbly pray that the House of Representatives, in Parliament assembled, urge the 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 Blunt. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Richmond electorate respectfully showeth that: The benefits of war widows have been altered, and they no longer receive pharmaceutical benefits from the Department of Veterans' Affairs. This is causing great concern and hardship, as quite a lot of their medications are no longer available, and nothing to replace them on National Health. They are now required to pay large amounts to obtain the medications, just to stay alive . . . Your petitioners humbly pray that the House of Representatives, in Parliament assembled, urge the Government to: Honour its commitment to these war widows by: Returning their Veterans Affairs pharmaceutical benefits to them immediately, and to refrain from worrying these ageing widows any further by tampering with our Veterans Affairs Act and breaking all promises made to our husbands . . . And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Blunt. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. We the undersigned, members of the Executive Committee of the International Organisation of the Political Dissidents from Communist Countries, as follows: Your petitioners, as in duty bound will humbly pray, that a public inquiry be conducted for the migration of Anton Tirca, to be allowed in Australia. by Mr Cadman. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the citizens of New South Wales respectfully show: last year, over 3,300 people died on Australian roads; alcohol is a factor in 50% of road deaths; alcohol advertisements do not show the perils of driving after drinking alcohol; alcohol advertisements are glamourous and increase their effect on teenagers, indicating drinking alcohol as the social pastime; Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Parliament will legislate to ban the advertising of alcohol from commercial television and radio. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Sharp. Petitions received. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) —Madam Speaker has received a letter from the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard) proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion, namely: The pressures placed on individual Australians and their families, particularly the poorer sections of the community, by Labor's failed 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)(2.55) —Those of us in this House who observe the demeanour of the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke)-and there are many of us-- Mr Carlton —We're forced to. Mr HOWARD —Yes, we are forced to-have observed two very important things. First, the issue that causes him the greatest amount of sensitivity and is calculated more than anything else to send the present Prime Minister off his balance is any suggestion that the precious integrity of the Prime Minister is under doubt or under dispute. Whenever one says to the Prime Minister, `You have broken yet another promise', we can be absolutely certain that the level of prime ministerial anger, irritation and agitation is going to rise. But close behind that is the sheer panic and irritation of the Prime Minister whenever anybody on this side of the House reminds him of the extent of the failure of his Government and indeed the outright betrayal by his Government of that section of the Australian community which the Australian Labor Party historically claims it has always understood and best represented-that is, the poor, battling low income Australian family. This Government has done more damage to that section of the Australian community than any government this country has seen since the years of the Great Depression. If honourable members do not believe me, I shall read to the House a letter written not by a member of the Liberal Party or by the Federal Treasurer of the Liberal Party or, indeed, by any office bearer or member of the Liberal Party, as the Prime Minister is so wont to comment-however, two can play at that game-but by Joe de Bruin of the Shop Distributive and Allied Employees Association. He is not a paid up member of the Liberal Party or of the business establishment; he is a member of one of those unions that the Prime Minister spent years trying to get reaffiliated with the Victorian branch of the Australian Labor Party. He is one of the members of those unions about which the Prime Minister fought people such as the honourable member for Calwell (Dr Theophanous), John Halfpenny and George Crawford concerning their readmission to the ALP-in other words, soul brothers, politically speaking, of the Prime Minister within the many factions of the Australian Labor Party. The following is what Joe de Bruin had to say in a letter written, significantly, on 20 March 1987. I repeat it and I warn the Prime Minister and honourable members opposite, particularly those in marginal seats, that they will hear a lot more of this kind of imprimatur of criticism put upon the Prime Minister. Joe de Bruin said: The last four years have seen the most sustained reduction in living standards since the Depression of the 1930s and with the economy in its present state there is no relief in sight. Those words express better than anybody else could express the sheer pent-up frustrations and the sense of betrayal felt by many working Australians and their families about the failed policies of this Government. It is no wonder, because not only are the policies bad but also the symbols are bad. Honourable members opposite are led by a Prime Minister who is becoming increasingly isolated from his natural constituency, a Prime Minister who chooses addresses to the business community to announce welfare cuts, and by a Treasurer (Mr Keating) who is not game to visit his own electorate, a Treasurer who thumbs his nose at responsibility towards ordinary citizens, a Treasurer who enjoys privileged treatment in relation to his taxation obligations. Indeed, honourable members opposite look upon a government that has increasingly lost touch not only with the people who elected it but also with the mainstream thinking of the Australian community. To use one of the Prime Minister's favourite expressions, he goes into a fit of confected outrage whenever anybody asks him about some kind of mistake made by his Government. He went on like a two-bob watch over the question asked by my colleague the honourable member for Corangamite (Mr McArthur) about the Austudy scheme. He started to make some statistical comparisons between the record of the Fraser Government and the record of the Hawke Government. I will give him a few statistical comparisons. I will tell him that the proportion of households living in poverty has risen under his Prime Ministership from 11.5 per cent in 1981-82 to 12.4 per cent in 1985-86. I will tell him that, in 1981-82, 1.9 million people were living below the poverty line in Australia-- Mr Hunt —How many? Mr HOWARD —There were 1.9 million, and under his Prime Ministership 2.6 million people are living under the poverty line in Australia. That is an example of the failed policies of this Government. If he puts on any more of his confected outrage at Question Time regarding comparisons of performance under his leadership and under the Fraser Government there will be many more comparisons to come. Twenty-eight per cent of the people living below the poverty line have mortgages and are being crippled by the high interest rate policies of the Hawke Government. There are 60,000 Australians who now live on the verge of homelessness and 40,000 sleep in the open or in refuges. He talked at Question time about the splendid record of his Government, so-called, on housing. Does he realise that, in June 1983, 124,000 Australians were on the waiting lists for public housing, but the figure has now risen to 157,000? Does he realise that his negative gearing and capital gains tax policies have driven the levels of rental accommodation for the poor in Australia's cities through the roof? Does he realise that his lop the tall poppy approach to taxation has done more damage to the poor and the low income families of Australia than to any other section of the Australian community? Does he realise that it is not only households on average weekly earnings which are paying more tax under this Treasurer (Mr Keating) but also households on three-quarters or one-half of average weekly earnings? Does he recall the words that he used in his maiden speech to this Parliament on 26 November 1980? As he approaches this mini-Budget, these words should be ringing in his ears because they will be ringing in the ears of all those marginal seat holders who sit opposite and who wonder why the Prime Minister does not have the courage to go into their electorates and announce that there will be welfare reductions. These words will come back to haunt the Prime Minister. In his maiden speech, talking about allegations relating to tax avoidance, he said this: . . . while the relative tax burden has been remorselessly increased upon members of the middle and low income groups who have little opportunity to evade their obligations. They were the words of the Prime Minister as the newly elected member for Wills on 26 November 1980. Now, 6 1/2 years later, those words that he uttered could well be applied with total truth and accuracy to the actions of his Government because under his leadership the taxation burden, both relative and absolute, on middle and low income earners has been remorselessly increased. Does he realise that under his Prime Ministership the family allowance has fallen in value by 25 per cent in real terms? Does he realise that an average family with two dependent children is now paying $37 a week more in tax than it was paying in March 1983? Does he realise that that same family is paying $152 a month more on its mortgage than it was paying in March 1983? Does he realise that its living standard has fallen by an undisputed figure of at least $31 a week, and that that figure is calculated to rise? Does he realise that the long-term unemployment level in Australia has increased markedly under his Prime Ministership? Does he remember that at the last election interest rates on housing loans were 11 1/2 per cent? Does he realise that they are now 15 1/2 per cent? Does he know that Bankcard rates have in that same period gone from 18 per cent to 23 per cent? Does he know that small business rates have gone from 14 1/2 per cent to 21 per cent? Does he know that 1985-86 saw the largest number-- Mr Cohen —Is this 20 questions? Mr HOWARD —The Minister interrupted saying that there are a lot of questions. Of course there are a lot of questions. They are questions that large numbers of Australians in marginal electorates will ask with increasing urgency and pressure. No wonder the Prime Minister does not have the courage to go into areas such as Hurstville, Burwood and Box Hill to be taken to account for some of these statistics. Does he know that the number of bankruptcies in 1985-86 was the highest ever? Does he know that the current level of unemployment is higher than it was for all but four of the 86 months that the Fraser Government was in office? Does he know that under the Fraser Government the average level of unemployment was 6 per cent and that after four years of Hawke it is 8 1/2 per cent? Does he know that there were 193,000 long-term unemployed in February 1987 as against 159,000 in March 1983? Does he know that the average duration of unemployment was at 55.7 weeks in February of this year, against 35 weeks in March of 1983? Further, does he realise that his policies, after all the huffing and the puffing and the lavish expenditure of Priority One, have not made one jot of difference to the level of youth unemployment in Australia? Does he realise that, despite his wordy and windy promise that nine out of 10 Australians would have cheaper and better health care, there are 100,000 Australians on the waiting lists of the public hospital system of this nation and that the great bulk of those people belong to the low income groups of Australian society? No wonder a factional soul-brother of the Prime Minister, the Secretary of one of the largest unions in this country, laments with total accuracy that four years of the Prime Minister and the Treasurer have given Australia the most sustained level of reductions in living standards since the years of the Great Depression. What is the answer of the Prime Minister? What is the answer of the Treasurer? It is one simple answer. It is: `Yes, it's all true, but it ain't our fault'. They answer that it is not the fault of the Treasurer; it is not the fault of the Prime Minister; it is not the fault of the Australian Labor Party'. No, they say it is the fault of the foreigners and the Fraser Government. To blame the Government is something one must never do. We have had Murphy's Law; we have had Burke's Law; but now we have another law; and that is, Keating's law which is: `It's never my fault'. The Australian public is fed up with that law and that alibi and it is not going to wear any longer the proposition that these problems are not the fault of this Government. The Government has had four years. It inherited very good climatic conditions; it inherited an upswing in the world business cycle; it inherited the beneficial effects of a wage pause that its members did their level best to torpedo and it blew it. It blew it from the beginning and it is still blowing it. The catastrophic fall in living standards over which the Government has presided is the Government's fault. It will be held accountable for it by the Australian community and it will be judged upon it at the next election. Mr KEATING(Blaxland-Treasurer)(3.10) —Mr Deputy Speaker, look at the state of the Press gallery. There is hardly a soul there. The reason is that the Leader of the Opposition and honourable member for Bennelong (Mr Howard) is just about washed up. He has spent all this year gambling on a coalition keeping his power, because he thought that if he had a coalition he would have power. He gambled on the coalition and lost. Now he is without power and without position. His Party is divided. We have the wets and the dries, and the agrarian part of the conservatives is now separated off by itself and run by the lowest common denominator in Australian politics, the Queensland branch of the National Party. Now he says of Joh, whom he has called a thug and who has called him a silly little boy, `Oh yes, I will do a deal with him if we have enough numbers. We will enter into a coalition with him'. He has no credibility, he has no policy; he is just washed up. That is why he goes on about compassion and about families. The compassionate heart of the Liberal Party has been torn out of it by the Leader of the Opposition. It was beating away on Four Corners last night. That is where the people with concern for the social fabric were. They cannot even sit on the Leader of the Opposition's front bench. He will not allow them to stay. We see the infantile understanding of economics of the variety of the honourable member for Mackellar (Mr Carlton), who has been egging on the Leader of the Opposition, and the effect of some of the people in the past who were the influences on him, particularly some of his former staff members from the National Civic Council. These are the influences on the Leader of the Opposition. This is the sort of right wing view of the world he now has. But the view that Australia is a complex society which needs to care about people and have government programs to look after people has been washed away. If one sits in the Liberal Party with a view about education or the social security system or the poor, the leader says: `You cannot sit on my front bench. You can go to the back'. It was the people on the back who were on Four Corners last night, making public the bankruptcy of John Howard's leadership in terms of the complexities of this society and how we should manage and look after them. The honourable member for Bennelong leads the most heartless party to sit in this chamber since the war, without any shadow of doubt. That is a big statement, but it is true. It is true by virtue of the fact that those in his Party who have traditionally harboured concerns about the state of the social fabric of the country, who have had traditional concerns, were banished to the back bench. They are not to be heard in the shrill, hard politics of this Leader of the Opposition's Liberal Party. Let us not hear about what he thinks he did for the poor. We are having this sort of dishonest stuff thrown up to us. One of the last things he said was that the average level of unemployment in the Fraser years was less than the level of unemployment today. That statement means that if one abstracts the fact that for the last two years of his treasurership he put another 300,000 people on unemployment queues, and the fact that he left the present Government with 11 per cent unemployment, one can look at the unemployment rate he used to have before that and it looks better than the present rate. Really! Is that the state of his argument? Here he is within a year of an election with no policy about anything. He went through this great litany of cooked up statistics, never mentioning the fact that this Government has put 750,000 people into jobs. In his last year he lost 250,000 jobs and in his last 18 months he lost 320,000 jobs. So the turnaround is a million jobs. The Opposition cannot start talking about social fairness or decency unless it starts talking about employment. It is no good talking about whether the unemployment benefit is indexed and whether an unemployment beneficiary is happy because if one were unemployed and one's benefit were not indexed, one would not be happy. It is the million jobs and the turnaround from the position that applied under the Liberal-National Government that make the difference. Yet, in the honourable member's glib presentation of the facts that was not mentioned. The honourable member mentioned my colleagues' seats and said that they would be hearing about this on the hustings. He talked as though the Government were frightened of him, as though we were terrified. The way he is going his seat will be the marginal seat and we will be after him-rather than his being after our marginal seats. That is the state of things. The person who opposed 18 of the 20 national wage rises and who wants a wage freeze is crying crocodile tears about living standards. We have had a massive decrease in our national wealth yet the honourable member craves the support of the financial markets and business as a respectable business person who understands the arithmetic and mechanics of the economy. When we have taken a massive national drop in income living standards must fall. The honourable member wants that fact recognised when he is in the convention centres and the seminar halls but in the House he engaged in cheap politics to talk about diminished living standards while he opposes in shrill language, any wage increase that comes along. The honourable member for Bennelong talked about a 35 per cent top marginal tax rate, an aligned company rate and a $6 billion gift to high income earners, paid for by cutting government services. Does anybody in this country believe that an administration run by the honourable member would not decimate the public infrastructure of this country-government services for the needy and the poor and the not so well off? Of course he would. Only the Australian Labor Party stands in defence of decent public services for people who need them. Only the Labor Party has tried to cut out indiscriminate payments of welfare. When we did that with the assets test, the honourable member opposed it. He runs around saying that he will take off the assets test. That demonstrates the bankruptcy of his position. Not only would he deny to people in need what they should have but when we put in the instruments to target assistance to those who really need it-through the income test for the over-70s, the assets test and the tightening up of the payment of unemployment benefits-he said: `No, I reject all of that'. What is his position? The honourable member for Bennelong has been running around saying that he will gut Medicare. When this Government came to office two million Australian families had no health insurance. We are supposed to be heartless, but the only people with any compassion in his Party have been relegated to the back bench. This is his position. The honourable member charged the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) about the school retention rate. I would have thought the point the Prime Minister made was reasonable. We had a 35 per cent retention rate in secondary schools and that figure is now up to 46 per cent. That is a pretty big change, but the honourable member has given the Government no credit for it. He thinks it is only featherbedding, that we should turf all the students out of school-that we should not keep them there-and push them into the work force. However, when they get the unemployment benefit he thinks it should be ripped off them. This is his position. The honourable member for Bennelong talked about housing. When we came to office the number of housing starts was 105,000 for the year. For a couple of years we got the number up to 140,000-odd and this year it will run between 125,000 and 130,000. This very day the Housing Industry Association has written to the Prime Minister lauding the Government's interest in housing which the Government has broadly protected despite the fact that we have had a massive terms of trade collapse. That is the fact. This Government has brought Australia through one of the most savage periods in our external circumstances and made certain that the restraint was restraint with equity, and it has been with equity. But there would be no equity under the policies of the Opposition. The honourable member for Bennelong then talked about pensions. When he left office pensions were equivalent to 22.5 per cent of average weekly earnings. They are now equivalent to over 24 per cent. That is the Howard record. It is a shameful one. In the areas of the tax system in which we have introduced measures to provide equity, such as the capital gains and fringe benefits taxes, he says that he will throw them out. He says that, if people are lucky enough to have stock on the stock exchange in these boom times, they should put it in their kick and they should not pay any tax on it; but it is all right to tax the working person who is getting $18,000 a year and who has a couple of kids. He says: `Belt him, but don't tax anybody in the stock market'. The Leader of the Opposition says: `If you're lucky enough to have BHP or Westpac shares when the market is rising by 250 per cent, stick it in your pocket or, stick it in your kick, because I want the votes of the conservative constituencies. We'll berate Hawke about his record. We won't mention the three quarters of a million jobs. We won't mention the $10 billion of lost national income. We won't mention the trade depression'. Of course, he then has the hide to say: `Hawke and Keating are running around saying: ``It's not our fault''.' During the whole of 1982 the alibi was that the world had left them behind. Do honourable members remember that? Do they remember the campaign slogan: `We're not waiting on the world'? Every morning throughout 1982 the then Treasurer, Mr Howard, stood on the front steps of Parliament House and said: `Of course, you understand about the downturn in economic activity around the world'. It was just one shocking apologia for his incompetence. The fact is that, with much more advantageous terms of trade than this Government has ever had, he gave Australia a domestically induced recession. He gave Australia-all his own work-a domestically induced recession which threw people on the scrapheap. He talked about families. Who does he think the 750,000 people were, if they were not members of Australian families? Does he think they were Martians? How does he separate those who were unemployed from those who were members of Australian families, or those who did not have a house or had no real support from the social security system? What about the single income people with kids who were living in rented accommodation? What did he ever do for them? He did very little. We have increased support for those people markedly in the years in which we have been in government because we have targeted that social welfare assistance. What we see now is not just dry economics, but the new dry social justice strategy, which is basically about looking after the rich and letting the poor go and chase themselves. That is what would happen under the kind of Liberal government that the Leader of the Opposition would run. That is why the Leader of the Opposition has basically run out of ideas. In September 1985 I introduced the tax package. It was at the time that he became leader. It is now May 1987 and he still does not have a policy. He is without ideas or a structure. He has a few vague thoughts about market economics and deregulation which he has picked up from the honourable member for Mackellar, who has a Simple Simon view of the world in terms of economics. He has picked up his social politics from his mate who has now left his staff, who was with the National Civic Council. He has gone somewhere else. I forget his name. Mr Beddall —Henderson. Mr KEATING —Henderson. These were the influences on him. They have left him high and dry. The mainstream of Australia has passed him by. That was never evidenced more than by the fact that four of his colleagues, on television last night, essentially damned his strategy. That is where his leadership is. He cannot command a majority in the Parliament. He could not put together a government, even if there were enough raw numbers on the conservative side, without Joh. Joh would rip asunder any lingering notion of fairness or equity. The Leader of the Opposition has a party which is divided, and he has no social strategy. This Government sits for the economic test again on 13 May. The Opposition sits for the test on 14 May. If it fails the test, it will be in an even worse state than it is now. It is bankrupt of ideas, bankrupt of morality and bankrupt about knowing where this country ought to go. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) —Order! The Treasurer's time has expired. Mr HODGMAN(Denison)(3.25) —After that pathetic speech the Treasurer (Mr Keating) should resign. He is a failed and disgraced Treasurer and the sooner he goes the better. The Hawke socialist Government has cruelly and wickedly betrayed the families of Australia and, in particular, the poor families of Australia. More than any other government in the history of this country, the Hawke socialist Government has deliberately discriminated against single income families with dependent children. This has been a calculated and deliberate discrimination based on the trendy, lefty, humanist philosophies to which the Hawke socialists are totally committed. Ben Chifley would turn in his grave. Under the Hawke socialist Government, Australian families today are paying the highest taxation since Federation, the highest interest rates in real terms since the Great Depression and are enduring inflation five times higher than comparable Western countries. Australian families today are suffering the lowest living standards since the 1930s. The poverty of the dark depression years has returned like a black plague to haunt and hurt Australia's families in 1987. Under the Hawke-Keating policies of economic mismanagement, Australia is nationally bankrupt and Australian families are going broke. When Malcolm Fraser finished his term of office as Prime Minister of Australia, a single income Australian family on average weekly earnings paid $65 a week in tax. Today, under Prime Minister Hawke and the cheating Hawke socialist Government, the same family is paying $102 a week in tax, an increase of over 55 per cent in just four years. Yet it was Prime Minister Hawke who faithfully promised lower taxation for 98 per cent of all Australians. This is a tax bandit government which is taxing into poverty the families of Australia with a cruel and heartless ruthlessness unparalleled in our history. I repeat, a single income family, with dependent children, is now paying the highest taxes since Federation and $37 a week more than it was paying under Malcolm Fraser. Low income, two-income families with dependent children, where, for example, the wife works as a part-time cleaner, are also being hit for six. Hawke and Keating are making Malcolm Fraser look like Father Christmas. I turn to interest rates. The Hawke socialist Government-by deliberate economic policy-is forcing the families of Australia to pay the highest interest rates since the Great Depression on homes, washing machines, stoves, refrigerators and the like. Interest payments have rocketed from $545 a month on a worker's home to a massive $660 a month. That is the Hawke increase of $28 a week which, when added to the $37 a week in extra Hawke socialist Government taxes, means that an average Australian family, on tax and interest rates alone, is now $65 a week worse off as the direct result of the deliberate policies of the Hawke socialist Government. It is almost as though the Hawke socialist Government has actually declared war on the families of Australia. The cost of basic private health insurance has gone up by 50 per cent a week to a massive $14.30 and that is for the worst health system in the world. State government taxes and charges have been forced up by the deliberate policies of the Hawke socialist Government and these have added a further $15 a week to the cost of living of the average Australian family. The most excellent analysis-and I join with the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard) in this respect-of the discrimination against the families of Australia is to be found in the submission of the Shop, Distributive and Allied Employees Association forwarded to all members of this Parliament just a few weeks ago. It should be remembered that the SDA is represented on the Federal Executive of the Australian Council of Trade Unions by its Federal President, Jim Maher, and also that last year the SDA reaffiliated with the Australian Labor party in Victoria. Its members are front line troops dealing with the cost of living of all Australian families. The SDA points out that from 1976 to 1985 the real value of family allowances declined by a massive 29.2 per cent and Australian mothers have been robbed a total of $10 billion. The spouse rebate has been eroded by inflation and the solemn election promise in 1983 of the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) for a substantial increase in the spouse rebate has been shamelessly dishonoured. The cost of raising children has risen so rapidly that, as a direct result of the policies of the Hawke socialist Government, the decision to have children has become a decision to reduce the family's standard of living. Between 1976 and 1985, average weekly earnings for an average Australian worker rose by 135 per cent while the income tax payable on such earnings rose by 435 per cent. Nearly 300 per cent of that massive increase in taxation robbery has occurred under the Hawke socialist Government, whose leader promised lower taxes for 98 per cent of all Australians. Echoing my own words earlier in this speech, the SDA says: The last four years has seen the most sustained reduction in living standards since the Depression of the 1930s and . . . there is no relief in sight. I remind this House and the people of Australia that the Hawke socialist Government has been in office for the past four years. The view I have just quoted is the considered view of a major Australian trade union which comprises 180,000 members and speaks for over half a million Australians. Why does the Hawke socialist Government refuse to listen to what this union says? I agree with the SDA. The spouse rebate would need to be increased to $1,851 per annum to restore its real value and it should be converted into a cash payment and given directly to the non-income earning spouse. The family income supplement, as the SDA points out, which helps the lowest income families with dependent children, should also be increased in amount and extended in scope. Most ordinary Australian males do not understand what inflation means, but the wives and mothers, the housewives of Australia, do know and no amount of sweet talking and sophistry by the Prime Minister and the Treasurer will destroy the belief of the housewives of Australia that the cost of living under this economically incompetent Government has gone through the roof. Dr Harry Edwards —Every day. Mr HODGMAN —As usual the honourable member is quite right. I will give some consumer price index figures from the Prime Minister's own electorate of Wills in Melbourne. In March 1983 when the Prime Minister took office the food index was 119.1. By March 1987 it had rocketed to 160.2-a massive increase of 34.5 per cent. So a trolley of groceries at the local supermarket in the Prime Minister's electorate of Wills which cost $80 in March 1983 would now, thanks to him and his Government's policies, cost over $108. Mr Hunt —Good gracious! Mr HODGMAN —That is an extra $28 that the honourable member can add to his bill and Mrs Hunt's bill to send to the Hawke socialist Government each week on top of the extra $65 a week we are paying for its outrageous taxes and record high interest rates. I have mentioned before the vice of automatically indexed excise on petrol, liquor and cigarettes-all imposed by the Hawke socialist Government. Suffice it to say that people might be able to pay cash for their cars, but they will have to get their petrol on hire purchase, and heaven help the poor old battling pensioner who would like just one bottle of beer and two packets of cigarettes a week. The workers' Prime Minister, as he calls himself, has robbed the workers of Australia of their traditional right to a beer and a smoke. The pensioners of Australia have been ripped off to the tune of $160m by the deferral of their December 1986 and May 1987 pension consumer price index increases. Ex-service men and women have been shamelessly betrayed. The totally and permanently incapacitated pension has been all but abolished for those people over 65 years of age and 16,000 ex-service men and women and their families have had their pensions cancelled or reduced under the iniquitous Hawke socialist Government assets test. The Hawke socialist Government has lost touch with ordinary men and women. Those opposite, with their Pritikin diets and up-market, trendy, nouveau riche style, have lost touch with Mr and Mrs Smith in Bankstown and Mr and Mrs Jones in Chigwell. Their betrayal of ordinary decent Australians is to be condemned because it was deliberate. It is part of the socialist ethos to bring economic forces to bear for the purpose of implementing socialist policy and hitting the poor. Even the recently appointed Minister for Weeties has become so clogged up and ineffective that he should be switched immediately to All Bran. The fact is that the Hawke socialist Government has betrayed families. It has made it an economic crime to have children and has turned its back on those who put it into office. The revenge and rage of Australian families whom the Government has treated so iniquitously will be strong and their retribution will be swift, as those opposite will find out at the next Federal election. Dr THEOPHANOUS(Calwell)(3.35) —Anyone listening to the speech by the honourable member for Denison (Mr Hodgman) would realise, after his comments about socialism, that he would fail Political Philosophy 1 if he were taking an examination at a university. I want to talk about the comments of the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard), and ask: In his pre- tence to be concerned about the poor, what did he say about what he might do for the poor? The answer is: Nothing. What did he say about what he might do for the underprivileged? Nothing. What did he say about what he might do for workers? Nothing. The Leader of the Opposition pretending to be the champion of the poor is like Mephistopheles pretending to be a paragon of virtue. This analogy is apt because if anyone is the devil incarnate as far as the poor and underprivileged of this nation are concerned, it is the present Leader of the Opposition. There is no doubt that if the Leader of the Opposition and his stooges on the front bench-those who are left there-were ever to gain government they would totally devastate the standard of living of the Australian people, especially of poor families. Listening to the Leader of the Opposition, one could be misled into thinking that the foundation of the Liberal Party under his stewardship was some concern for the underprivileged and poor. Instead, as everyone knows, the real foundation of the present Liberal Party is nothing more than that combination and mishmash of reactionaries, racists and neo-fascists called the New Right. That is the real foundation of the present Liberal Party under its Leader. As we examine the policies of the New Right we have to ask the question: What right has the Leader of the Opposition to pretend to talk on behalf of the poor and underprivileged? Let us begin first of all with all those people who have been sent to the back bench-the social conscience of the Liberal Party. Anyone with any kind of social conscience or concern for the poor has been sent off to the back bench because the New Right has achieved a total victory on the front bench of the Liberal Party as it exists today. Front bench members are all stooges of the New Right. Those who disagree are on the back bench. The honourable member for Goldstein (Mr Macphee) warned about the New Right on 1 December 1986. He is now on the back bench. He said that the New Right's philosophy `elevates selfishness to commanding heights and ignores the plight of the less fortunate and less able members of the community'. That is what the honourable member said about the New Right and people such as the present Leader of the Opposition who are merely the stooges and pawns of this insidious New Right movement. Mr Beale —I take a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker, I object to being called a stooge, and ask that you request the honourable member for Calwell to withdraw that remark. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) —I am not sure that the word `stooge' is unparliamentary. I suggest that the honourable member for Calwell might be more moderate in his contribution. Dr THEOPHANOUS —Mr Deputy Speaker, I suggest that you apply the rulings in equal fashion to the Opposition with its outrageous statements. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —I can do without any assistance from the honourable member for Calwell. Dr THEOPHANOUS —Those opposite made certain outrageous statements about the Prime Minister, the Treasurer and several other Ministers in relation to their concern for the poor and underprivileged. I am merely making a comment-and I am not reflecting on you-- Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —The honourable member for Calwell should not belabour the point. A point once made is made well. Dr THEOPHANOUS —I will proceed with my comments. I was quoting the honourable member for Goldstein who said: I am alarmed that there are people in prominent positions today who claim to be liberal on particular issues and conservative on others. It is not philosophically sound to have what can only be described as a split personality. The honourable member for Goldstein was talking about the pretence and dual role seen in this House today when the Leader of the Opposition tried to attack the Government on its record on the poor and underpriviliged while he and his followers would bring into place a set of policies which would totally devastate this country and divide it into classes in a way which has never been seen since the Great Depression. They would cause enormous increases in unemployment through their policies and substantially reduce wages. As the Treasurer (Mr Keating) asked in his contribution, how can the Leader of the Opposition get up in this House and talk about the standards of living of workers and their families when he has opposed every increase in wages which would enable workers to keep up with the cost of living? The Opposition's industrial relations policy is such that it would reduce real wages very substantially. How can anyone who advocates that then come in here and pretend to be a champion of the poor and the underprivileged? We can go further when we look at some of the pronouncements made by the New Right and their policies and philosophies. Let us look, for example, at the document entitled `Mandate to Govern', produced by the Australian Institute for Public Policy, another of the many think tanks funded from God knows where by the New Right. If one looks at this policy one sees massive attacks on people's standards of living. For example, page 116 of the document says: If necessary to eliminate the deficit, the Government should reduce the real value of pensions and benefits by skipping one or more indexation increases, with no `catch-up' afterwards. That is one of the many recommendations coming from the New Right and applying to the poor and underprivileged. The Leader of the Opposition has spelt out no new policy to assist the poor, the unemployed or ordinary families. He has the gall to tell us that our record in these matters is insufficient when he himself advocates a set of policies from the New Right which would totally devastate the economy and certainly lead to an increase in unemployment and a reduction in people's standards of living. It is not only a matter of those direct issues of employment and wages. Let us turn to another aspect of people's standards of living, namely, the social wage. Let us look at aspects of the social wage such as health, social security, welfare, culture, education and other important aspects which are integral to people's standards of living. If we look at what the Opposition is propounding we see that in every area of human need and human services it would make massive reductions. It would totally cut out programs. Of course we do not know the details because these are not spelt out. Instead we have the various spokespersons of the New Right picking on different sections of the social wage and saying that they will eliminate this or that. For example, the National Farmers Federation President, Ian McLachlan, says he will eliminate all Commonwealth health expenditure. Imagine that! Imagine what would happen to the people of this country, to the medical system, if such a thing were to happen. This is just one of the many issues. What about the huge cuts in welfare that are being propounded by a number of spokespersons of the New Right who have been advisers to the Leader of the Opposition? I say to those who are listening to this broadcast, especially the poor and the disadvantaged, that while the nation is going through difficult circumstances, it is one thing that we are all being asked to make sacrifices, but it is another thing to believe the absurd statements of the Opposition that it has in any sense any sentiment or conscience in relation to the poor of this country. The Australian Labor Party has traditionally been concerned and continues to be concerned with the plight of the poor. Even today in the Labor Caucus a motion was passed to protect the poor in relation to the 13 May financial statement. That was concrete action on the part of the Australian Labor Party. That is the sort of thing that will support the poor, not the absurd policies coming from the Leader of the Opposition and the New Right. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The debate is concluded. Mrs KELLY(Canberra) —On behalf of the Joint Committee on the Australian Capital Territory, I present the Committee's report on the proposals for variations to the plan of the layout of the city of Canberra and its environs, together with minutes of proceedings. Ordered that the report be printed. Mrs KELLY —by leave-The report I have just tabled deals with the ninetieth series of variations to the city plan, as well as one item from the eighty-eighth series of variations, namely, the construction of the Eastern Parkway from Isabella Drive through to Macarthur and Newcastle Street, Fyshwick. I will first deal with the outstanding item from the eighty-eighth series. The Committee deferred approval of this variation in October 1986 because it was not satisfied that it had been provided with sufficient information on which to make an informed judgment regarding the design or costing of the proposed road. As part of the Committee's consideration of items in the ninetieth series of variations, the National Capital Development Commission was asked to return before the Committee to expand on its original briefing on the Eastern Parkway. The Committee is satisfied that it has now been provided with the appropriate details and approves the variation, noting that the preliminary stages of roadworks will improve traffic conditions on several dangerous intersections and ease traffic levels on adjoining arterial roads. I now turn to items contained in the ninetieth series of variations. The Committee approves all items in this series except item 2, which deals with the addition of roads and the realignment of an existing cyclepath adjacent to Lake Ginninderra to allow development of the area for commercial purposes. The parcel of land under consideration is located within the Belconnen Town Centre zone on the western foreshore of Lake Ginninderra. The Committee is prepared to approve construction of the majority of proposed roads and relocation of the cyclepath but is not convinced of the need to develop section 149, which is a relatively small and attractive parcel of land immediately adjacent to City Gardens. This does not mean that the Committee is opposed to development on appropriate areas of the lake foreshore, but it considers the proposal to build a three-storey motel with a set-back from the lake of only 10 metres to be totally unsympathetic to the environment. It would detract from both the visual and recreational enjoyment of this area with no scope for providing a range of uses around this area of the lake. Rather than limiting this potentially popular extension of lake foreshore area by the construction of a motel, a commercial development of this nature could more appropriately take place on section 65 or the adjoining section 86. Therefore, the Committee does not approve the portion of road addition proposed within section 149. Variation 3 deals with the degazettal of portions of Wakefield Gardens to provide two sites for the development of small scale professional or commercial offices at the Ainslie Local Centre. The Committee is not satisfied that adequate consultations with neighbouring residents have been carried out in relation to this proposal and approves the variation on the basis that this be done. In the Committee's consideration of the Parliamentary Mall, which is variation 4, support is given for the development of this mall as it is considered to be an essential feature of Burley Griffin's plan and the development of the Parliamentary Triangle. During discussions of this proposal, the question of the proposed location of the Bicentennial Music Bowl at Regatta Point was raised. The Committee is concerned that it was not consulted at an earlier date about the proposed siting of this venue and considers that it may be more appropriate to locate it in a more prominent area of national significance and closer to Parliament House. The Parliamentary Triangle has become an accepted location for musical performances associated with official celebrations and this may be a more appropriate site for the proposed bowl. I recommend this report to the House. Mr LANGMORE(Fraser) —by leave-The Joint Committee on the Australian Capital Territory did not approve one part of the variations proposed to it. The road not approved was intended to provide access to a motel site on section 149, very close to the foreshore of Lake Ginninderra. There is no need for a motel in the area to be built on that site. Section 149 is right on the lake and it cuts across a bicycle track and an area through which people pass as they walk around the lake. No building unrelated to the water has been built as close to any lake in the Australian Capital Territory as this proposed motel would be on section 149. Plans have just been published for a large area further around the lake-section 65-which will be opened up for convivial recreational and community activities in a landscaped setting. Section 65 is a large area and provides all the opportunities for these types of convivial activities, which are needed in Belconnen. The buildings on section 65 are to be limited to one or two storeys. In contrast, the proposed development conditions for section 149 would have allowed a building of three storeys, and apparently at one stage a proposal to allow buildings even up to five storeys was considered. Buildings of that size would dominate the lake foreshore and interfere with the view from the Belconnen Town Centre, as well as cut into the easy flow of walking space. There is a suitable block for a motel on a rise behind section 149. That would offer fine views and easy access to the lake and cause no interference with recreation on the lake foreshores. I hope that the Commission will use this opportunity for siting a motel. The other comment made by the Committee on one of the variations relates to the road reservations around the Ainslie shops. These proposed changes will allow a couple of medical centres to relocate out of the suburb to an area close to the shops and for another small suite of offices to be built. A constituent called in to see me after learning of the Commission's proposals only after the public hearing when a Commission representative had called to see her. My constituent indicated that she would prefer that the surgeries not be built next door to her residence but, given that the case for locating them close to the shops is strong, she suggested that they be sited so that car parking is close to the street. That is a reasonable proposal, and I hope that the Commission will consult with her and with other neighbours about the siting of the planned buildings. Mr DOWNER(Mayo) —On behalf of the Joint Committee of Public Accounts, I present the 271st report of the Committee, the response to the report on an efficiency audit of Administration of Bilateral Overseas Aid. Ordered that the report be printed. Debate resumed from 2 April, on motion by Mr Cohen: That the Bill be now read a second time. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) —I understand it is the wish of the House to debate the Sea Installations Bill 1987 concurrently with the Sea Installations Levy Bill 1987, the Sea Installations (Miscellaneous Amendments) Bill 1987, the Customs Tariff Amendment (Sea Installations) Bill 1987 and the Excise Tariff Amendment (Sea Installations) Bill 1987. As there is no objection, the Chair will allow that course to be followed. Mr DOWNER(Mayo)(3.53) —In rising to speak on the Sea Installations Levy Bill 1987, the Sea Installations (Miscellaneous Amendments) Bill 1987, the Customs Tariff Amendment (Sea Installations) Bill 1987 and the Excise Tariff Amendment (Sea Installations) Bill 1987, I point out that this is the first occasion on which I have spoken on Bills in my capacity as shadow Minister for Arts, Heritage and Environment, and throughout the time that I remain in this position I shall emphasise that the Liberal Party of Australia-and I know that this is also the view of the National Party-supports the conservation of Australia's very delicate and very dear environment. Anyone who suggests that we would take any other position is not addressing the truth of the matter. The truth is that our policies and our attitudes will always show sensitivity to the environment and a recognition of the importance of conservation. I am glad to say that the Opposition will not oppose the Bills that we are debating cognately this afternoon. We recognise the values of the Bills and we see them as being the best solution to a fairly difficult and complex legal problem. The Bills are simply an attempt to clarify the legal status of off-shore installations, which are now moving ahead, particularly on the Great Barrier Reef. There is no doubt that these offshore installations can be an important tourist asset to Australia and to the Great Barrier Reef region. It goes without saying that tourism will play an increasingly important part in the Australian economy. This is vastly important if we are to rectify our balance of payments problems. Thus, we must utilise to the best advantage of our economy those features of Australia that are unique. But, of course, we have to do that without in turn destroying those unique features and desecrating our environment. In relation to installations at the Great Barrier Reef, some installations already exist in the form of pontoons. More recently, a proposal was put forward by a company called Reef Link Resort Pty Ltd to build a very large floating hotel on the John Brewer Reef, some 72 kilometres from Townsville. This $31m floating hotel will be a seven-storey structure, so it will be fairly large, and it will have about 200 beds. That is not the only proposal that has been put forward, but it is the only one that is currently in the process of becoming an actuality. The Opposition does support this proposal, but we support it with perhaps some reservations and some caution. As I said earlier, it will enhance the tourist potential of the Great Barrier Reef. I think that other floating installations-for example, those that might be constructed in Western Australia in the next few years-also have the capacity to enhance the tourist potential of parts of Australia. In saying that the Opposition supports this proposal, I re-emphasise that the Great Barrier Reef is one of our greatest natural assets, and our greatest national asset. It certainly should be used but not abused. We very much want to avoid two basic abuses. I have already referred to the importance of preserving the very delicate environment of the Great Barrier Reef, to its unique beauty and to the importance of recognising its ecological significance, as well as the importance of recognising that unfettered tourism could destroy the Great Barrier Reef, something for which future generations would not thank us. It is important that we find an intelligent, commonsense balance between development and the conservation of the environment. I think that this proposal is an example of a commonsense approach to the problems that exist. The last thing that we want, of course, is a flotilla of hotels, stretching like some sort of naval review along the Great Barrier Reef from its most northern aspect to its southern limit. It would not only look absurd and be offensive but it would also pose a very real threat and danger to that very delicate environment. So, I emphasise that the Opposition supports this proposal but with that qualification. We do not support blanket development; we do not want to see floating hotels stretching like a naval review from the northernmost aspect of the Great Barrier Reef to the south. That would be a disaster for Australia, for our environment and, in turn, possibly for tourism by being completely counterproductive. The other very real concern, which I believe the Government has addressed with this legislation, and certainly the Opposition has addressed this matter, is that these sorts of floating installations could be used as some kind of massive avoidance device. They could be used, for example, as a way of avoiding taxation-a new form of `top of the harbour' scheme perhaps, as opposed to `bottom of the harbour'. But certainly they could be used to avoid both Federal and State taxes. They could be used as duty-free zones, where people could go and do duty-free shopping instead of paying the normal duties that they have to pay on the mainland, and there could be a way also in a related sense for people to avoid their excise obligations. If this were the case, we would be allowing a great flotilla to develop off the Australian coast, where people could avoid every single law ever made by the Commonwealth Government or by the States. Every member of this House would agree that that would be completely and utterly absurd. This package of legislation addresses those two concerns that we have. We are concerned that the very delicate environment, particularly in relation to the Great Barrier reef, must be properly preserved and that floating installations should not be used as some kind of extraordinary legal avoidance device. This legislation puts these sea installations effectively under the same sort of controls as those under which land based installations operate. This legislation is parallel to the Petroleum (Submerged Lands) Act. The legislation extends Commonwealth laws to what are described in the legislation as adjacent areas, that is, areas beyond the territorial sea out as far as the limits of the continental shelf or the Australian fishing zone. That means that the Commonwealth will be able to apply environmental regulations; it will be able to apply its own taxation laws; it will be able to apply customs laws; and it will be able to apply its excise laws and so on. However, the package of legislation does more than that. It also extends the State regulations relating to sea installations in that area out as far as the boundary of the continental shelf as well. That means that issues such as health and public safety, which normally fall under the auspices of State governments will be carefully covered by this legislation. Given that this raises one or two fairly difficult legal issues, I am happy that this package of Bills offers some practical solution to some of the problems to which I referred earlier. Under the legislation it will be necessary for operators of sea installations to obtain permits from the Minister for Arts, Heritage and Environment who will also have the capacity to refuse the granting of a permit. That is a very important power for the Minister to have. If it is clear that an installation will be unsatisfactory from a variety of points of view-if it will be environmentally damaging, if it will be unsafe or if it will, in some other way, prove to be offensive, perhaps just from an aesthetic point of view-the Minister will have the capacity to refuse to issue a permit. In other words, the issuing of permits will depend admittedly on the discretion of the Minister but also presumably on the project operators ensuring that their installations recognise the demands and the aspirations of the Australian people as a whole and are not just selfish exercises of commercial greed which overlook the concerns of ordinary Australians. It is a very practical proposition that the Government has put forward in this legislation that the States should administer the regulations on a practical, day to day basis, in spite of the fact that the sea installations will be located in Commonwealth territory. That makes a great deal of sense because, as a member of the Liberal Party, I am naturally concerned that we in Australia should do what we can to try to get rid of duplication between the different levels of government, particularly State and Federal governments. When I first looked at this legislation one of the first things that came to my mind was whether this was yet another example of duplication between State and Federal governments. I am glad to see that in a very practical way this potential problem has been addressed in this legislation and that the States will effectively administer the regulations even though it is still legally Commonwealth territory. Under the legislation the Commonwealth will raise a levy from the operators of the sea installations. That levy, I understand, is to be set at a level which reflects the market value of the installations. It will be very difficult, of course, to determine the market value of a particular installation. That will be no easy task. I assume the Australian Taxation Office will be given the job of trying to make that assessment. I hope that its record in establishing the market value of these installations will be considerably better than its record in establishing the market value of some of the farms in my electorate which have been valued for the purpose of applying the assets test. In any case, some arbitrary standard will have to be used, and it will be incumbent on the Taxation Office to get as close as it can to a genuine market price on which the Government will then determine the levy. Under the legislation the Government, in turn, will pay an administrative fee to the States which will be administering the regulations. I do not doubt that this will be a matter of some contention between the Commonwealth and the States. I will return to that a little later. One thing to which I would like to draw the attention of the House is the decision by the Government-I am certainly praising the Government a good deal this afternoon in relation to this legislation-to exempt research facilities from payment of the levy. That is very important. I would like to encourage proper ecological research on the Great Barrier Reef and in other parts of off-shore Australia. I think all of us would agree that it would be unreasonable for those research installations to be subject to the same sort of levy as what is clearly a commercial, money-making tourist installation. The system of having a levy and an administrative fee which is paid to the States makes some practical sense. It ensures that there is no duplication, yet it allows the extension of State jurisdiction to cover these off-shore sea installations. The alternative would be some vastly complicated and perhaps not very practical legal process which could turn out to have very dire consequences if it were to be challenged in the High Court of Australia or in another jurisdiction. A number of criticisms have been made about this legislation, and I would like to allude to them although, as I have said all along in my speech, I do not have any fundamental objections to it. The first concern that has been raised in relation to this legislation is the definition of the territorial sea. The Commonwealth's understanding is that the definition of the territorial sea is three miles from the high water mark, but I understand that there is also a proviso that if an installation begins within that three-mile limit and extends beyond it State jurisdiction would apply to that installation. In other words, it would be defined as being part of the so-called territorial sea. An argument has been put from Queensland that floating hotels on the Barrier Reef are de facto extensions of the Queensland territorial sea or the Queensland mainland because these installations have to be serviced from the mainland. The argument goes that there is no way to get food, fresh water or other supplies out to those installations except from the mainland of Australia, and logically, of course, from Queensland. That argument may be one that the Queensland Government is prepared to sustain, but I doubt that it would go to the wall on it. Particularly if the Federal Government were to accept the argument on face value it might find that, by allowing the States to have jurisdiction for sea installations as far out as the edge of the continental shelf, that jurisdiction could be challenged in the High Court and, if it were found to be Commonwealth jurisdiction and if the argument that the Queenslanders have been putting forward were found to be false, the sea installations would revert to the unhappy, in my view, position of being without any regulation whatsoever and being little more than tax avoidance and evasion installations. I would not like that to happen, and I do not think the Government should have accepted the argument that was put forward in relation to the definition of the territorial sea. It has done the right thing by introducing this legislation. From the point of view of the States, their argument goes a little further. They say that if they can include these sea installations in their territorial sea they will be able to issue certain State licences which are effectively ways of raising taxation revenue, such as liquor licences in hotels which, in the case of the John Brewer Reef proposal, would be a very practical example. This argument has perhaps some value because the levy which the Commonwealth will collect and the administrative payments which the Commonwealth will then make to the States for administering the regulations will not cover the lost revenue from, say, liquor licences or whatever they may be which the States would have otherwise been able to get had the installations been part of the territorial sea. That argument of no compensation for lost revenue again is one that assumes that the installations would have been on land or within the territorial sea had they not been placed further out in the so-called adjacent area-in other words, that the installations would have been built regardless of where they were located. That argument is pretty phoney. I do not think that makes a great deal of sense at all. One would have to say that the floating hotel proposal for John Brewer Reef is one which recognises the intrinsic merit of the Great Barrier Reef. It is not one in relation to which the company took a decision to build either at John Brewer Reef or perhaps in Townsville or elsewhere on the mainland of Australia. If that is the case-I assume that it is-it is not reasonable for the States to argue that they are effectively losing revenue as a result of this Commonwealth legislation. In fact, quite to the contrary: Because of this legislation sea installations will be able to go ahead where they are properly controlled and properly managed; and where those sea installations go ahead there will be servicing from the mainland, and the State which is adjacent to the sea installation will benefit through the multiplier effect of that servicing. In the case of the John Brewer Reef proposal there is no doubt that the city of Townsville will, to some extent, benefit from that development. It is extremely likely that the development would not have gone ahead at all had it not been permissible to place the floating hotel at John Brewer Reef. I would like to raise a number of other issues which are not exactly points of criticism but certainly are points of concern that the States have drawn to my attention. A further one is that the Commonwealth Government could, theoretically, grant a permit without the agreement of a State. Clause 17 of this Bill does specifically say that the Commonwealth Government has an obligation to consult with a State on the issuing of a permit. I think that makes good sense. It is a perfectly reasonable and rational thing to do. Mr Cohen —The Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority is a consultative process. Mr DOWNER —As the Minister for Arts, Heritage and Environment rightly points out, the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority involves a consultative process and, of course, where this legislation applies to the Great Barrier Reef it does not in any case derogate from or add to the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Act. The simple fact is that under clause 17 of the Bill there is an obligation for the Commonwealth to consult the States before granting a permit. But that does not take away from the argument that the States have put, which is that the Commonwealth could provide a permit without the agreement of the States. So the States do not have a veto over the provision of a permit. It is argued that the case could arise where, using Townsville as an example, a casino in Townsville, whose licence was given under certain financial conditions, suddenly found itself facing competition some 20, 30, or perhaps even 70 kilometres off shore when a sea installation comprising a casino was established. As a member of the Liberal Party, I believe in competition, so if competition were to arise so be it. But, more than that, I think one has to recognise that the so-called adjacent area, as it is defined in this legislation-the area between the territorial sea and the edge of the continental shelf-is constitutionally Commonwealth territory, and it would be unreasonable for the Commonwealth to give the States a veto over the issuing of the permits in Commonwealth territory. But I do suggest that the Government and the Minister for Arts, Heritage and Environment (Mr Cohen) handle this question of the issuing of permits very sensitively and very carefully, always recognising the interests of the States. I am sure that that will be done but I would just like to raise that issue to make certain that the Government and in particular the Minister take it on board. The fourth concern that has been raised with me relates to the negotiations on the actual level of the levies and the administrative payments. This is something that in the end will work itself out through negotiation between the Federal and State departments and between the Federal Government and its department and the operators of the seas installations. But it is important, as far as the States are concerned, to ensure that the Commonwealth's payments to the States do cover the full administrative costs. There have been some complaints, in relation to other such arrangements, that the States have been shortchanged by the Commonwealth. I have no way of assessing whether or not those complaints are justified. It may be that they are not justified; it may be that they are. But it will be very important that the Commonwealth plays fair with the States and makes certain that the States are not shortchanged through this arrangement. I think also-I referred to this matter earlier-that it is important that the actual levy itself be set at an intelligent level. The legislation says that it must be set at a level determined by market values, which does not actually tell us very much at all. But, of course, if the levy were too low the operators of the installations would simply have some sort of tax haven. That would be the de facto effect of having a levy that was far too low. So the levy has to be set at an intelligent level. If it is too high I think the operators would be able to argue that it is some sort of rip-off. A situation where not a market but the Government is determining the level of the levy is again one which I suggest would have to be handled very sensibly, and which would require a great deal of common sense on the part of the Government. The question has been raised of how many permits the Commonwealth would actually issue, particularly in the Great Barrier Reef area. But, of course, this legislation applies to all of Australia, not just the Great Barrier Reef. Would the number of permits be limited? Would the Commonwealth Government have some sort of quota? The legislation does not provide for quotas; it only provides for the discretion of the Minister to issue permits. I would just come back to what I said earlier about my concerns that there could be too many floating hotels up and down the Great Barrier Reef. My fear is that we could end up one day with some sort of naval review of floating hotels from the north Queensland end of the Great Barrier Reef to the south end of the Great Barrier Reef. I would only hope that the Minister will show intelligent discretion in issuing the permits so that that situation will not arise. Of course, the absolute numbers of permits is not the only factor. The other factor is the location itself. Again, this is a matter now for the discretion of the Minister, not for the Parliament itself. We would always be on the lookout to ensure that those permits are not issued in areas which would be environmentally damaged by the moving of a sea installation into that particular area. In conclusion, as I said at the beginning, the Opposition will not oppose this package of legislation. We regard it as a sensible and practical approach to a fairly difficult sort of arrangement, particularly in respect of Commonwealth-State relations. The underlying assumption of this legislation-I emphasise this point because I think it is an important one-is that the Commonwealth Labor Government does recognise the need for some sort of intelligent balance between conservation and development. But the Government is not, if you like, being absolutist in its approach. I refer specifically to the Great Barrier Reef in that regard. It is not saying that we would never ever have any floating hotels, or sea installations, in that area or in other areas around the coast of Australia. But, at the same time, it recognises the very great responsibility we all have as members of this Parliament in 1987 to future generations of Australians to pass on the natural heritage of this country, the environment which we ourselves inherited, in a way which will do us proud and which recognises the continuity and the beauty of our nation. I hope the Minister will consider some of the concerns that have been raised with me in relation to this legislation. Doubtless they have been raised, in any case, with him and his Department. He may address those matters in his concluding remarks. I reiterate that the Opposition will not oppose this legislation. We regard it as a sensible and practical approach to a difficult problem. Mr LINDSAY(Herbert)(4.17) —The Sea Installations Bill 1987 is one of a number of Bills required to put in place a scheme to regulate the operation of certain off-shore sea installations fixed or moored to the sea bed of the Australian continental shelf beyond the territorial sea. This Bill will facilitate the development of technically sound, environmentally acceptable and economically viable sea installations. The Bill provides a basis for the application of important Commonwealth laws, and for State or Territory laws to be adopted as Commonwealth laws. These provisions are parallel to those already applying under the Petroleum (Submerged Lands) Act 1967 which regulates off-shore petroleum and mineral exploration and extraction. The central purpose of the Bill is to require a person to obtain a permit before operating a sea installation installed in the waters beyond the Australian territorial sea but within the outer limits of the continental shelf or Australia's 200-nautical mile fishing zone. `Sea Installation' is defined in clause 3 (1) of the Bill as a man-made structure which can be used for an `environment related activity'. Off-shore drilling rigs and drilling vessels are expressly excluded, as are defence installations and, by virtue of paragraph (g) of the definition, prescribed structures. The term `environment related activity' is defined as any activity relating to tourism or recreation, the carrying on of a business, the exploitation of the living resources, marine archaeology or by virtue of paragraph (e) of the relevant definition, any prescribed purpose. Just over two years ago the Hawke Government-an authentic Australian government-decided that legislation should be provided to regulate the operation of off-shore tourist installations fixed or moored to the Australian continental shelf and beyond the territorial sea and the Great Barrier Reef region and to ensure a satisfactory revenue outcome. The decision was largely prompted by a proposal by Barrier Reef Holdings Ltd to build a large floating tourist complex on John Brewer Reef, a large coral formation seven kilometres long by three kilometres wide lying some 70 kilometres north-east of Townsville. Townsville is becoming an increasingly attractive holiday destination with the Sheraton-Breakwater Casino and the renowned Great Barrier Reef Wonderland Aquarium, which will be officially opened next month by the Prime Minister and the Premier of Queensland. Mr Cohen —And its member is an attraction in himself. Mr LINDSAY —I thank the Minister. The concept of a permanent accommodation facility located on the Great Barrier Reef which would permit extended stays by visitors to the reef is an idea developed over a number of years by Mr Doug Tarca, the owner and operator of Reef Link, an existing business that operators day trips to John Brewer Reef. Mr Tarca concluded many years ago from his extensive experience of the Great Barrier Reef that the John Brewer Reef was of ideal size and location for such a holiday resort. Barrier Reef Holdings Ltd has described the floating tourist complex as one of the most existing resorts and convention venues ever conceived. The hotel will be anchored in a tranquil lagoon on John Brewer Reef, part of Australia's Great Barrier Reef. Barrier Reef Holdings Ltd has stated that no hotel anywhere else in the world has required the degree of research, planning and technology which has been employed to bring this unique concept to reality. I believe that no hotel in the world will have at its doorstep such a galaxy of undersea colour, fascination and mystery. The resort, to be known as the Four Seasons Barrier Reef Hotel, is a 12,000-tonne, 7-storey, 200-bedroom floating hotel outfitted and operated to first-class standards. The concept of a floating accommodation facility is well proven, having been introduced by the off-shore oil industry in the mid-1970s. The floating hotel is a further development of these concepts in order to provide luxury standards of accommodation. It will be approximately 90 metres long by 27 metres wide and is designed to accommodate up to 426 hotel guests. The resort will be professionally managed by Four Seasons Ltd which is Australia's second largest wholly owned hotel group and the country's largest tourist oriented hostelier. It was founded over 20 years ago and has been wholly owned by IEL (Australia) Pty Ltd since 1984. IEL is one of Australia's largest public companies with a market capitalisation at 23 May 1986 of nearly $2.5 billion. The resort will be moored by a single point mooring system which will allow it to adjust its mooring to conform with changing wind patterns when required. In keeping with the high priority given to concern for the environment, special measures are planned to keep sound from the hotel's power generating plant to virtually noiseless levels. With a capacity of 2,300 kilowatts, the plant will provide lighting, power for the resort's lifts and the remainder of electrical services and facilities of a resort in the luxury class. Fresh water will be supplied through a desalination plant with a storage capacity of seven days of normal resort operations. All wastes, even the waste water, will be strictly controlled through treatment or incineration plants, as the case may be. No wastes, not even those treated, will be released into the reef lagoon at John Brewer Reef. They will be carried by barge to the mainland or, in the case of some treated components deposited at selected and approved locations at sea. The environmental considerations, so important for the success of this venture in the delicate marine wonderland of the Pacific, involve experts from Australia's Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority under the ministerial jurisdiction of the Minister for Arts, Heritage and Environment (Mr Cohen). This will be a continuing arrangement, designed to expand scientific knowledge and enhance public understanding and appreciation of this massive collection of coral formations, the Great Barrier Reef, extending 2,000 kilometres along Australia's north-eastern coastline. This project is a rare undertaking in which science will work through the avenues of tourism to better understand the reef, the world's biggest living creature, and in the process the Great Barrier Reef and its myriad of colour and mystery will open up to the world. I now refer to Part V of the Bill. There is no doubt about the constitutional power of the Commonwealth of Australia to regulate structures on the continental shelf. Indeed, Federal legislation controlling such structures would be consistent with the off-shore constitutional settlement. It would also be consistent with existing Commonwealth regulation and control of off-shore petroleum structures. It would enable Australia to ensure that its international obligations, including limitations imposed by international law over control of off-shore structures, were complied with. I am not confident that any State legislation would contain the necessary limitations. It would permit the Commonwealth, if it wished, to override inconsistent and unacceptable State or Northern Territory legislation and thus enable the Commonwealth to control the body of law applicable to sea installations. I understand that the Queensland Offshore Facilities Act 1986 acknowledges that State laws apply except where application of a law would be inconsistent with Commonwealth law. The Queensland legislation purports to control installations up to the outer edge of the continental shelf from the Queensland coast. I believe the constitutional basis for the Queensland Act is uncertain. It is not clear that a law purporting to apply such a distance from the coast is a law for the peace, welfare and good government of Queensland for the purposes of the Queensland Constitution. Clause 45 of the Bill provides that existing State laws will apply as Commonwealth laws in relation to installations installed in an adjacent area of a State, as if that area were part of the State and the Commonwealth. Thus, a State law will continue to apply outside the boundary of the territorial sea, notwithstanding that the Sea Installations Bill 1987 will apply to structures fixed or moored in an area adjacent to a State. However, criminal laws within the meaning of the Crimes at Sea Act 1979 will continue to apply by virtue of that Act, notwithstanding the sea installations legislation. This will enable the Commonwealth to modify any relevant State law. For example, the Commonwealth will be able to decide about allowing recent Queensland industrial laws to apply to sea installations. This Bill also invests State and Territory courts with Federal jurisdiction in matters pertaining to issues in this Bill. I now refer to the application of income tax and sales tax laws to tourist installations in Australia's off-shore areas. The Government has decided that the scope of the income tax law should be extended to income derived from fixed tourist and other installations in the waters surrounding Australia. The sales tax law is also to be amended to extend its application to such installations in Australia's off-shore areas. The relevant provisions of the income tax law are now to be amended to reflect Australia's jurisdiction, under international law, over installations within the outer limits of the continental shelf or within 200 nautical miles of Australia. The sales tax law is also to be amended to extend its application to fixed installations such as tourist installations in the waters of those areas. I now refer to the Sea Installations Levy Bill 1987. The Bill provides for a levy to be paid to the Commonwealth by a permit holder in relation to the operation of a sea installation. This will ensure that the administrative costs of the States and Territories are met, and that general revenue can benefit, as it would if similar installations were located on the mainland. The levy is expressed as a percentage of a valuation of the installation. Levies will be fixed which have regard to State taxes and charges for relevant activities. The concept of the levy Bill avoids the duplication by the Commonwealth of all those State taxing and charging laws that would ordinarily apply if the operation were land-based. An example of how the levy is to work is in the area of liquor licensing. If an operator of an installation wants a liquor licence, he or she will apply under the relevant State and Commonwealth law for a liquor licence, but will not be charged a licence fee as this would amount to a tax. The amount that would have been payable if the application had been in respect of a land-based operation is taken into account as a component of the levy. The levy is expressed as a percentage of a valuation of the asset-the sea installation-and this is analogous to local government charges. However, the level of percentage also reflects those other State charges or fees not usually reflected in local government rates. The valuation of the installation will be calculated annually in accordance with the valuation practice by valuers of the Australian Taxation Office whose decisions will be subject to review by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal. I now refer to the Sea Installations (Miscellaneous Amendments) Bill 1987. This Bill amends other Commonwealth legislation. The Customs Act 1901 and the Excise Act 1901 are amended to give to officers administering the respective Acts power over such installations, ships and aircraft, persons and goods arriving with, or at, the installations or departing overseas from such installations. The Migration Act 1958 is amended to identify the point when sea installations and the persons on board enter Australia and when such installations become, or cease to be, part of Australia. The amendments to the Quarantine Act 1908 apply to a wide range of controls under the Act, to sea installations. The principal control is to make newly arrived installations, persons and goods on these installations, subject to quarantine. To sum up, the benefits of the proposed legislation include the application of the rule of law to sea installations establishing the rights and obligations of owners, users and others affected by the operation of such installations, the prevention of evasion of Commonwealth and State laws, such as Commonwealth and State tax laws-Customs, quarantine-by the use of sea installations. It includes the establishment of a regime to protect the marine environment, the safe operation of such installations and the provision of appropriate standards of construction and safety for sea installations especially as the Commonwealth could face significant rescue and removal costs in the event of disaster involving damage to an installation. Finally, I wish to pay tribute to not only Mr Doug Tarca, the originator of this wonderful concept which will bring such knowledge and pleasure to so many millions of people in the years to come, but also Mr Owen Kelvin Griffith, the Executive Director of Barrier Reef Holdings Ltd whose indefatigable efforts and expertise in guiding this wonderful project to a situation whereby it will be officially opened in October 1987, must be applauded by not only people involved in the tourist industry but also all Australians now and forever more. Mr PETER FISHER(Mallee)(4.33) —I rise on behalf of the National Party of Australia to support the Sea Installations Bill, the Sea Installations Levy Bill, the Installations (Miscellaneous Amendments) Bill, the Customs Tariff Amendment (Sea Installations) Bill and the Excise Tariff Amendment (Sea Installations) Bill. In 1984 the Premier of Queensland, Sir Joh Bjelke-Petersen, and the Minister for Arts, Heritage and Environment (Mr Cohen) announced an allocation of some $6m under the Commonwealth-State bicentennial commemorative program to establish a Great Barrier Reef wonderland. The objectives and components of that Great Barrier Reef wonderland were to establish a national monument on the occasion of the Australian Bicentenary which would offer an interpretative and education service about the Great Barrier Reef for local, national and overseas visitors. It would recognise and record in an enduring manner the roles of the Queensland and Commonwealth Governments in the conservation of the Great Barrier Reef and its inscription on the World Heritage List. It would also-the honourable member for Herbert (Mr Lindsay) has mentioned this matter-develop a Great Barrier Reef wonderland as a tourist attraction of international status with an integration of outstanding facilities having wide appeal and involving government and private sector funding. I mention this matter because with the proclamation of a marine park-particularly a marine park which has the profile and importance of the Great Barrier Reef-it will obviously stimulate additional activity. Today we are debating a series of Bills that relate to the stimulation of that activity. We are all aware of the many entrepreneurs who for decades have provided facilities for tourism and the enjoyment by many visitors from Australia and throughout the world of this unique Australian attraction. While this legislation covers all off-shore installations, it basically refers to the floating hotel proposal off Townsville which was so adequately referred to by the honourable member for Herbert. The project, of some seven storeys costing some $31m, will be developed by Reef Link Resort Pty Ltd and will be built on the John Brewer Reef. I do not wish to go into too much of the detail of this matter except to say that a project such as this will raise the standard of projects along the Barrier Reef. The legislation is sensible in content and is an example-I say this to the Minister-of a project and legislation which reflects great credit on both the Department of Arts, Heritage and Environment and particularly officers of the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority. We should recognise that an environmental impact statement has been carried out. While we could all make some criticism and express some concern about the time some of these statements take, they are important and very significant in projects related to the Great Barrier Reef. As I have said, the introduction of this legislation is a further reflection of the capacity of private enterprise to promote effectively development in the natural environment and to do this in harmony with acceptable conservation practices. This project is an example of a major investment in infrastructure to meet a demand for the package tours that are now coming to us from Japan and the United States of America and, in particular, it takes advantage of Australia's favourable exchange rate. As I have said, these five Bills are a continuing acknowledgment of the proposals for off-shore installations from private industries and recognition of the continual need to regulate the operations of these installations in Australian waters. We are specifically dealing with a particular project off Townsville but it will set a precedent for similar developments in the future. I agree entirely with the statements made by the honourable member for Mayo (Mr Downer) that we have to be very careful and cautious in such a fragile environment that these proposals meet the types of conditions that are so necessary. The National Party supports this legislation. Since the proclamation of the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park the Commonwealth and the Queensland Government have, I believe, satisfactorily managed this outstanding natural heritage and resource. The establishment of the Marine Park Authority and the day-to-day management by the Queensland National Parks and Wildlife Service have resulted in successful co-operation. Of course there have been some criticisms from the Queensland Government. These concerns needed to be raised considering some of the examples of unnecessary interference with State responsibilities in the past. I do not intend to go into the specifics of the legislation as they have already been covered in fine detail by the honourable member for Mayo, except to say that clause 17 of the Bill allows for consultation. The operation of the Marine Authority has in the past been an example of excellent co-operation and I believe it will continue. The other point I would like to mention briefly is the operation of the levy. It must be seen to be fair and adequate to meet State administration costs. If the valuations of the Australian Taxation Office are used, the Minister and his Department should ensure that they are realistic as in many cases in the past, particularly those that relate to the administration of the assets test, I think they have been totally irresponsible and inadequate. These Bills have two major functions and I wish to mention them just briefly. The first is to ensure that new developments are technically sound and environmentally acceptable. Such a framework is to ensure that the environmental integrity of the reef is maintained, that the reef as a marine resource is enhanced and not harmed and that the natural elements so significant in such a fragile environment are not disturbed. The second element of the legislation is necessary to guarantee that State-Commonwealth laws that apply on the mainland also apply and relate to off-shore installations, including shipping. Such effect is provided in the imposition of taxes and charges, the application of Custom control powers, of excises-where appropriated on goods manufactured or produced on an off-shore installation-and, importantly, the application of our quarantine requirements and our Migration Act. These provisions mean that activities on off-shore installations are deemed to be activities in part of Australia and therefore subject to Australian law. We support this legislation because we believe that such developments will add to the potential for tourism to contribute further to our economy. It will enhance the image of our nation's unique natural resources while ensuring the protection of this unique environment for future generations. I believe that this is an exciting venture that we are discussing today and is indicative of the response that the private sector will provide to correct our economic ills if given suitable and sensible arrangements under which to operate. I believe that these Bills provide that arrangement. Mr MILTON(La Trobe)(4.40) —In speaking in support of the Sea Installations Bill 1987 and its supporting Bills-the Sea Installations Levy Bill 1987, the Sea Installations (Miscellaneous Amendments) Bill 1987, the Customs Tariff Amendment (Sea Installations) Bill 1987 and the Excise Tariff Amendment (Sea Installations) Bill 1987-I am most pleased to see that the Government has introduced legislation to regulate off-shore installations to ensure that they are technically sound and environmentally acceptable. Such legislation is particularly important in regard to the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park, which extends 2,000 kilometres along Australia's east coast. The marine Park contains over 2,500 individual reefs ranging in size from one hectare to more than 100 square kilometres. It comprises the largest single collection of coral reefs in the world and supports the most diverse ecosystem known throughout the world. It is a unique and most delicately balanced system, and we must ensure that it is protected against uncontrolled development. The Standing Committee on Environment and Conservation, of which I am Chairman, referred to the problem of off-shore installations in our November 1985 report on the crown of thorns starfish infestations in the Great Barrier Reef. I was most pleased that in that report our Committee indicated to the House and the Government our views on the development of the off-shore installations. I think it is worth reminding honourable members of the comments and the recommendation we made at that time. Accordingly, I quote from our report: Recent years have seen significant and novel changes in tourist operations on the Great Barrier Reef. These have involved the permanent anchoring of pontoons and platforms and the stationing of semi-submersible coral viewing vessels over some reefs. Proposals have now been put forward which will bring this type of development to new levels. These involve the establishment of floating hotels and other semi-permanent offshore developments. The Committee recognises the very high value of the reef as a tourist and recreation facility and is satisfied that adequate environmental assessment procedures are in place to ensure that these proposed developments are properly planned and carried out. There must be limits on the extent and type of these developments and it would be useful for potential developers to have some guidance as to the types of requirements and limitations which might apply. At present the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority appears to lack a specific comprehensive policy on offshore developments and appears to respond to such developments on an ad hoc basis. Whilst this has not diminished environmental controls or led to any inappropriate development a more consistent and long term approach would be useful. The Committee recommends that: the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority develop and promulgate a policy on offshore development and issue guidelines to prospective developers. I would like to think that those comments of the Committee and the recommendation we made played some part in influencing the Minister for Arts, Heritage and Environment (Mr Cohen) to put the present legislation before the House. There is no doubt that off-shore structures and installations should be acceptable only under strict conditions in respect of environmental impact statements, limits on the disposal of effluents, limits on the number of such structures and controls on their disposal at the end of their operating life, and the sound management of surrounding areas. One of the matters which concerned the Standing Committee was the possibility that poor land use and the clearing of land on the Great Barrier Reef islands, which has resulted in the increase in run-off containing absorbed nutrients or chemicals, may play some part in the sudden infestations of the crown of thorns starfish. Whether the current crown of thorns starfish research program, which is presently being conducted under the auspices of the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority, will provide an answer to this question remains to be seen. Whilst there has been considerable co-operation between the Queensland State Government and the Commonwealth Government in relation to the management of the Great Barrier Reef, the management of the islands of the reef, particularly the Whitsunday Islands, by the State Government leaves a lot to be desired. There was, for example, the development of the 607-hectare Hamilton Island by the developer, Keith Williams. When Mr Williams bought the property in 1976 it was a grazing lease. But now this island, which is in the middle of the Whitsunday group of islands and contained within the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park, is a multi-million dollar tourist resort. In the process of creating the resort many questions were asked regarding how Mr Williams was able to convert the grazing lease to a lucrative tourist resort at considerable profit to himself. These questions relate to the irregular nature-some might say seedy nature-of Queensland State National Party politics, with which we in this House are all familiar. What I was more concerned about at the time, however, was how Mr Williams was able to build an airstrip across the bay by excavating filling material from the top of a hillside on the island. Commonwealth government approval was never obtained for the work. Whilst the project may have gained such approval, it was an appalling example of the State Government and Mr Williams ignoring the constitutional powers of the Commonwealth Government to control development in the Great Barrier Reef. The legislation that is at present before the House, along with the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Act and its various management plans, and the World Heritage Properties Conservation Act, will enable the Commonwealth Government to exercise its constitutional powers to override any future attempts by private developers to evade Commonwealth powers by sheltering under the patronage of the Queensland State Government. We now have the added threat to the Great Barrier Reef with the proposal by the Queensland State Government to sell the freehold title to the islands of the Great Barrier Reef to the leaseholders. There are about 1,400 islands in the Great Barrier Reef, of which about 140 are protected by national park status. However, there is some doubt whether the Queensland State Government legislation will protect the existing national parks on the island. Many island resorts are built on leased lands within national parks. If freehold title were granted to the leased areas, this would automatically result in a reduction in the national park area. Mr Ian Cameron —Why are you worried about a bit of freehold? Mr MILTON —If the honourable member listens, he will hear the problem. It is important to note that frequently the only place on an island where there is a boat landing jetty and beach is part of a leased island reserve. A freehold island resort owner could therefore close off the jetty and the beach to members of the general public, who would then be unable to gain access to the island national park. Mr Downer —Madam Deputy Speaker, I raise a point of order. I draw your attention to the fact that this debate is about the sea installations package of Bills. The honourable member is not talking about sea installations, from my understanding of what he is saying. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mrs Darling) —I will accept that point of order and ask the honourable member to address his comments to the Bill. Mr MILTON —Madam Deputy Speaker, with all due respect, I am addressing my remarks to the Bill. The Bill has a lot to do with the relationship between the Commonwealth and State governments and the constitutional powers which both State and Federal governments hold. That goes to the heart of the Bill. That is what I am trying to point out. I think that if the honourable member-- Mr Downer —That is not what the Bill is about. Mr MILTON —It is about floating structures. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! I ask honourable gentlemen to stop debating the issue. It is up to the Chair. I accept the honourable member's explanation, but I draw his attention once again to the fact that he must relate his comments to the Bill, and his comments have been a little broad. Mr MILTON —Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. My remarks on this point will not go on for much longer. Mr Ian Cameron —Good. Mr MILTON —I know that the honourable member is worried about the things that I am revealing. If there is any doubt in honourable members' minds that what I was talking about before I was interrupted would happen, they should look at the many beauty spots around Australia where private developers have gained such exclusive rights. It is clear, however, that if any of these islands are to be sold to private developers the sale could be stopped by the Commonwealth Government if there were any likelihood of a threat to the environment of the Great Barrier Reef. In this respect the recent tabling by the Minister for Arts, Heritage and Environment of the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park central section zoning plan is important, as this plan and the accompanying proposed regulations can ensure that potential environmental risks to the reef, which the sale of island properties represents, can be controlled by the Commonwealth Government. The central section zoning plan covers the area from just south of the Whitsunday islands to Dunk island in the north, so it covers the waters surrounding the islands upon which the friends of the Queensland Premier, Sir Johannes Bjelke-Petersen, have their many island resort developments. I can assure the Queensland Premier that if he has hopes of giving his friends a virtual gift of freehold titles to the island, the present legislation before the House, the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Act and the World Heritage Properties Conservation Act, will give the Commonwealth Government the power to restrict any development which could threaten the flora and fauna of the reef or, indeed, the equally magnificent structure of the coral reefs themselves. Mr Chynoweth —Hear, hear! Mr MILTON —I am very glad that the honourable member for Dunkley agrees with me wholeheartedly. The island national parks are the public property of all Queenslanders and the whole of Australia gains from the export income gained by the Great Barrier Reef tourist operations. Federal members of parliament and senators will be carefully monitoring developments on the island resorts. I give notice to the leaseholders that they had better think again if they believe that the granting of a freehold title will give them a chance to make quick profits at the expense of Queenslanders and Australia as a whole. In relation to off-shore structures such as floating hotels, there has been a lack of consideration by the developers of such proposals. They have to take into account the additional numbers of people being taken on to a single reef and swimming, snorkelling and diving around on the top of the reef. One of the witnesses in the crown of thorns starfish inquiry, Mr Ian Dight of the North Queensland Conservation Council, who has spent a lot of time working on the reef, pointed out the possible dangers. He said: I think there is a general feeling that people do not do damage to reefs, but I spent a lot of time out there doing various activities on the reef and I have seen the destruction by boats. Every time a boat goes to a location on a reef the anchor is dropped over and the anchor chain sways from side to side and destroys a considerable amount of coral. It might amount to 20 or 30 square metres. That does not regenerate immediately and every time a boat goes out there and drops anchor in another spot damage is done. Every time a diver swims around and kicks a piece of coral over it does not recover and regenerate rapidly. That sort of damage is just going to increase. Mr Ian Cameron —Cyclones do the same thing. Mr MILTON —Cyclones do not behave in that way at all. I think the honourable member had better look at some of his research into this matter. As Mr Dight pointed out, the reef is very delicate. Off-shore installations are not necessarily bad in themselves; nor indeed are the island resorts. It is just that it is essential that when the reef is subjected to such possible intensive use, it be used properly and that irreparable damage is not caused to the reef. It will be essential that after an off-shore structure has been installed, the operation of the structure be monitored so that the effect that structure is causing to the biological and physical characteristics of the reef can be determined. As I have already pointed out, the same monitoring procedure must apply to the development resorts of the reef. It would be important in the early stages of the operation of the regulatory requirements of the legislation before the House that in relation to off-shore structures a limit be made to the total number of approved structures so that the monitoring process can help to determine the limit of the total number of structures which the reef can bear. I wrote that the honourable member for Mayo (Mr Downer) referred to that problem. It would also be possible for such floating structures to be moved from one reef to another, which could cause damage to the reef environment. The reef or reefs adjacent to a floating hotel might also be damaged by release of effluent, and then the owners might decide to move to another reef. Mr Ian Cameron —What about the boats that go there every day? Mr MILTON —I know that the honourable member is not concerned about these sorts of regulations. We have to regulate these activities or else the reef could be destroyed. The legislation before the House will control such activities, and it has my full support. Mr HODGMAN(Denison)(4.54) —The honourable member for La Trobe (Mr Milton) revealed in his comments on the Sea Installations Bill and cognate Bills the unreal approach that he and his colleagues have taken in relation to environmental matters involving the State of Tasmania. I can assure honourable members opposite from the bottom of my heart that their speeches have guaranteed without any shadow of doubt that in Tasmania the Australian Labor Party will not win one single seat in the next House of Representatives election and it will be flat out holding even two Senate seats. Mr Chynoweth —I take a point of order. Madam Deputy Speaker, this has nothing at all to do with the legislation under discussion. I wonder whether you could ask the honourable member to direct his remarks to the legislation that is being discussed. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mrs Darling) —I accept that point of order. I ask the honourable member for Denison to ensure that his comments directly relate to the legislation before the House. Mr HODGMAN —Absolutely, Madam Deputy Speaker. Thank you for that assistance. I use that example as an analogy. The attitude of the honourable member for La Trobe to this legislation, as was evidenced by his speech, is as unreal as his attitude was in relation to Tasmania. This is interesting legislation. I just want to take a short time to comment on some aspects of it that I think are worthy of comment and which should be placed on the record at this time. Once again there is a determination, as evidenced by the legislation, by the Commonwealth to exercise jurisdiction over off-shore activities in a situation which, up until 10 years ago, was still the subject of very considerable constitutional debate. Whilst the States, and particularly Queensland and Western Australia which are directly affected by this legislation, may not be as concerned as they might have been a decade ago about the implications of such legislation, I have to say that every time I see an exercise of Commonwealth power in areas which were previously regarded traditionally as areas of State responsibility, I feel sorry and I express concern about the future of the Federal system as we once knew it. The plain fact of the matter is that the Commonwealth is exercising a power which will involve, on an agency basis, what has been described as perhaps again an example of overregulation. There is also the question of the raising of money by virtue of levy and administrative charges. It seems that government today moves nowhere unless there is a dollar attached. The size of the levy will be based on the market value of the installation concerned and that in turn will be assessed by our friends at the Australian Taxation Office. At first blush I find this legislation a matter of concern because people such as the honourable member who just resumed his seat, who infest the Hawke socialist Government-- Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! I draw the honourable member's attention to the fact that he should refer to members of this House by their correct title. Mr HODGMAN —The honourable member for La Trobe is well known in Tasmania. Now he will also be well known in Queensland. If he keeps coming down to Tasmania he will guarantee that the Liberal Party will hold every seat in Tasmania for a very long time. The honourable member for La Trobe, in the last few minutes of his speech on this legislation, made remarks which he claimed to be relevant and which, therefore, I claim the right to comment on. He came within an ace of saying that swimmers should be banned from the Great Barrier Reef. The honourable member complained about people dropping an anchor and destroying coral for 20 or 30 metres. He then said that if people went swimming in these areas and brushed or broke off a piece of coral it would take a long time for that coral to regenerate. This is the lunatic approach of the mad greenie. If they had their way they would ban swimming. Why not also ban fishing on the basis that a sinker would disrupt a little bit of coral? Mr Milton —Fishing is controlled in the Great Barrier Reef. Mr HODGMAN —Frankly, the honourable member's position is that he would not let anyone go in there. It is like what he wants to do in Tasmania-that is, lock it up. Madam Deputy Speaker, I am using an analogy. We have got the same lunatic extremist point of view from people such as the honourable member for La Trobe and his colleague the honourable member for Dunkley (Mr Chynoweth). Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! I draw the attention of the honourable member for Denison to the fact that the use of offensive terms in respect of members of this House is outside the Standing Orders. Mr HODGMAN —I am sorry; I am not following you. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER —I call the honourable member for Denison. Mr HODGMAN —The honourable members for La Trobe and Dunkley represent an element which is very powerful in the Hawke socialist Government. I repeat: They are now putting exactly the same propositions in relation to the Great Barrier Reef that they put in relation to the locking up of Tasmania. The following questions remain unanswered: Firstly, what will be the amount of the levy; secondly, what right of appeal will there be against market value assessment of the sea installation concerned; and thirdly, will a decision of the Australian Taxation Office assessing the market value of the installation be subject to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal or to any other form of judicial review? I am grateful that the Minister for Arts, Heritage and Environment (Mr Cohen) appears to have noted that I want those questions answered. I ask as a matter of plain logic and fairness: What right of appeal will there be in relation to the market assessment of the installation concerned by the Australian Taxation Office? I just say in passing and in conclusion that we now have a situation, as a result of legislative amendments brought in by the Hawke socialist Government, that ordinary taxpayers cannot challenge a decision of the Australian Taxation Office by taking the matter to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal without having to front up with a $200 deposit. Mr Chynoweth —Get back to the Bill. Mr HODGMAN —The honourable member obviously has not looked at the legislation because the matters I raise arise from it. My question is valid because the whole determination of the amount of the levy will be based on the market value of the installation. That is fundamental. If, as I say, that is to be done by the Australian Taxation Office, I ask what right of appeal there will be. Once again we see legislation brought in by this Government which has a financial implication of a quite substantial nature. I refer specifically to the fines to be imposed, for example, by section 58a of the Customs Act under clause 12 of the Sea Installations (Miscellaneous Amendments) Bill. It provides for a number of offences. The fines are $10,000 for a natural person and $20,000 for a body corporate. In the provisions of clause 15, which will become the new section 187 of the principal Act, once again we see a power to board and search in very extensive terms that covers boarding, the searching of any ship and the securing of `any goods on any ship or aircraft or on any installation of the kind referred to in paragraphs (b), (c), (d) or (e)'. While, at first blush, this clause appears to relate to board and search, it refers to board, search and seize. I remind the Parliament once again that there is a forfeit provision. It is important, because after section 228a of the principal Act we will now be legislating under section 228b: Any overseas sea installation that becomes installed in an adjacent area or in a coastal area without the permission of the Comptroller given under subsection 5b (2) shall be forfeited to the Crown. I ask: Is there any right of appeal with respect to forfeiture? These matters are worthy of comment. I certainly am surprised to find that some State authorities apparently do not regard the Bill with the same concern that I do. I see it as a further extension of Commonwealth powers containing arbitrary provisions which, frankly, I do not think are proper. I do not see a right of appeal or review which I think ought to be there and last, but not least, it is a fundamental taxation measure as far as the levy is concerned. Mr CHYNOWETH(Dunkley)(5.03) —I suppose that as the great man of the sea, Captain James Cook, sailed along the east coast of Australia nearly 200 years ago on his voyage of discovery it would have been hard for him to imagine the future development that would inevitably take place in this magnificent part of the world. The Sea Installations Bill 1987, the Sea Installations Levy Bill 1987 and the Sea Installations (Miscellaneous Amendments) Bill 1987 will facilitate the positioning of a 12,000 tonne, seven-storey floating hotel within the lagoon of the John Brewer Reef which is located in the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park. The good captain arguably was the Great Barrier Reef's first tourist operator. He knew well the beauty, wonder and majesty of the reef and its menagerie of marine life. However, he also experienced the treachery of the world's largest living thing when his ship, the Endeavour, was holed on the reef. History thus shows that Cook could have done with a floating hotel then. Two centuries later, the Australian tourist industry is about to satisfy that need-a little bit late for the old seafarer, perhaps, but not too late for the many thousands of Australians and overseas visitors who flock to the reef today and will do so in the future. In recent years there have been significant and novel changes in tourist operations on the Australian continental shelf beyond the territorial sea, mostly in the Great Barrier Reef area-principally, the permanent anchoring of pontoons and platforms and the stationing of semi-submersible coral viewing vessels over some reefs. These have enabled Australians and overseas tourists by the boatload to experience the glittering necklace of islands and the coral cays that are the Great Barrier Reef. It is truly an experience of a lifetime. I happen to be one of those very fortunate people who have swum and dived on John Brewer Reef. I have visited the other areas along the total length of the Barrier Reef. This package of Bills legislates for the establishment of a floating hotel and other semi-permanent off-shore developments which will bring tourist facilities to a new level. Nowhere else in the world has this unique concept yet become a reality. In a move that I and this Government hope is for the better, the world's largest live coral reef aquarium will have a new life form in its tank. No longer will the coral be ringed by turquoise ocean alone and act solely as a home to a wealth of marine life that has stunned many past visitors with its sheer variety and kaleidoscope of colours. Soon the myriad of the reef will open up and 200 luxuriously appointed rooms and suites, with breathtaking views of the surrounding reef, will float on the tide and sway in the gentle tropical breezes. Without a doubt, this package of legislation recognises the very high value of the reef as a tourist and recreation facility. However, whilst the Sea Installations Bill 1987 and cognate Bills foster further the Hawke Government's support of the vital Australian tourist industry, the package, I trust, is careful to appease another grand old master of the sea, Neptune, and the rich kingdom that he rules. A project of this magnitude presents a number of very real concerns and probing questions. There must be adequate environmental assessment procedures in place to ensure that this development and others like it are properly carried out. There must be harmony between conservation and sustainable development in the natural environment. There must be a government policy of protection, wise use, understanding and enjoyment of this unique environment. To each of these fundamental instances a unique and positive train of action has been and still is operative. The environmental considerations, so important for the success of the venture in a delicate marine park in the Pacific, have been handled by experts from the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority, the James Cook University and the Australian Institute of Marine Science. The Authority will be given the important and onerous task of policing the project and deciding whether discos, tennis courts, saunas, fishing, diving, first class cuisine 24 hours a day and seven days a week, and many other activities are compatible with the geomorphological and marine environment of coral reefs. It is an adventure into the unknown for every one of the tourists who packs his flippers and for the scientists who try to expand their knowledge and enhance public understanding and appreciation of this massive collection of coral formations. Barrier Reef Holdings Ltd and Four Seasons Ltd will place man at the centre of a captivating environment that is, without doubt, one of the natural wonders of this world. Why was the John Brewer Reef chosen for this innovative project? To many people the reason was obvious. The reef lies in the central section of the outer Barrier Reef, about 73 kilometres north-east of Townsville, which is a rapidly developing tourist centre in north Queensland. The reef plays host to a veritable paradise of corals and marine life. Although high tide completely submerges it, part of the reef is in the water line at low water and becomes dry at extreme low water. The lagoon, which constitutes 60 per cent of the John Brewer Reef, averages eight metres in depth and will facilitate easy viewing of the delights offered. It is easy from a tourist operator's point of view to talk about the impressive armada of statistics that reinforce this reef's ideal location. In the middle of a hardy Canberra winter the new resort will bathe in an average temperature of 26 degrees centigrade and nine hours sun- shine each day. Only 12 millimetres of rain falls each month, the water is 22 degrees centigrade and for 85 per cent of the time the waves are less than 0.1 metres high. It is truly a delightful area for a large part of the year. The floating hotel convention centre forms an obvious attraction for those who want to enjoy an extended stay and view the beauty of the reef at all times of the day and night. For those who are elderly and cannot manage reef walking, for those who cannot swim and for those who dislike boat travel, the barrier will soon be broken down. Now an artificial island, moored in the middle of the reef, will make a sojourn at the resort not only a holiday, but also an educational experience that increases public awareness of the region, its problems, its qualities and its history. Of course the price for discovering such treasures is always high. The Jolly Roger no longer flies on the horizon of the reef but one suspects that the opening special base rate tariff of $124 per person per night, without food, beverages, transfers or telephones, rising to $165 after the official opening will mean that there will not be too many able sea men or women sunbaking on the decks of the hotel or plundering the nearby colourful waters. It is indeed unfortunate that the wonderful treasure of John Brewer Reef will be on view only to an exclusive few. This Parliament must never forget that the resources of Australia, whether they be mineral, technical or ecological, belong to all Australians; they are not there just for the wealthy to enjoy. Nonetheless, the initiators of this rare undertaking are to be commended for the detailed studies they have promoted to determine whether the structure will damage the reef and any of the marine life. The Department of Arts, Heritage and Environment has stated that all possible impacts of the resort on the environment have been adequately addressed and that adequate safeguards are in place. Such issues are not open to compromise and no government can ever allow its mantle as the watchdog to falter, especially when dealing with something so vast and awesome as the Great Barrier Reef. The crown of thorns starfish has returned to John Brewer Reef to renew its attack on the corals. A potential predator of another kind-man-must not be allowed to open up the attack on another front. Again I emphasise that the aim of this development and all future proposals must be to enjoy the reef in a non-destructive or harmless way. The construction of this complex is being carried out in Singapore, a fact which makes me very sad. Here we are in Australia needing work for our nation and the operators have to go overseas to build a barge with a superstructure on it. I am quite certain that this floating hotel could have been built even in Queensland where it could have alleviated some of that State's very shameful unemployment record. When the floating hotel is anchored in a fixed position by a multimillion dollar mooring system, the great potential threat to the reef will be exposed. That threat is people. Holidaymakers and staff unfortunately not only make fun splashing in tropical waters and exploring the marine life, but they create sewage and many other forms of waste which are totally alien to the ecosystems of the reef. They will cause damage by walking, diving and exploring the reef. The operators of the hotel have made it clear that the disposal of waste will comply with national and international requirements. No wastes, not even those which have been treated, will be released into the reef lagoon. There will be two sewage treatment plants which will be capable of treating all the waste water on the resort itself. All waste water will be treated and broken down by a process that sterilises and neutralises the matter before passing it into a storage tank. The purified water will then be carried by barge and, in the case of some treated components, deposited at selected and approved locations at sea. On board a vacuum toilet system will operate and a smokeless marine incinerator will be installed for the burning of all solid wastes. Ash from the incinerator will be stored and disposed of on the mainland. All rubbish will be disposed of in the same way by applying the right education to guests. The operators have assured the Government that the compliance of guests to these rules will ensure their strict respect for the reef. Another important guarantee from the resort owners concerns the special measures that have been planned to keep sound from the hotel's power generating plant to virtually a noiseless level. A 2,300 kilowatt plant will power every part of the floating complex. Nonetheless, energy of this capacity has never been generated on the reef before. It must be carefully monitored and the slightest evidence of pollution must not be tolerated. If pollution occurs immediate steps must be taken to rectify the problem. If the problem is not solved the resort must be ordered to close down until it is fixed. Whilst fresh water will be supplied through a desalination plant, the increased frequency of vessels visiting the reef is of major concern. Tender barges, high speed catamaran transports and casual pleasure craft will heighten the traffic entering John Brewer Reef and increase the threat of pollution. That is another situation which must be carefully monitored. There are undoubtedly promises and expectations on both sides. Perhaps the clearest indication of the zeal of the resort to integrate with its new environment will be the presence of a marine laboratory on board managed by a full time environmental officer and made available for approved scientific study by James Cook University, the Australian Institute of Marine Science and the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority. The continuing proximity of such a laboratory to the reef 24 hours a day is expected to be of considerable assistance to the marine and environmental researchers. It must also provide an alarm if the floating complex damages the reef. I, and many other benefactors of the environment, eagerly await the results of any significant research from the resort that may be published in scientific journals. Mr Doug Anthony, Mr Trevor Butler, Mr Malcolm Clyde, Mr Owen Griffiths, Mr Allan Rector, Mr Douglas Tarca and the secretary, Mr B. Menzies, have an important precedent to set and some even more crucial promises to keep. Yes, that is the same Mr Anthony who was once the leader of the influential National Party of Australia. He must be dismayed to see the destruction of an organisation for which he had worked so very hard throughout Australia in order to ensure that it had a destiny in Australian politics. The National Party has now been hijacked by a right wing quisling from the deep north. This first small step for man may not be a great leap for mankind. There are a number of grey areas that must clearly be defined before we can allow our off-shore regions, such as the Barrier Reef, to be covered by more large floating facilities. It is important that off-shore installations not be used as a basis for evasion of Australian laws, particularly those regulating Customs, immigration, taxation and quarantine. More importantly, certain policy conflicts reflected in different State and Commonwealth laws must not be used as an excuse to allow the abuse and desecration of the reef. It is a matter for the public record that the developers and operators of the hotel have stated their commitment to the preservation of the environment of the John Brewer Reef. Hence, given the wonders and achievements of marine technology in the space age, there should be no reason why a predominantly land loving creature cannot enjoy the waters off the Australian coast in harmony with the sea creatures that live there. This development may precipitate a flurry of aquatic real estate activity. Already a half hectare playground, capable of carrying 6,000 people, is being constructed and will be moored 80 metres from the floating hotel on the John Brewer Reef. As developments grow so too will the strains on the environment and the pollution control mechanisms. Safeguards and changes must be carefully monitored. The tourist industry deserves the boost it will receive from such a revolutionary development. The work that this hotel will create will generate a more buoyant local economy. However, future generations of Australians and overseas visitors deserve an unspoiled reef and the reef must be protected at all costs. Certain proposals should be instituted in an endeavour to make certain that the world's heritage in the form of the Great Barrier Reef is protected for all time. The draft environmental impact statement stipulates at page 13: All treated water shall be loaded on to a specially constructed supply barge once weekly and shall be released in open water on the return voyage to Townsville in accordance with international regulations. That sounds all right, but when one goes deeper into the report one finds that an amount of 805 cubic metres, or 805,000 litres, a week or 41.9 million metres of effluent a year is involved. That is a very large volume of effluent. What effect will this have? John Brewer Reef cannot be leased; therefore, I believe that the Commonwealth should ask that a levy of a suitable amount be placed on every visitor to the hotel, with this money to go into a trust account to be used for reef research and rehabilitation. I am concerned to know who pays when the one in 10,000 cyclone occurs and the hotel or other installation damage the reef. Another matter of concern involves the anchoring of the hotel in a permanent position. It will shade some 2,500 square metres of the seabed. It will create a roost for many birds, and that may alter the nitrogen level of the water which, in turn, may increase the growth of algae. The birds will feed off the reef fish in the area. Lights will be turned on for night viewing of the coral. What will this do to the coral polyps and night animals which live on the reef? There will be hand feeding of fish. Will that attract larger and more dangerous predator fish? Further, a continuous release of highly saline water, some 225 cubic metres a day, will come from the desalination unit. What effects will that have? All those activities and more will place the local environment of the John Brewer Reef under stress. They must be constantly monitored. As a member of the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Environment and Conservation, I commend to honourable members of the House and others our report, entitled `The Protection of the Great Barrier Reef'. I trust that the recommendations that we have made will be adhered to. Mr COHEN(Robertson-Minister for Arts, Heritage and Environment)(5.23) —in reply-First, I would like to congratulate most of the members who made a speech on these sea installations Bills for their excellent contributions. I say `most'; the only person I would exclude from that congratulation is the honourable member for Denison (Mr Hodgman) who gave his usual ratbag performance. The honourable member for Mayo (Mr Downer), the shadow Minister for Arts, Heritage and Environment, gave a very good performance in what I think was his maiden shadow ministry contribution. He had obviously done his homework and I thought he took a very sensible and thoughtful approach to the legislation, which appears to have the bipartisan support of the House. I commend the honourable member on his maiden performance. I commend all other honourable members of the House who contributed to the debate, including the honourable member for Fisher (Mr Slipper), who is another shadow Minister, acting on behalf of the National Party of Australia. I understand that there is another shadow Minister in the Senate, so I could be excused over the next few months if I start jumping at shadows. However, I take it that the honourable member for Mayo is the serious shadow Minister and the representative of the Opposition. I also commend the honourable member for Herbert (Mr Lindsay), in whose electorate the floating hotel will be. He has taken a considerable interest in this matter over many years, and I know that it gives him a great deal of satisfaction to see this legislation introduced as it is the forerunner of the hotel in question. The hotel has now been completed in Singapore and it is hoped it will be established on the reef sometime in August, with an official opening in October. I also thank the honourable member for La Trobe (Mr Milton) and the honourable member for Dunkley (Mr Chynoweth) for their contributions. Their interest in conservation and the environment is, of course, well known, and they made their usual excellent contributions. A number of matters were raised but I shall deal first with the questions raised by the honourable member for Mayo. He was concerned about why Commonwealth legislation rather than State legislation had been prepared to regulate off-shore structures. The constitutional basis for State legislation is uncertain. Although the Australia Act passed last year provides for State laws to have extra-territorial effect, it is not clear that a State law purporting to apply to the expected distance from the coast that off-shore structures would be moored is a law for the peace, welfare and good government of a State. The Bill does not apply to the territorial sea regulated by the States under the Off-shore Constitutional Settlement. The Commonwealth has responsibility for international marine matters and therefore it would bear the political responsibility for any mishap involving an off-shore structure on the continental shelf. The Commonwealth legislation will be consistent with existing Commonwealth regulation and control of off-shore petroleum structures. It will enable Australia to ensure compliance with its international obligations and it will enable the Commonwealth to control the body of law applicable to sea installations. The Commonwealth legislation would override inconsistent State or Northern Territory legislation. The Queensland Off-shore Facilities Act 1986, which purports to apply Queensland law to the area in question off the coast of Queensland, acknowledges that State laws apply except where application of a law would be inconsistent with Commonwealth law. The honourable member for Mayo raised the question, quite sensibly I think, about the number of hotels that might be established. I think I speak for my colleagues on this side of the House in saying that we have given a lot of thought-as has the Great Barrier Reef Consultative Committee and many people in the environment movement-as to whether or not such structures should be permitted. I think that we all had a lot of reservations but, on balance and after considering the alternatives, we thought that it was worth while giving one of them a trial, to at least see how that went. For many years people coming to the reef, both domestic and overseas visitors, have had difficulty in actually getting out to the reef. In the cyclone season it may be very difficult; it is very hot, wet, windy and choppy and often people having come to Australia to see the reef, perhaps from thousands of miles away, have only two or three days and cannot get out there. This installation will obviate that problem and will enable people almost certainly-unless in the worst conditions, that is, cyclonic conditions-to get out to the reef and to stay there. Of course, conditions are often better on the reef proper than on the mainland. This will virtually ensure that everyone will be able to get to the reef. We will allow this initial floating hotel to be established and will monitor very carefully the sorts of problems that we might have. I, for one, would not be enthusiastic about giving permission for a second one, at least until we have had a chance to see how the first one functions. Certainly, I agree completely with the honourable member for Mayo that the idea of a string of floating hotels right up the Reef would be horrifying. I suppose one could ask how long is a string, but let us see how this one goes and consider any further applications after we have had the opportunity to monitor its impact on the environment. The honourable member for Dunkley raised a number of concerns about the environment. In putting the hotel in place some small damage will have to be done to a section of the reef. I understand that that damage will be very minimal and that it will be monitored very carefully. I shall read from some information I have here about water and waste. This information is in a brochure provided by the company. It states: Fresh water will be supplied through a desalination plant with a storage capacity of seven days of normal resort operations. All wastes, even the waste water, will be strictly controlled through treatment or incineration plants. No wastes, not even those treated, will be released into the reef lagoon at John Brewer. They will be carried by barge to the mainland, or in the case of some treated components, deposited at selected and approved locations at sea. That is one of the reasons why we approved this type of proposal in the first place. There will be increased pressure on the reef. I pay tribute to my colleague the Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism (Mr John Brown) who has done so much to increase tourism in this country. Hundreds of thousands more people will be coming to this country and hundreds of thousands-millions eventually-will be visiting the Barrier Reef. With, those people going there, there will be an inevitable increase in pollution and risk to the reef. It is important that we minimise that risk. In this controlled way I believe we will minimise that risk. That is the basis for our approval and support of this proposal. The honourable member for Mayo also raised the matter of the legislation being used to foster some tax or excise avoidance device, some top of the harbour scheme. I assure him that the legislation will not be used in this fashion. Sales tax and income tax will be the subject of separate legislation to be introduced later in these sittings, and the issue of tax avoidance will be addressed in that context. I remind the Parliament that, while State laws are applied, the Commonwealth retains the power to vary or deny the application of these laws if it is ever deemed necessary. The honourable member for Denison raised the matter of what he seemed to be saying was a grab for power by the Commonwealth. I would have thought that even he would have known a bit about the history of the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority. The legislation was introduced by the Whitlam Government in 1975, and it was passed through this House in that year. I am not sure of the date of proclamation-I am not sure whether it was in that year or under the Fraser Government-but the Authority was established by the Fraser Government after some years of arguing and fighting with the Bjelke-Petersen Government. By 1979 the Great Barrier Reef Ministerial Council had been set up and the Authority became a reality. In the period from 1979 to 1983 only 14 per cent of the region had been gazetted as part of the park. From the time this Government came to office until now the rest of it-from 14 per cent to 98.5 per cent-has been incorporated into the park. I would have thought the honourable member for Denison would have known that the question of constitutional authority was settled during the period of the Fraser Government under the off-shore constitutional settlement legislation, and it was agreed to by the Queensland Government and the Fraser Government. He talked about our suddenly usurping some powers, but that matter was settled a long time ago and under a conservative government. He mentioned overregulation. The Bill relies almost exclusively on existing regulatory mechanisms. The aim is to put investors in the same position as they would be in if they used a mainland location. He raised the matter of the amount of the levy. I have been involved in discussions with the Great Barrier Reef Consultative Committee and various other bodies in the Queensland Government over many years. If a private company, such as this one, is to establish a major hotel, motel or whatever one likes to call it on the reef, which is Commonwealth property and which is the people's property, it seems to me to be eminently reasonable that it should pay for the vast amount of work of our departmental officials in legislating, monitoring and doing all the things that need to be done to make sure that that is in harmony with both our existing laws and the environment. The company is there to make a profit, and that is perfectly legitimate-I do not question that at all-but it incurs certain costs which we as a government have to pick up. It seems to me to be eminently reasonable that the people should be compensated for them. That would be incorporated in a levy. Similarly, if the company were to take a piece of land that was Commonwealth property anywhere else it would be expected either to buy or to lease it and pay a levy for it. We believe that all those costs, charges and a reasonable rental should be paid to the Commonwealth. We are not out to create a situation where we would rip off the company. Of course not. We know that it is a very risky venture. It has shown a lot of courage and a lot of imagination. We wish it all the success in the world, but we think it only reasonable that it pay some sort of compensation for those matters that I mentioned before. The honourable member for Denison mentioned the matter of appeal on valuation. The Administrative Appeals Tribunal will resolve that. Fines are based on normal Commonwealth policies on penalties which are administered by the Attorney-General. I suggest to the honourable member that his fears are totally unjustified. I would like to draw the attention of the House to the very sensible and moderate approach taken by the honourable member for Mallee (Mr Peter Fisher) and the honourable member for Mayo who recognise that there is nothing particularly tricky, deceitful or underhand about this legislation. It is up front; it is a sensible approach to a very sensitive problem. It is a shame that the honourable member for Denison, who does not seem to think that anything that this Government ever does is right, cannot ever get up in this House and make a contribution on the basis that maybe we are just interested in doing things for the benefit of Australia. The honourable member for Mallee sought an assurance that proper compensation payments will be made to States for administration. We agree. We are approaching this from the point of view of the honourable member's suggestion of an intelligent approach to ensure full co-operation. I think I have answered all the questions that honourable members have put. If not, I apologise. Once again, in conclusion, I commend honourable members for this very sensible debate. It is a pity that in Australian politics the people who so often criticise us for belting into each other do not realise that so much of the legislation which passes through this House has, if not total support, near total support and that, by and large, the majority of legislation has the support of both sides of the House. I thank the House for its support. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith. Bill (on motion by Mr Cohen) read a third time. Consideration resumed from 2 April, on motion by Mr Cohen: 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 Cohen) read a third time. Consideration resumed from 2 April, on motion by Mr Cohen: 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 Cohen) read a third time. Consideration resumed from 2 April, on motion by Mr Cohen: 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 Cohen) read a third time. Consideration resumed from 2 April, on motion by Mr Cohen: 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 Cohen) read a third time. Debate resumed from 2 April, on motion by Mr Peter Morris: That the Bill be now read a second time. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Drummond) —I understand that it is the wish of the House to debate the Sugar Cane Levy Bill 1987 concurrently with the Sugar Cane Levy Collection Bill 1987. There being no objection, the Chair will allow that course to be followed. Mr TUCKEY(O'Connor)(5.42) —The Sugar Cane Levy Bill and the Sugar Cane Levy Collection Bill, which are to be debated cognately, each refer to the imposition of a levy on all sugar produced in Australia for the purpose of funding research. The Liberal Party of Australia supports the Government's action in this regard. The levy is proposed to be set at 5c per tonne and will be paid into the sugar industry research fund, which will seek competitive tenders from research organisations willing to undertake valuable research into the development of sugar cane. That is a commendable move. It is not too long ago that, for instance, in the wheat industry in Australia the research funds paid by growers were divvied up by those who were going to undertake the research projects. The result was that, on an international comparison, Australia had the lowest return in terms of increased productivity of wheat per dollar invested in research of all major wheat-growing countries in the world. That was something of which we could not be proud. Quite obviously, by giving the research fund the right to seek competitive tenders, we will put some pressure on the researchers to perform on behalf of the industry which, under present circumstances, must get higher productivity and must gain efficiencies if it is to survive in the present world market, a matter to which I will refer a little later. It is expected that in the first year of operation the millers and the growers will each contribute about $625,000, and the Federal Government proposes to match that amount on a 50 per cent basis; that is, a dollar per dollar contributed by both the millers and the growers. This means that they, too, will contribute approximately $625,000, giving a total for research investment in the first year of some $2m. That is a substantial amount of money to get this scheme off the ground. There has been some research activity organised by the State governments in Queensland and New South Wales, but quite obviously they have not had the opportunity to raise the sorts of funds that can be achieved by this legislation. The industry supports the move, as it feels that the scheme is the only way it can obtain extra funds from the Federal Government. The industry is hopeful that the legislation will be in place and working by 1 June 1987. There is not much more to be said about the legislation, as it is a machinery-type Bill, many of which pass through this House at different times, normally, of course, with the support of the opposition of the day. The sugar industry is one that warrants government support. It is a substantial earner of export income. What is more, it is an import competing industry. It provides a huge amount of sugar for the local market. That assertion is borne out by looking at the figures for 1982-83, when the industry exported 2.6 million tonnes of sugar for a value then of $557.4m, but when total production was 3.5 million tonnes. In any case, we are seeing almost a million tonnes of sugar consumed within Australia. Over the years the export quantity has not changed greatly, varying between 2.4 and 2.6 million tonnes between 1982-83 and 1985-86. We have seen, nevertheless, a substantial difference in the export value in that time. In 1982-83, 2.6 million tonnes of product brought in, as I said, $557.4m. As prices rose in 1983-84 a lesser quantity of 2.4 million tonnes brought in $621.2m. The next year we saw an increase to 2.5 million tonnes and yet a fall in gross return to $575.4m. Fortunately, the 1985-86 figure shows a return of $601.6m on exports of 2.6 million tonnes. We have seen, in fact, just in recent times, a move from a position where, at the bottom of the market, sugar was bringing some US2.6c per pound on the international market to a situation where it is drifting back up now to about US7.78c per pound, and there are some predictions-which I hope will be proved correct-that it might even rise to US10c a pound. The main point I make is that the sugar industry is a major export industry which should certainly get the support that we provide here. The problem, of course, is that the industry has had a lot of problems in terms of cost. On the reason for the upturn, it is interesting to note, for instance, that the Soviet Union is expanding its imports by a predicted five million tonnes. To date Australia has benefited by sales of 180,000 tonnes, although it has been out of the Soviet Union market for many years. We are advised that the reason for this growth in sugar consumption in the Soviet Union is that Mr Gorbachev is attempting to convince Russians to stop drinking vodka and instead drink more cool drink. I am sure the producers of Queensland will say amen to that. We too believe, I am sure, that they could get off the alcohol to their great personal benefit and to the benefit of our export effort, which would assist the industry. It is interesting that another reason for increasing international consumption is that Brazil, with its foreign exchange problems, is choosing still to use sugar cane to produce a gasahol for the vehicles that people use in that country. Australia still remains the No. 1 supplier to the countries of Canada, Japan, Malaysia, Korea, New Zealand and Singapore. The reason given is that in those markets we are still considered an extremely reliable supplier in terms of getting the goods there on time and in terms of quantity. Unfortunately, with all that relatively good news around, we still have bad news in terms of the very lucrative United States market. The United States of America, to protect its own industry, operates at much higher prices than most other parts of the world. Unfortunately, we see that any efforts that were made by the United States-and I am not sure, from what I have read on this subject, that they were as energetic as they might have been-have resulted in the United States cutting back our quota for this coming year from 142,000 tonnes to 75,000 tonnes, which represents a 47 per cent cutback or a $A37m loss of exports to that country. Of course, the United States dollar is very attractive in terms of addressing the great problems that this country has with its overseas indebtedness and its current account deficit. Much of this indebtedness today is created by the huge amounts of money we have to repay to other parts of the world, as this Government has allowed our overseas indebtedness to drift from $35,000m under the Fraser Government, to over $100,000m today. Consequently, 44 to 45 per cent of the value of everything we export-whether it be sugar, wheat, iron ore or coal-must go to servicing that indebtedness. It is interesting today to hear the Treasurer (Mr Keating) and the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) boasting about 750,000 new jobs. Not all Australians are so foolish as to think politicians can create every new job in the country. But if they could have the credit for that and we divided the growth of our international indebtedness during that time by that number of jobs, we would have borrowed from the rest of the world something like $90,000 to create each of those 750,000 jobs. I am not sure that that is very good management. We have still to visualise the problems associated with the sugar industry. It is encouraging to know that things are improving. Sugar comprises 5 per cent of our total rural exports and approximately four times the value of live sheep exports, one-fifth the value of our wheat exports and one-fifth the value of our wool exports. But the problems in the industry are with the growers. Figures for an average cane farm for the 1985 season supplied by the Queensland Cane Growers Council show an average return to growers of $500 to $600 an acre, depending on the sugar content of the cane. This works out at some $20 per tonne-$19.73 to be exact. Fertiliser costs based on that return are between $450 and $500 per tonne, which converts to between $120 and $150 an acre of cost. Harvesting costs are also of the order of $150 an acre, and fuel costs about $30 an acre. Other charges, including land taxes, rates, interest rates and existing levies, of 47c a tonne leaves some $3 to $4 a tonne retained by the grower. This does not include the opportunity cost of property if money were not tied up and were able to be invested elsewhere. If one has an investment of $500,000 in a farm, one can imagine the sort of interest that money would return. A farm valued at $440,000 at 15 per cent would return the grower some $66,000 a year in interest. One can see that farmers stand to lose substantially by having their money tied up in sugar. The total production per farm is around 4,422 tonnes and cash receipts are $87,231 per farm. The total cash costs are $74,949, leaving a cash operating surplus of around $12,280 per farm. This figure is now half average weekly earnings, and in most cases a family must struggle to survive on this low return. It can be seen that the industry at home still has substantial problems which are being reflected in every part of the rural industry today. I have pointed out on a previous occasion in relation to nearly all these industries that if we examine two of the great costs mentioned in the figures I have just produced-the costs of fuel and interest-we see that internationally the cost of interest on money has reduced from a very high level of around 20 per cent all round the world to a figure in many parts of the world that is below 5 per cent, and in most countries below 10 per cent. In other words, it is reasonable to say that in other parts of the world the cost of money has dropped to 25 per cent of its cost a couple of years ago. The cost of fuel has dropped to half, and yet our rural industries-whether they be sugar, wheat growing or others-are still being obliged to buy their money and fuel at old-fashioned prices. Our people are still obliged to pay 20 per cent. We are unique in the world in having interest rates as high as 20 per cent. Australia and the banana republics are the only countries with those sorts of interest rates. Any suggestion that these interest rates are some aberration of good government policy is false. The interest rates in Australia are running at these high levels because big brother government has existed in the last four years and has borrowed $24,000m to prop up the difference between the extravagance of its spending programs and its courage to raise taxes. That has meant that while big brother has been in there fighting and scratching for an average of $6,000m a year of borrowings, every other sector in the Australian domestic borrowing market has had its prices forced up, as always occurs when there is demand for a particular product. Our farmers, our sugar growers, are paying huge interest rates on that sort of outlay and cannot afford to do so. If one took away the interest charges and similar items to growers, there would be a reasonable chance of their making ends meet. The same can be said of fuel. The rest of the world has benefited from the breakup of the Organisation of Petroleum Exporting Countries cartel and the governments in the rest of the world have passed that benefit on to their communities. As a result we see inflation in all those countries falling and in many cases nil inflation rates. The reality is that that has not happened in this country because this Government has increased its expenditures from some $48 billion in the last Fraser Budget to nearly $75 billion in this Budget. We are not sure what the exact figures will be. The Government does not seem to be able to keep to a balanced budget. It is constantly letting it flow out. Last year the Government, having predicted a $3,500m overrun on what it was to tax, found that it needed a mere $800m at the end of the year. This year it looks as though it will be $500m over the predicted $3,500m of borrowings. This is quite unbelievable. Mr Kerin —I rise on a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. This debate is about a sugar levy Bill. If the honourable member wants a general debate on the economy, I am sure that the Treasurer will accommodate him. Mr TUCKEY —I would love the Treasurer to accommodate me, but he bolts out of this place every time I get up. He does not seem to like me. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Drummond) —Order! Ruling on the point of order, I had thought that the honourable member for O'Connor had tied his remarks well and truly to the sugar industry up until this point. I am not too sure how much further he will go on the general economy. Mr TUCKEY —I have a deep concern for the welfare of all people in rural industry. I am aware of the cost of money and interest rates, for which I entirely blame this Government. I remind you of the uniqueness of Australia's position in the interest rate market. We are paying four times as much as other parts of the world are paying, which did not happen in previous times of high interest rates. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! I think that the honourable member has made that point. Mr TUCKEY —I thank the Chair. There are other aspects of the sugar industry over and above the obvious benefits of the research levies which are being imposed and which are matters of some concern. Sugar is produced mainly in Queensland and in that State the industry is very highly regulated and there are problems. The Government, to its credit, if belatedly, eventually managed to work out a deal with its arch-enemy, Sir Johannes Bjelke-Petersen, by which sugar growers could be assisted out of some of the plight I have identified. Eventually, to the Government's credit, a package which has a total figure of some $250m-I think we shall wait a long time to see all that in the hands of growers-has been negotiated. On 18 October in the Courier-Mail it was reported: The Federal and Queensland Governments have finalised arrangements for cane grower adjustment assistance that forms the last part of the $150 million assistance package. Over the next three years, growers will be able to apply for grants to reconstruct debts, build up farms or improve properties. About $25 million-$18 million of it from Canberra-will be available. It will be paid in lump sums equivalent to interest subsidies of up to 75 per cent on present loans over seven years. The Government is to be congratulated on that move. As I said, it was belated. The sugar growers were the victims of politics. While Sir Joh and the Government fought each other over what was reasonable, more and more sugar families found themselves in extremely difficult financial circumstances and some were obliged to leave their properties and many suffered very badly. I sincerely hope that that particular project is working well and better than the sorts of proposals you and I deal with, Mr Deputy Speaker, in terms of the Rural Adjustment Finance Corporation arrangements that exist in Western Australia where similar assistance is available. I see farmers queueing up in Perth trying to get assistance, but given all sorts of ridiculous reasons why they do not qualify. It seems to me that that may happen in Queensland. More importantly, the other matter of great concern is the application of politics in general to the sugar industry, which is a move I deplore. I refer to the recent closure of the Goondi mill. I note that the Minister on 19 March denied any involvement whatsoever. His media release stated: Legislation rushed through the Queensland Parliament on Tuesday night to provide rationalisation of sugar milling in the Far North sugar region of Queensland was entirely a Queensland Government action, the Minister for Primary Industry, Mr John Kerin, said today. On 10 December 1986 he put out a media release that stated: The Commonwealth has agreed to provide $4.6 million for the Sugar Milling Adjustment Committee's proposed sugar mill merger plan for the Goondi, Mourilyan and Babinda areas, the Minister for Primary Industry, Mr John Kerin, announced today. Under the proposals, the SMAC recommends the retention of the Babinda Mill, particularly because of the social disruption that would result if that mill closed. We can only read into that that at that stage he approved of the closure of the Goondi mill. There is some contradiction in those two Press releases which the Minister may explain to us in his response to this debate. The Australian Financial Review of 19 March 1987 stated: Shocked sugar growers who supplied Goondi mill in North Queensland protested loudly yesterday at the `politics' of Queensland and Federal Governments alike after waking up to find their mill had been closed overnight by legislation. The protests were all the louder because the legislation, introduced into the Queensland Parliament on Tuesday night and pushed through in two hours, reassigned Goondi cane against the growers' wishes to the Babinda and Mourilyan mills. . . . . Tuesday's legislation pre-empted an imminent Central Sugar Cane Prices Board examination and a related Supreme Court hearing set down for next week on Goondi's future and that of its canegrowers. The people of Innisfail, whom I have visited frequently, will suffer most from that decision. We know that there had to be some rationalisation. It is reported that the legislation could represent a loss of some $6m to people growing cane in the areas previously serviced by the Goondi mill and that matter should also have been taken into account. We are aware of the politics of the situation and of the political representation of those two areas. It is a great pity that while the Government is coming forward with positive measures to assist the industry, those sorts of steps are being taken in such a brutal fashion. That is something for the Australian electorate to contemplate in the future. The Opposition does not oppose these Bills. It completely and totally supports the sugar industry of the north of eastern Australia. We sincerely hope that it will grow-some predictions now seem to suggest this-and that the cost structures that the Government imposes can be addressed. Consequently, we think the industry has a future as a major contributor to the export income of Australia. Mr LINDSAY(Herbert)(6.02) —The Sugar Cane Levy Bill and the Sugar Cane Levy Collection Bill are similar in content to research Acts already in operation for other rural industries such as grain, legumes and cotton. The legislation provides for the imposition and collection of a levy on growers and millers of sugar cane to finance the research scheme. The levy will be applied to sugar cane delivered and accepted by a raw sugar mill for milling on or after 1 June 1987. In a letter dated 8 September 1985 from the Queensland Cane Growers Council to the Proprietary Sugar Millers Association Pty Ltd, it was noted that the Queensland Cane Growers Council had resolved: That the Queensland Cane Growers Council endorse the action of its Chairman in joining with the other sugar industry associations in an approach to the Commonwealth Government for establishment of a Sugar Industry Rural Industry Research Fund under circumstances in which the Council: (i) indicates support from all sections of the cane growing industry; (ii) agrees to an initial levy of 5c per tonne of cane to be paid on a dollar for dollar basis by cane growers and millowners; (iii) advises the Commonwealth that the industry's current administrative approach to levy funding is the most cost-effective system; and (iv) agrees that the Sugar Industry RIRF legislation contain provision for millowners to collect and forward to the Commonwealth the growers' half of the total levy in each. It is also pertinent to add that the sugar industry working party established a few years ago recommended: . . . that the sugar industry enter into discussions with the Commonwealth Government at an early opportunity with a view to securing additional funding, under arrangements similar to those which apply to the wheat and barley industries and that the Commonwealth Government respond favourably to these representations. Last year the Queensland sugar industry associations, with the support of the New South Wales Cane Growers Association and the New South Wales Co-operative Sugar Milling Association, wrote to the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Kerin) seeking to have established a rural industry research fund to operate from the 1987-88 year and which would coincide with the sugar industry crop year. The associations suggested that the fund be based on an industry levy of the order of 5c per tonne of cane. The levies would be paid by cane growers and sugar mills and reflect the joint interests of both cane growers and sugar millers in agricultural research. The sugar industry has in place an efficient system for the collection and payment of levies through the mills. The associations proposed that this system be utilised for the purpose of collecting the rural industry research fund levy. Furthermore, the associations indicated to the Minister that they were aware of the provisions of the Rural Industries Research Act 1985 relating to rural industry research funds, including the establishment of a research industry council by a selection committee. The industry's associations said that they were prepared to nominate people for these committees and that they hoped the necessary legislation for the sugar industry research committee could be established as soon as possible. The Rural Industries Research Act was introduced in 1985 by the Hawke Government, an authentic Australian government. Omnibus legislation provided administrative and organisational arrangements for the establishment of research funds by rural industries. These Bills complement the Rural Industries Research Act and thus will establish a sugar industry research fund. These Bills provide for an initial levy of 5c per tonne of cane-that is 2.5c for the miller and 2.5c for the grower-to be applied to all cane supplied after 1 June 1987. When matched dollar for dollar by the Commonwealth, this levy will put $2.5m annually into the sugar industry research fund for cane and sugar research to be controlled by a sugar cane research council comprising representatives from the sugar industry, State and Federal primary industry departments and senior researchers from such organisations as the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisations, universities and colleges of advanced education. The possible advantages of the resolution passed by the Queensland Cane Growers Council in 1985, which I mentioned previously, were reviewed by the Council. The Council noted that a rural industry research fund would provide more funds for industry research at a lower industry cost. Sugar industry research organisations would have an opportunity to obtain a share of the research moneys generated by a rural industry research fund which would help to limit any levy increases, particularly at a time of increasing cost pressures. Wider exposure would be gained through the contribution of outside research bodies, which could benefit the industry. The need to compete for research funds could provide a performance stimulus for sugar industry research organisations. Above all, the rural industry research fund requirement for longer term research planning would promote better accountability, one of the central tenets of the 1985 legislation. In addition, there could be savings for sugar industry research organisations in that funds which they now provide to outside research institutions should be provided to rural industry research funds. Mr E. H. Churchward, the cane growers representative on the Bureau of Sugar Experiment Stations Board, has canvassed very thoroughly the history of sugar cane research. Mr Churchward has observed that over the past 30 to 40 years the most obvious changes in the Queensland sugar industry have been growth in size and improved levels of productivity. For example, in 1950, 894,000 tonnes of raw sugar were produced from 104,200 hectares. By 1984 production had increased to 3.35 million tonnes of raw sugar from 297,800 hectares. That is an increase of 275 per cent in sugar production from an area increase of 185 per cent. This indicates that 66 per cent of the increase in production for the period was due to the increase in area and 34 per cent of the increase was due to adoption of new technology. This is equivalent to an increase in production of 0.8 per cent per annum and, on present low values of raw sugar, amounts to approximately $6m. The sugar industry's system of payment, Mr Churchward observed, has built-in incentives to encourage the adoption of research findings. The system gives bonuses to the grower for supplying cane with high sugar contents and the mills reap additional benefits as their efficiency in the recovery of sugar increases. It is believed that these factors over the years have played an important role in fostering the sugar industry's commitment to financing its own research. Mr Churchward further observed that the sugar industry has long recognised the benefits of research and development, as indicated by its willingness to fund its own research. Cane growers and raw sugar millers have funded the majority of the Bureau of Sugar Experiment Stations research since its formation in 1900 and the millers have funded the Sugar Research Institute. The Bureau of Sugar Experiment Stations is a statutory authority established in 1900 and financed principally by the Queensland sugar industry from a levy paid on each tonne of cane harvested. The Bureau of Sugar Experiment Stations conducts research into cane growing and, to a lesser extent, research into sugar milling. Until recently the Bureau of Sugar Experiment Stations had a relatively large team of scientists researching various aspects of milling, but these programs have been rationalised following the recommendation of the sugar industry 100-day working party, to which I referred earlier. In some instances the research has been transferred to the Sugar Research Institute at Mackay in the electorate of the honourable member for Dawson. Mr Braithwaite —Hear, hear! A good research institute, too. Mr LINDSAY —Indeed it is. Mr Churchward said that it is recognised that the sugar industry has enjoyed significant benefits from its research through increased productivity and the solving of major productivity problems. Consequently, despite the current low world prices for sugar, the industry has endeavoured to maintain a significant research effort to maintain its competitive advantage. It is interesting to note that the Bureau of Sugar Experiment Stations operates on an annual Budget of approximately $6m, funded in the main from an assessment of 19.2c per tonne of cane delivered to mills in Queensland, on a fifty-fifty basis between grower and mill owner. Other sources of funds include grants-for example, that by the State Government of approximately $680,000-and sales of cane grown on the various experiment stations. In recent years the Bureau of Sugar Experiment Stations has also received research grants-for example, from the National Energy Research, Development and Demonstration Council program-for ethanol related research, and from the Sugar Board for research into sugar quality matters. The Tully Co-operative Sugar Milling Association Ltd has played a significant role in developing ethanol related research and urging governments, both Federal and State, to participate in ethanol related research. I take this opportunity to call on the Federal Government to encourage ethanol related research, either by way of direct grant or under the present scheme of funding for rural industry research activities. I think it is a most important project. A country such as Australia, with the technology available to it, should be able to match with ease the production methods and techniques of production being used at present in Brazil. Sugar Research Ltd is also supported in the main by an annual levy, but only from mill owners. Since 1967 the Federal Government has paid Sugar Research Ltd a grant through the CSIRO for research into raw sugar milling and associated activities. Although initally these grants were for five-yearly periods, since 1980 the grant has been approved on a yearly basis and in 1981 administration of the grant was transferred to the Department of Science. I would like to mention some particular research projects that are relevant to the production of sugar cane in north Queensland. A major discovery in north Queensland was the discovery in 1949 of ratoon stunting disease and the subsequent development of heat treatment to produce disease-free planting material. The disease is insidious, with no obvious symptoms, but can cause significant losses in yield. Furthermore, the upsurge of Fiji disease in south Queensland in the late 1960s led to one of the most serious disease outbreaks ever seen in the Queensland sugar industry. The planting of resistant varieties brought the outbreak under control, but without research into developing resistant varieties the sugar industry in south Queensland would have been seriously threatened with economic disaster. Since 1980 an intensive research program has been undertaken by a multi-disciplinary team of Bureau of Sugar Experiment Stations scientists to determine the cause of poorly developed root systems of sugar cane in the high rainfall cane growing areas of north Queensland. The problem is known as poor root syndrome and is found in the area from Cairns to Tully. More recently it has been located in cane in the Mackay region. Mr Braithwaite —No. We do not get enough rain for that. Mr LINDSAY —I take note of what the honourable member for Dawson has said. Cane with affected root systems is easily lifted out of the soil and readily blown over by wind and rain, causing harvesting, milling and ratooning problems. There is strong evidence of the poor root syndrome, particularly in the Tully area, which I have inspected, which creates enormous problems for cane growers in regard to cane being blown over and suffering root damage. Problems are also encountered during harvesting and by the miller in treating the cane and separating the sugar from extraneous matter. Two fungal pathogens, one of which was previously unknown, are the major factors responsible for extensive soft rotting of roots. Researchers have developed a glasshouse technique to screen varieties for resistance. Advanced varieties in the north Queensland cane selection program are now routinely tested. The scope of research undertaken by the team involved in poor root syndrome studies has been widened to include investigations of the cause of yield decline through continuous cropping of sugar cane. Improved crop growth after soil has been fumigated and improved yields in parts of fields which have been extended into adjacent new land or headlands are both considered to indicate that such yield decline occurs. Estimates of yield responses of about 100 per cent have been noted when new land is brought into production, compared with the yield obtained on old land. It is obvious that only through research will the mechanism of yield decline be elucidated. While much of the Bureau of Sugar Experiment Stations research is aimed primarily at increasing productivity, some of the gains have been negated by losses of cane during harvesting. Since 1977 research has been carried out on harvester systems which remove extraneous matter from the cane supply. Initial field tests showed that losses were in the order of 2 to 13 per cent. Subsequently, a testing facility was constructed with the co-operation of harvester manufacturers, Massey-Ferguson (Australia) Ltd and Versatile Toft Ltd. This facility enabled more definitive testing to be undertaken on chopping and cleaning systems in harvesters. It was shown that the equivalent of 2.5 per cent of cane was lost in the chopping of cane into billets and up to 3 to 4 per cent was discarded by way of the extractor fans during the cleaning process. In the Herbert River district in part of my electorate, and also in the electorate of Kennedy, there is a concentrated effort to ensure that harvesting techniques are properly managed so that the maximum quantity of sugar can be retained in the billets that have been harvested. There is no doubt that the sugar industry owes much to research and development for its competitive position. However, much more research is required to maintain the competitive edge. Previously, the industry had the financial resources to pay for its own research and development. But in recent times the poor returns from export markets has seriously eroded the capacity of the industry to pay. To overcome this problem the industry is currently seeking to establish a rural industry research fund so that much needed financial support for research and development can be obtained from the Commonwealth. These Bills are in response to those inquiries from the cane growing industry. The sugar industry has a long and distinguished record of research and development which has been of considerable benefit to it. The outlook for the industry is dependent not only on the marketing of its products and efficient production but also on its ability to support research and development capacity. I congratulate the Minister for Primary Industry, who has been conscientious and determined to ensure that an industry which is a major component of Australia's export capacity receives the proper research funding that is necessary if it is to continue to assist in providing a high standard of living in Australia. The Minister for Primary Industry was responsible for the introduction of the Rural Industry Research Act in 1985 and for the setting up of various councils responsible for the various industries. I share with the Cane Growers Council and other members of the sugar associations in Australia their full confidence that this package of legislation will provide the sugar industry of Australia with a much needed boost to research and development. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Drummond) —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr BRAITHWAITE(Dawson)(6.22) —I understand that the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Kerin) intends to move an amendment to the legislation before us. Although the National Party of Australia does not intend to oppose that amendment, we would like to put on notice the fact that it will have been properly considered by the time the legislation reaches the Senate. The Sugar Cane Levy Bill and the Sugar Cane Levy Collection Bill are probably the initial result of an Industries Assistance Commission report in June 1976 which made a recommendation in respect of the research facilities available to rural industries. This was followed in the 1980s by the report of the Balderstone Working Group to Provide a Policy Discussion Paper on Agriculture which included rural research as part of its major recommendations. A working party of the sugar industry-the 100-day report committee-made two recommendations in this regard. The report stated: The Working Party considers that the industry's research effort must be maintained and strengthened through improved organisation arrangements and additional funding from the Commonwealth Government under its rural research program. It went on to state: The Working Party recommends that the sugar industry enter into discussions with the Commonwealth Government at an early opportunity with a view to securing additional funding, under arrangements similar to those which apply to the wheat and barley industries, and that the Commonwealth Government respond favour- ably to these representations. We now see all of those efforts of the last 10 years coming to fruition. Levies will be collected for use by the sugar industry research council. Contributions will be made by millers, growers and the Commonwealth under the guidelines of the Rural Industries Research Act 1985. The administrative framework for the research council and the selection committee was established under the Rural Industries Research Act, but the Bills now before us are now needed to formalise levy collections. The levy will be struck on sugar cane and matched dollar for dollar by the Commonwealth up to 0.5 per cent of the gross value of industry production. The industry contribution will be shared, initially on a 50:50 basis between growers and millers. Levies will be struck initially at 5c per tonne of sugar cane delivered and accepted by a raw sugar mill for milling but the legislation sets a maximum levy of 10c. Provision is made for the 50:50 split between grower and miller to be varied by the Minister in consultation with the industry. Under normal seasonal conditions, the levy will raise some $1.25m, so the annual research effort should approach $2m. Although a full year program will not begin until 1988-89, the levy will be struck from 1 June this year, which may enable some preliminary research to begin in 1987-88. Some doubt has been expressed within the industry as to when the actual research will commence, bearing in mind that the levy will commence on 1 June. The Minister for Primary Industry might oblige the House and the National Party by assuring us that these funds will be made available at the earliest opportunity to allow the research to commence. There is a suggestion that the research funds will take the place of some of the subsidies or grants that are already made available to the industry. I am particularly thinking of the funds made available to the Sugar Research Institute through the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation. Of course, the legislation begs the question that is often in the minds of many people about the sugar industry being very highly subsidised. Of course, this view is contrary to the facts. However, it is unfortunate that the ill-informed opinion prevails that the sugar industry is highly subsidised. The research effort which is the subject of this legislation is only a small part of the research that is already carried out. These levies may in some part reduce future increases in existing levies. For instance, cane farmers and millers already contribute 19.2c per tonne to the Bureau of Sugar Experiment Stations. Cane pest and disease control costs another 8c per tonne. Sugar millers pay 8c per tonne to the Sugar Research Institute. In the 1986 season the cost of self-help programs already provided within the industry amounted to approximately $8.5m. This is quite apart from the levies that are paid additionally as part of their organisational commitments. The sugar industry must be one of the last industries to have sought funding relief from the Commonwealth. The Queensland Government makes a contribution of $803,000 towards sugar research, while the Commonwealth makes a contribution of $580,000. As I mentioned earlier, it is my hope that the additional research funds proposed will not relieve the Commonwealth Government of its present commitment in this respect. It has to be said that the sugar industry survives solely by efficiency and increased productivity, which it alone provides. Eighty per cent of sugar production is sold on the world market. Some is subject to long term contract but most is sold on the open market where the price at the moment is a shade short of 7c a pound. The industry contributes 20 per cent of its production to the domestic market. While I have to say that the industry enjoys a preferential price on the domestic market as compared with the open market, this arrangement allows it to maintain a place in the world market. It has been claimed that the industry is receiving a preference or consumer subsidy in respect of the domestic market. Over the last 10 years it has been estimated within the industry that the consumers of Australia have benefited to the extent of over $400m because the world price has at times fluctuated below and above the set domestic price. The sugar industry of Australia has subsidised the consumers of Australia to the extent of over $400m. It is sometimes claimed that in the current trade and pricing environment for Australia's primary industries the sugar embargo is a direct subsidy paid by the Australian consumer against the low world price. Perhaps that is correct if looked at in the light of today's prices. However, as I have just mentioned, there has been a subsidy of $408m to the Australian consumers. An Industries Assistance Commission report on assistance to Australian agriculture puts the myth of protection into its proper prospective. That report indicates that assistance to sugar growing in 1970-71 was 38 per cent. Within two years, assistance decreased to 13 per cent and a further two years later it was minus 19 per cent. Sitting suspended from 6.30 to 8 p.m. Mr BRAITHWAITE —Before the suspension of the sitting for dinner I was indicating the type of assistance that had been given to the sugar industry. I quoted from an Industries Assistance Commission report which indicated that sugar grown in 1970-71 was given 38 per cent support, within two years assistance decreased to 13 per cent and two years later assistance was minus 19 per cent. By 1980-81 it stood at minus 13 per cent-so much for the subsidisation of this industry. In overall terms, primary industry had an effective protection rate of 8 per cent. In 1970 it had been 28 per cent. Today, manufacturing industry has an effective protection rate of 24 per cent. This is only 12 per cent lower than the 1970 figure of 36 per cent. So the suggestion that the sugar industry is heavily subsidised is a myth, proved by those figures. What I want to do now is compare the positions that our sugar competitors overseas face. Production of United States of America farmers is subsidised to an extent of over 18c a pound. This is three times the world price. Within the last six months Australia's quota to the United States has been drastically reduced to 75,000 tonnes. Over a period of years, Australian industry has adjusted to this decrease, but it is indicated quite clearly in what I just mentioned that the effect of that subsidy will be to increase production in the United States. We fear that within a short time the Americans will be exporters and not importers. In fact, the Minister for Trade (Mr Dawkins) in a statement on 16 December 1986 said: It is ominous that Secretary Lyng forecast in his statement that if current trends continue- that is, in the United States- in another two years the existing sugar program will make the United States self sufficient in sweetener production for the first time in history. That will have a consequence for Australian industry but the industry in the past has been able to accommodate such problems. What is the reality of this subsidy in the United States? Who have been the losers? A special document has been prepared on behalf of the Australian sugar industry which identifies the losers from the United States sugar policy as follows: First the United States consumer who paid a premium of $15 billion during the last five years to support domestic sugar producers; secondly, the United States taxpayers who have paid $85m to subsidise losses on sales of forfeited United States production; thirdly, the United States sugar refiners who have closed nine of the 23 cane sugar refineries since 1981; and, fourthly, foreign suppliers to the United States, such as Australia. By 1986, the net benefit to them of higher prices in the United States market had been eroded as a result of massive reductions in the import quota and a subsequent erosion of the world free market price for sugar. That is the situation in the United States. It is interesting that the honourable member for Gwydir (Mr Hunt) and the Minister for Primary Industry were part of a parliamentary delegation on wheat sales to the United States Congress last year. It has been suggested on more than one occasion that a similar delegation should have been undertaken on the sugar situation by parliamentarians. It is too late to do much good but a belated delegation will go to the United States this month or next month. Mr McGauran —Without a Minister? Mr BRAITHWAITE —As I understand it, the Minister is not even going to Washington to be part of that delegation. That is where the point has to be made, before congressmen of the United States. Mr McGauran —But the Deputy Leader of the National Party is going. Mr BRAITHWAITE —Yes, or perhaps the Leader of the National Party (Mr Sinclair) could go. It is interesting that had that delegation visited the United States at a suitable time it could have been enhanced and enriched by sugar producer representatives. Mr John Andrew, the Chairman of the Sugar Board, and Mr Roy Deicke, President of the Proprietary Sugar Millers Association and Mr Fred Soper of the Queensland Cane Growers Council undertook, at their own expense, a recent visit to the United States. I understand that they have come back feeling that the quota the Minister mentioned in his December statement is very much under threat. As I said, the Australian industry has adjusted to a quota from a peak of well over 200,000 tonnes to what it is now. But this is an indication of what the massive subsidies in the United States are doing. I turn to the problem of the European Economic Community on which a Bureau of Agricultural Economics report about 18 months ago suggested that because of subsidies there is a $1 billion loss to Australian farmers. That was an excellent BAE report. Unfortunately, there were not sufficient funds to go forward and make that publication available within the EEC. I understand that the effective subsidy on sugar in the European Community is over $400 per tonne. A recent survey was taken of the agricultural policy of the European Community which indicated that the European Community sugar arrangements are estimated to result in the level of EC production being 1.3 to 2.3 million tonnes higher and exports being 1.6 to 2.5 million tonnes higher than if no arrangements for subsidies existed. The survey also indicated that levy rates applying before 1981-82 had the long run effect of depressing the world free market price for sugar by 7 to 12 per cent while rates applying after 1981-82 reduced prices by 5 to 11 per cent. Obviously, that has resulted in the dreadfully low price in world markets today. The survey also indicated that if the community did not support its sugar industry, sugar exports of other countries would be an average of one million tonnes a year or 7 per cent higher in the long term. The cost to the Australian economy as a result of the European Community sugar support regime with the levy rates applying prior to 1981-82 was between $US95m and $US150m in 1982 values. With the higher European Community levy rates since 1981-82 this cost to Australian farmers is now estimated to be between $US72m and $US139m. When we compare assistance to Australian industry with what has happened overseas and the consequences, we can easily relate that to the fact that the Australian sugar farmer and sugar miller has to be efficient, productive and innovative to relate to this world. I will now consider Brazil's situation in the world market. Brazil has the ability to transfer its sugar production into ethanol as it can dictate to its market on whether it is better to offset fuel imports by conversion to ethanol or sell sugar on the overseas market. There is a need through this research legislation for Australia to make that move to alternative fuel production of ethanol whenever the need might arise. Self-sufficiency in fuel is decreasing from 100 per cent at the moment. There is nothing surer than that under the policies of this Government this figure will decrease further. It is interesting to note that Brazil is able to supply 40 per cent of its fuel requirements through changing sugar into ethanol. I believe, as was indicated by the honourable member for Herbert (Mr Lindsay) earlier, that there should be vigorous research in this area to make that conversion. Australian farmers and millers and the sugar industry are not subsidised. They have no alternative but to trade in the world market and can do so only on the basis of efficiency. The Australian sugar industry contributes $600m annually to export income. This figure truly reflects the net foreign exchange benefits to Australia through this industry. It still plays a very important part in world trade as far as Australia's requirements are concerned. Part of the package that this research is attached to was also part of an underwriting of the sugar price of $230 for the 1986 season. It is interesting to note that the trigger for that support price will not be reached in either the 1986 season or the following season. Thus, there has been no assistance from that package, except in the first year. Funds have been made available for mill rationalisation. I understand that Bundaberg has rationalised its industry to some extent by amalgamating two mill areas into one. Goondi will now transfer to Mourilyan and Babinda with assistance from rationalisation, but the Mackay mill proposal, which was voted on at the beginning of this year, unfortunately failed. Had it succeeded it would have been part of that rationalisation. There is also an interest subsidy area so that farmers faced with high interest rates which are well above those originally contracted can get some relief and debt reconstruction. This Bill is little enough return for what this Government has done to the sugar industry and other primary industries over the past four years. I mention once again the high tax factor and high interest rates. These have had a material effect on the fortunes of the industry over the last four years. The propped up dollar does not allow the industry to reap its just rewards on international markets. I also suggest that the Bill is a poor return for the imposition of fringe benefits tax, capital gains tax, the assets test and also the fact that income equalisation deposits have been gutted to such an extent that they are of very little use to any industry in the primary industry sector. In this regard the industry has had many uphill battles. I believe it has won many of them and the support of the levy at this stage will be most welcome. I also mention the alternative effect of government policies, particularly in the health area. The Commonwealth Department of Health seems to be determined to put sugar on the endangered species list whereas the Minister for Primary Industry, who is at the table, has spent so much of his own time trying to promote the product. Our Department of Health seems to find great delight in decrying the sugar industry at every point. The National Party supports this Bill as it is something for which the industry has asked, but comments relating to the amount of reward given to it from the point of view of the levy and the expense incurred by the industry should be noted. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr WRIGHT(Capricornia)(8.14) —The Sugar Cane Levy Bill and the Sugar Cane Levy Collection Bill are part of this Government's five-year strategic plan for rural industry research. The goal is to increase investment in research to more than 0.5 per cent of gross value of product. We all appreciate that that will have to depend on budgetary considerations but clearly with this legislation and other measures undertaken by the Government, that plan is well under way. I note from the speech of the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Kerin) when he introduced this legislation that the initial contribution from the Commonwealth for the sugar industry will be about $1.25m, which will match industry money dollar for dollar. Therefore, I welcome this Government's initiatives in the area of research, not only in the sugar industry but also within the primary industry area generally. I note the criticisms made by the honourable member for Dawson (Mr Braithwaite). I noted the years which he used in his criticism, and these were mostly years of the Fraser Government. While he tried to score points against this Government in the last minutes of his speech, clearly he could not have been very pleased with the Liberal-National Government of which he was part for its lack of support, not only for the sugar industry, but also for primary industries generally. I readily acknowledge the work that has been done by the Sugar Research Institute in Mackay and also the Bureau of Sugar Experiment Stations. I acknowledge the work these organisations have done for farmers and mills but when one considers what is being proposed in this legislation, it is clear that the new scheme will complement the existing research structures. It will allow for wider scope in research, for research activity in those areas where it is not being undertaken because of lack of funds or expertise or simply because they are not seen as worthwhile objectives or goals. This is part of the Labor Government's national approach under the rural industry research fund program-the RIRF program. Probably many farmers out there have wondered what is really happening, because they do not see this money. Research is an unknown area because one does not actually see the dollar spent. However, we must understand that our country has trailed behind other developed countries in research for years and years. If one looks at Australia's efforts up to, say, 1983, one sees that we compared poorly with other countries. There has been a long term recognition by this Government of the need for greater investment of resources in primary industry research. That is why we have said that we will not just try to do something about it over the next 20 years, but will tie ourselves down to a specific plan over a five-year period to boost those resources and that investment so that the money is spent. Many people like to think that tomorrow we will wave a magic wand and Australia will become a great manufacturing country. But those who are realistic realise that Australia will still be dependent for export earnings on the commodity industries, the primary industries, for many years-in fact for decades-to come. It is clear that primary industries will remain vital to our world trade for the future, despite all the efforts being made by this Government to broaden our manufacturing base. It is also clear that many people are recognising the reputation of this Government as a proponent of research in industry, not only in the primary industry areas but also in industry generally. We now have a proven record as a supporter of industry research and development and now we are seeing this research take place to a greater extent in the sugar industry. I hark back to the support that we have given particularly to the sugar industry in the sugar industry plan that will run for three years until June 1989. As honourable members will appreciate, there are three elements to this plan and this is some indication of our support for those on the land, those farmers, particularly in the far north of Queensland, who have their total investment and total livelihoods tied up in the sugar industry. We have a price underwriting scheme to which we have already contributed $14m. The States-that is, New South Wales and mainly Queensland-have contributed another $7m. We have a grower adjustment support scheme and a mill adjustment scheme. The honourable member for Dawson also mentioned the amalgamations that are taking place. Thus we see that the plan for the sugar industry is beginning to work. We must understand why the commitment is here. It is not just a political commitment, it is an economic commitment because the sugar industry is vital to Australia and to Queensland, particularly north Queensland. In Queensland, my own State, we have some 5,500 growers and there are another 500 in New South Wales. One should consider the numbers employed by the industry. Tens of thousands of people are directly and indirectly involved in the sugar industry-farmers and their families, those involved in harvesting, those who work in the mills, those involved in transport, those who work in the cane towns, those in the support industries, including those involved in the supply of fuel, machinery sales and repair and maintenance, and general community aspects of employment which arise because of the location of a major industry. I noticed that the honourable member for O'Connor (Mr Tuckey) also raised the question of the value of the industry to Australia. My figures show that over some 10 years we have seen some fluctuations but the earnings for Australia have varied between $600m and $800m. That is an enormous amount of money. That is the value of that industry to Australia in respect of its earning capacity internationally. The reason for that is that we export almost 80 per cent of our sugar products. We produce 3 1/4 million tonnes of raw sugar. It is no wonder it is such a vital industry and that governments, regardless of their political persuasions, have had to come together, sit down and work out an industry plan, to underwrite the price, to back up the growers and to bring about a restructuring of the mills. We do have some problems. These problems are not political in terms of Australian politics, they are international in character. There has been overproduction in Europe. I was talking to a senior officer this afternoon and we discussed the sorts of stockpiles that existed. He suggested that stockpiles could total two to three times the total Australian production. When one realises that one begins to understand why prices have dropped to an all time low. The price dropped to something like US2c a pound. Fortunately it has since gone up and is now around 7c to 8c. We hope that it will stay there. There has been overproduction. We face trade problems because of the attitude of the United States, which gives preference to Third World countries. That preference has been given to the Caribbean and the Philippines. I often wonder about this because I sometimes think we get caught in our tariffs. We give special privileges and preferences to these countries when most of the time the real benefit goes to the multinational companies which own all the sugar farms and the various properties that are there. I am not sure that the countries to which we have given preference by way of tariff advantages, or to which the United States of America is giving preference with its Third World approach, are helped in this way. It is certainly not helping Australia, because we have seen the price of sugar go down and we have seen some of our traditional markets closed up, as we have not been able to get there because of the policies of other countries, particularly of the United States. However, the problem is not just one of over-production. I believe that the real threat is coming in other areas. I cite first of all other natural sweeteners and artificial sweeteners. There is a threat from the natural calorific sweeteners, fructose and glucose that are made from starch from maize. I was given some information this afternoon as to just how far the United States has gone into this. It is developing fructose and glucose industries using corn starch. I suppose that we would not worry too much about that because there are some economic problems in trying to get that product into Australia, as it is mainly in a liquid or syrup form, but we now find that Australian companies are experimenting with getting starch from wheat for fructose and glucose. If that is to happen-and it is starting-we are going to have further problems on our own doorstep. We will have internal problems. It might be wonderful for the wheat industry if it can start developing some byproducts, but I certainly see a dilemma for our own sugar industry, an industry, I remind the House, that is worth $600m to $800m in export earnings alone. The United States threat may not be with us now, but it is certainly a threat of the future. It may not be economic now, but it is going to come. We will have to consider this very carefully. We ban imports of sugar and we are going to have a hard look at these alternatives. The other threat concerns the artificial sweetener. I understand, too, because of my role in consumerism, that there is a growing support in the community for those allegedly non-fattening sweeteners, despite the fact that they have no energy value. But the threat is real. The cyclamates are coming on the market, using all sorts of names. One of the latest names is Nutrasweet, and people are starting to use these products instead of the dinky-di sugar. As a north Queenslander, that concerns me. I am concerned because of the 6,000 farmers involved. They are family farmers, with massive investments in the north and throughout Queensland. The threat is not just from over-production; it is a threat because of alternatives. The sweeteners are certainly taking the place of natural sugar as an industry, and will be a replacement product in other countries. That is happening in the United States. Today one finds that the United States consumers are talking about the non-fattening products; they do not want anything that is going to make them overweight. When one travels around America one certainly sees a lot of overweight people, so one can probably understand that. They are looking for replacement products, and the fructose and glucose are going to cause some problems there. This all stresses the need for research, the importance of research. We may get some sort of temporary relief because of the pick-up in world price, and I hope that that will be sustained because not only is it good for the farmers but it is good for the taxpayer. We have locked ourselves in the plan to underwrite sugar by $230 a tonne for the first year, bringing it down to $225 and $220. If we can hold up the price and it stays up, the taxpayers' money is not going to be used, so that is an important point. I know that we have gained temporary relief because of the devaluation of the Australian dollar. These are all very important points, but it does not mean that tomorrow shall be the same. So there is a huge responsibility on the industry now to find markets and maintain them and to retain the markets that they have. The industry simply cannot afford to relax. So often everyone says that conditions are cyclic, that the prices will go up tomorrow, down the next day and up the week after that. We cannot depend on that in this particular industry. It may happen in the wool industry or in the beef industry, and in all these other primary industry areas, but when it comes to sugar, because of the alternatives, because of the artificial replacements, some real problems arise. There is a need to speed up research, and that is what this Government is doing. That is why we have asked the industry to back the proposal, to come good with a 5c a tonne contribution, which will be matched by the Commonwealth, so that we can get this money and put it into a research thrust. We certainly need to speed up this research. I also envisage that members of the new Council will have major responsibilities. The composition of the Council is going to be vital. We appreciate that already two research structures exist right now, so there will be a need to co-operate, not to compete. There will be a need to mesh in with the existing research. There will be a need to sit down, to think the position through and to find the gaps. There will be a need to get heavily involved in marketing, farm economics and production improvement. We have to understand, too, as we talk about this that the sugar industry is traditionally a monocultural industry. I know that in Bundaberg, in the area represented by the honourable member for Hinkler (Mr Conquest) some trials have been undertaken to try to spread the wings economically in the horticultural area. In the Burdekin area farmers have gone into kenaf for high quality paper production. In other parts they have gone into cattle. In the Mackay area they have even gone into growing flowers. Whilst it is wonderful to have individuals getting involved in diversification-it is important that they do not have, as they say, all their eggs in one basket-it is very clear that sometimes there is such desperation to get into something alternative that mistakes are made. That mistake was certainly made in the Mackay and Bundaberg districts when a number of farmers, almost 100 of them, went into aloe vera production. I raised this matter in the House recently. The honourable member for Hinkler came to Rockhampton to meet with 50 different growers to talk about their problems. It was not that they wanted to suddenly get into the aloe vera industry, but they were caught up in it because of the way in which the sugar industry had fallen. We know of their plight; we know that some $400m is unaccounted for in the investments that they made. It can be seen that there is a real problem here, and with such a dilemma facing farmers, it is no wonder that they start looking at alternatives. But those alternatives in terms of crops may not be necessary if our research comes good. I am pleased that this scheme is supported not only by Opposition members but also financially by the millers and the growers. They accept the fact that they need to contribute, and that is important for taxpayers, because funds should not come just from the taxpayers' purse. These types of schemes should be funded wholly or partly by the industry as well. I hope that the endeavours of the research groups will improve the lot of the industry. It is not just a matter of getting growers out of an industry. Too often we have had restructuring; we give money to those in industry and say: `Look, if you can't get out of this or you can't stay in the industry, get out and go into something else'. We try to get them to restructure, but that has not worked too well. We have 170,000-odd farmers in this country but the number is diminishing. We need to ensure that we improve their efficiency, that we improve the economics of the industry they are in. I hope that as they consider projects for research they can start looking again at refining raw sugar. I have heard all the arguments against it. I realise that we face great problems when it comes to quality. Selling raw sugar is just a matter of selling in bulk. It is not so much a quality issue. It is easier to sell and it is easier to transport. When it comes to refining sugar, one is dealing with an end product. It is an end product that needs high quality packaging. I understand also the problems of distance and shipping, and transportation generally. I know that Australia is disadvantaged when compared with the European Economic Community, where products are mainly land transported. However, the concept must be considered again. We must take on the value-added approach. We must realise that if we are able to refine our raw product we will employ more people. We will get a higher price for our product and I think we will be able to compete better in international markets. Certainly we need to consider at least the idea of going half way down the line into exporting what is called `mill white' quality. I was advised recently that the Papua New Guinea sugar industry is heading that way, that it is selling mill white sugar. It may not be acceptable to Australian consumers at this point, but it appears to me that it would be at least an interim measure. However, I reiterate the idea that we need to redevelop our attitudes and to rethink them through when it comes to the whole idea of refining our own product. Admittedly, research is needed, too, to find high quality containerisation systems for the export of the refined sugar. It is vital, however, that we break through in this area. I feel that that is one way of securing our markets, of developing new markets and of improving the export earnings of the industry to Australia. It is vital to Australia, it is vital to Queensland, it is vital to north Queensland. We cannot underwrite the industry forever. One hears people in the north saying: `Well, it is up to the Government to back us because of our taxes. We have poured money into the taxpayer's coffers, the tax burden has been upon us, and we have paid taxes all these years'. But, to come back to plain mathematics and compare the situation in Australia with the European situation, the Europeans export only 20 per cent of their product, and they underwrite that 20 per cent with the 80 per cent that they sell on the domestic market. They can underwrite hundreds of thousands of tonnes in terms of price. Our situation is the other way around. We export 80 per cent. How can we possibly underwrite the price of 80 per cent of our production with the 20 per cent which is sold on a domestic market of only 15 or 16 million people? Clearly, if we tried to match the EEC, we simply could not win. We are dealing with a very expensive industry at this end. It is no wonder that there was so much discussion. It is no wonder it took so long for the Queensland Government and this Government to come together and sort it out. I know that politics was involved; I know that Bjelke-Petersen kept trying to score, kept trying to make out that we were not really interested; but I believe that our Minister proved him totally wrong in that and achieved full credit-credit from people who would not vote Labor, but who have been singing his praises across the north because he stuck to his guns on it, and his commitment was to the sugar industry, not to some sort of political solution. That was certainly achieved with that plan. But the problems are still ahead of us. As I said, it is very important. It is worth some $600m to our country. It is the life-blood of north Queensland. If the sugar industry dies, not just 6,000 farmers but dozens of small townships as well will cave in. This Government has already proven its commitment to the sugar industry, as it has done to rural industry generally. I only hope that the research money that will be invested-we are talking about millions of dollars of industry money and taxpayers' money-will be spent in trying to solve these problems. It will work not because of money but because growers, millers and government-that brings in the experts-will work together. This legislation achieves that. I therefore welcome it and seek the support of the House for it. Mr McARTHUR(Corangamite)(8.31) —I note the amusement of the Chair that a Victorian should dare to discuss the sugar cane industry in Queensland. I am supporting the Sugar Cane Levy Bill 1987 and the Sugar Cane Levy Collection Bill 1987, and I wish to raise a couple of issues because I think the changes in the cane industry augur well for rural industry in Australia. I will refer to that later in my speech. I support the Sugar Cane Levy Bill and the dollar for dollar subsidy for research in an industry which, according to the figures of the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Kerin), generates $800m worth of income and, as we all know, $600m worth of valuable export income for Australia. I support the research and development approach that the sugar industry has taken so well in the past in the area of cane harvesting, transport-which is about 20 per cent of its costs with its very carefully worked out railway systems-its environmental protection programs, plant varieties and agricultural practices. Of course, the great fluctuations of the industry are well known to most Australians. In 1981-82 the price according to the International Sugar Agreement was about $365, but it dropped in 1984-85 to $109. The major exporters, as other speakers have said, are Australia, Brazil, Cuba and the European Economic Community. Australia grows sugar cane which has an 18-month growing cycle whereas the EEC grows sugar beet which has only a five-month growing cycle and which has a major influence in the marketing of that product. Again the Parliament would be aware of the dumping practices of the EEC in the international sugar market. Consumers in the United States of America, Mexico, Indonesia and China have reduced their consumption somewhat, and this has created quite an imbalance on the world sugar market. In Australia we have about 6,000 farmers whose farms vary in size from 30 hectares to 120 hectares. They produce about 25 million tonnes of cane which is processed through 33 mills-that has been reduced from time to time-and which produces 3.5 million tonnes of raw sugar. In relation to this Bill I wish to refer to the change in regulations that have taken place in this industry and the industrial relations aspects of it. Because of the international situation the sugar growers have been under great pressure. The Sugar Industry Working Party report, the Savage report, which was published in August 1985 was a ray of light in this highly regulated industry-regulated by statute, bureaucracy, governments, farmers and millers. A benchmark in the arrangements was the 1913-14 Co-operative Sugar Works Act by which a cradle to the grave mentality developed. The growers and the millers joined together under a government bureaucracy to produce sugar and have no flexibility in the market. I have taken the trouble to look at that Act. I am quite horrified at the implications of it. I will read from one of the sections which emphasises the attitude of the Queensland Government and the cane growers since that time. The section reads: The Cane Supplier shall not without the consent of the Corporation or its agent during the said period grow, plant, or cultivate any crop or crops upon the said land other than sugar-cane, except such crops as may be required by him for his own home consumption and green manuring. This is the first regulation that organised the cane industry. There has been very little change until recent days. The next part of the Act indicates that the mill has the right to reject the supply of cane in any one year and hold it over until the next year. What an amazing situation was organised in those early days. There has been no change in that attitude until recent years. In 1922 there was another Act, and what was not put in the first Act was put in a whole lot of regulations about how they would organise themselves, how they would send out forms and notices, how they would manage the works-all by statute, mind you-notices to growers, how they would organise their farms and so on. Now the sugar industry comes under six Acts. Quotas are highly organised and entry into the sugar industry is restricted. For the past 50 years or so this has been the way in which the industry has been organised so that the ownership of an assignment, or a quota in other terminology, really creates a capital asset. Once we have these sorts of restrictions we have a hothouse environment in which quotas attain value, transfer creates difficulties and there is no flexibility in the market-place for the farmers or the quotas. I have had a chance to talk to growers in the Cairns area. I was particularly interested in the whole attitude of the industry and the approach that the cane growers took. A particular grower showed me his farm that was gazetted in the early 1920s. The quota for that farm and particular individual paddocks was identified in the original gazetted area. Imagine the actual paddocks and the years in which these paddocks were allowed to be put into production being organised by a government instrumentality. This is agrarian socialism at its best. I was quite amazed to see the way in which the sugar cane farmers had organised themselves. As other speakers have said, export prices are now down and real market forces must work. At long last there has been pressure for change. The millers, the growers, the officials and the bureaucrats have all had to adjust to this new phenomenon that the international market-place has decreed-that the cosy arrangement of quotas, or organised marketing, has to change. Land prices have dropped dramatically, farm values have fallen and, whilst there has been some change in the field, I note that the Queensland Government has not changed its attitude one iota. Looking at the international scene in which some growers are hopeful that there may be some salvation, we observe that the European Common Market has made no change in its policies. It will continue to sell beet sugar on the world market at dumped prices as it suits it. The example of the Organisation of Petroleum Exporting Countries oil price collapse indicates that cartels can never hope to maintain their positions, as signatories to the International Sugar Agreement are hopeful that it might maintain its price. I refer again to the Savage report which tried to bring about some changes in the industry. I am sure the Minister, who is at the table, would have been supportive of a number of those changes as 80 per cent of the market is export oriented and a more flexible approach is required. The report suggested that a sugar industry authority be established and that local millers and growers be allowed to handle their product at the local level with an industry overview. With the industry trying to bring about some of those changes, slow though they may be, at least there is a ray of light in that this very agrarian socialist organised industry is now making some adjustment to international pressures. Another area I wish to refer to is the pressure by the international market on industrial relations in this industry. At long last we are seeing that the industry and the people in it have to react to productivity considerations in utilising the crushing plants. The Savage report made some very good recommendations about the operations of these crushing plants and these recommendations have been referred to by other honourable members. Again, I have had a chance to look at one of these mills at South Johnstone-an area which has been in the news in recent times-where the crushing takes place and the sugar is processed before the final product is taken to the coast. The need to establish mills in the local area, so that the cane can be transported by a very complex network, makes for some difficulty in making the operations of the mills flexible and adjustable and, of course, parochial views are generated. But I am encouraged by the change in attitude and by the possibility of change tomorrow in the industrial relations arrangements. In this very difficult area of industrial relations in this tightly organised industry the Savage report recommended that there be rationalisation of milling operations, continuous crushing by mills, extended harvesting hours and multi-skilling of labour. Those were the issues that were looked at and the working party actually recommended-and this is very much in line with the Liberal Party's industrial relations policy-that trade unions be consulted at an early stage of proposals for restructuring or reorganising industry operations. Secondly, it was recommended that trade unions, millers and growers enter into negotiations for the introduction, where appropriate, of continuous crushing so that the capital plant of those mills that are owned by growers, and sometimes by private companies, could be run more efficiently and more effectively. What could be more sensible than the unions and the workers coming to an agreement to utilise this plant structure for seven days a week during the harvesting time, when it is important to run the plant continuously? The important recommendation that emerges right now which gives me encouragement that there are changes around in rural industry is that tomorrow an application will be heard in the State Industrial Commission in Queensland from the millers for a five-day week to be spread over seven days to allow the cane mills to crush continuously for seven consecutive days throughout the crushing season. It seems a very flexible, sensible, commonsense approach that, at a time when the cane industry is suffering from economic difficulties and when there is a rationalisation of mills, the work force come to an agreement with management for a more flexible arrangement of the spread of hours so that those mills can operate effectively and efficiently over the whole seven days. This approach to the Commission will be made tomorrow and, if the State Industrial Commission, in its wisdom, grants this flexibility in approach, this will be, in my view, a major breakthrough in the agricultural area where we require this sort of flexibility to handle the seasonality of agricultural production. Obviously the cane crushing goes on for only a few months of the year and, disregarding the elements, during that time the mills need to work at full capacity. I am sure that if the Industrial Commission uses its intelligence and common sense it will grant this application tomorrow in the court. Of course, this will spread to the tourist industry in Queensland and to other rural industries which are seeking this sort of flexibility. Just as it is important in the case of the shearing industry that the shearers be allowed to work when the weather is right, when the sheep are dry, so too is it important in the sugar cane industry that the members of the union be allowed to work when the conditions are right. I finish by saying that I support the Bill. I support the concept of research and development in the cane industry. Whilst I wonder where the sugar industry's future markets might be, hopefully with a more flexible approach its output will meet market demands in a more private enterprise way, and it will not be covered by government subsidies. I hope there will be more flexibility within the industry and the industrial relations approach that has been advocated by the Liberal Party will come to pass through the Queensland Industrial Court. Also I hope job opportunities will be maintained and there will be flexibility in the labour force in north Queensland which will help the sugar industry to return some profitability during very difficult times. Mr IAN ROBINSON(Page)(8.46) —I rise to support-briefly but nevertheless sincerely and strongly-the Sugar Cane Levy Bill and the Sugar Cane Levy Collection Bill which establish the framework for the collection of levy funds to finance the industry research under the umbrella of the newly formed Sugar Research Council. I understand that an amendment will be proposed by the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Kerin), but it is not opportune for us to make reference to that at this moment. I want to say very clearly that the sugar industry has, in fact, been for several decades past one of the most efficient rural industries in Australia. It has, of course, been confronted with the problems of world market fluctuations to an extent that is perhaps unparalleled in many other industries. If one were to consider the extent of the ups and the downs one would see that few other industries have encountered such economic difficulties and nevertheless proved able to cope with that dilemma. The sugar industry has done so in a way that reflects very great credit on it, the industry organisations, the individual growers and in fact on all segments of the industry from the cropping to the actual sale of sugar on the international market as well, of course, as on the home consumption market. The purpose of this legislation is to give the industry a positive approach to research. That is not to say that there has been any failure in the past on the part of the industry to endeavour to have the very best aspirations towards research and to gain for itself the benefits of scientific developments so far as sugar cropping is concerned. What this legislation does is to create the opportunity for research under the efficient guidelines of the Rural Industries Research Act, which is really the basis upon which this new arrangement will apply. Of course, it is important to recognise that the levy struck will be matched dollar for dollar by the Commonwealth up to a limit of 0.5 per cent of the gross value of industry production. Although this figure could be set at a higher level for the purpose of the levy, perhaps it is pertinent to say that at this time, when there is such economic stringency within the industry, it is prudent that that figure not be taken to the upper limit. Nevertheless, the efficient approach that is inherent in the legislation before us will, I believe, enable a positive plan to be put into effect. We do not want to see any delay with this plan. There is some concern that it will take a little time for the whole operation to get under way. Whilst conceding that that is inescapable to a large extent, I know that the Minister for Primary Industry and all those concerned in the industry will want to see the work started quickly. One of the reasons for that is that this particular aspiration is not based simply on the agricultural considerations. It is based on the need to ensure that a lot of useful work is done in other fields. I refer to the economic problems of the industry. The industry in both Queensland and New South Wales has a firm basis for research, but in recent years these programs have been inadequate. If one takes the trouble to look at the work being done usually adjacent to most of the mills in New South Wales and Queensland, one sees experimental plots; one sees people engaged on a permanent basis, usually attached to the mills, giving advice to the farmers, seeing that they have the best possible opportunity to ensure that not only are the breeding programs and the varieties right for the particular location, but that the best and most efficient support is given to the individual grower to do the job he aspires to do as a cane grower. Then within the milling organisations similar high standards of efficiency have been attained because of research programs which have been undertaken in the past. But to bring all this together for the industry, at this important time, it is necessary to move forward. That is what this legislation provides for. The Commonwealth will support a program that is intended not only to carry on the traditional research, but to move into areas such as economic and marketing research. That perhaps is the area of greatest significance at this time. It is significant because we face the challenge of cutbacks in our world market potential. Certainly the threat from the United States of America against the existing quota for Australia-a preferred quota at a preferred market return-requires the combined efforts of the Government, the industry and everyone connected with it to ensure that if there is a difficulty it is cushioned to the greatest possible extent. Economics and marketing research becomes a vital issue. I was sorry to hear my colleague the honourable member for Corangamite (Mr McArthur) refer to the industry as the product of an agrarian socialist background and that this had been carried on into the present day and age. Frankly, the truth is plain to anyone who understands sugar growing. I profess to know something about it because it was a crop that my grandfather first grew, and a crop that my father grew. I have not been an active cane farmer on the same land because it had to be turned in for a significant reason-namely, that it was not suitable to continue to grow sugar cane efficiently. It is wrong to say that there have been stringencies under the provisions of control both in Queensland and New South Wales. The reverse has been the case. That is why the industry has been so efficient. In fact, the industry in northern New South Wales has set examples which in many respects have been followed by Queensland. There should be recognition of the fact that the sugar industry has been an efficient industry over the years. In the recent difficult period one must remember that there was an expansion of quotas in Queensland and northern New South Wales. That was a little more than a decade ago. That expansion of quotas was the consequence of the potential which existed and which was then made use of. It involved an increasing opportunity on the international market. The sugar industry grew enormously in that period. If it had not, its efficiency would have been less, its capacity to cope with the present crisis would have been less and, quite frankly, the economy of the east coast of Australia would not have been as great as it is today. It is true that in recent circumstances difficulties have been encountered, and some have to be addressed. In Queensland the rationalisation of mills and of transport is essential, and it is pleasing to know that this work is going forward. The same action is not necessary in northern New South Wales because this aspect has been addressed previously. There is also the question raised by the honourable member for Corangamite relating to the industrial relations aspect and the importance of assisting the industry so far as is possible in that regard. In my experience in northern New South Wales the mills have been crushing for 24 hours a day, seven days a week. There have been industrial difficulties; nevertheless, the need to ensure that the mills did not stop or slow down during the crushing season has been recognised as important. I return finally to the issue before the House, and that is the question of research, its financing, the structure under which it can be effectively carried out and its importance to the industry. This is fundamental to the Bill. On behalf of the National Party I strongly endorse this legislation and express the hope that it will make a further contribution to the ongoing efficiency of one of the country's great primary industries. Mr KERIN(Werriwa-Minister for Primary Industry)(8.55) —I thank honourable members who have taken part in this debate on the Sugar Cane Levy Bill and cognate Bill. I particularly thank the honourable member for Herbert (Mr Lindsay), who stuck to the topic of the debate. Most other honourable members ranged widely over the problems of the sugar industry. I think that the honourable member for Dawson (Mr Braithwaite) revealed a very good understanding of the industry. Other people, such as the honourable member for O'Connor (Mr Tuckey), did not exhibit such an understanding. The honourable member for Capricornia (Mr Wright) was also very much to the point. The honourable member for O'Connor made the very good point that the situation in the United States of America worries us increasingly, and I shall address that aspect in a moment. He took the opportunity to range very widely and talk about the economy in general, as if there is something wrong in there being an additional 750,000 people employed in this country over the last four years. The Government is saying that it is not responsible for all those jobs, but it is certainly responsible for the policy settings that have achieved such an increase in jobs. The fact is that in the first two years in the life of this Government we had growth without inflation and we really achieved a lot. That was due to the accord and to the very disciplined economic management of this country. That should not be forgotten. The big problem is that we have had, and still have, this massive balance of payments problem. There has been a big terms of trade problem. Our terms of trade turned against us by 20 or 30 per cent in the last two years. We have had a drop in overseas revenue of $7 billion to $8 billion, and we have had an effective devaluation of 37 to 38 per cent. By definition, that increases one's international debt by the same amount. There are other policy settings around, but of course they will lead inevitably to higher unemployment and a lot higher inflation. I am not for a moment saying that interest rates are not too high at present, but one has to look to the external account, given that we have a floating dollar, given that we have deregulated financial markets and given that we have an incomes policy, for the explanation. The latter point of those three is the reason why we are still achieving and holding the employment levels that we have. We still have a very good situation in terms of industrial relations and the domestic economy. Interest rates in Australia are generally higher than those overseas because our inflation rate is higher than those of our major trading partners, due to the temporary effect of the recent large depreciation of the Australian dollar. Our current account deficit became unsustainably high due to increases in imports associated with the strong growth in demand up to 1985. It was when we had the reduction in our currency that we had that problem. It was also due to the falls in export returns caused by historically low commodity prices. Many Opposition members simply ignore these facts. I almost despair when I listen to their arguments day in and day out. They put forward these simplistic nostrums and simplistic criticisms about the economy without taking into account this country's main economic problems today. I listened with some interest to the remarks of the honourable member for O'Connor about fuel. Of course, he did not mention the fact that the Government has pulled off the distillate rebate, and that is worth about $260m to Australian farmers. I do not know of any petrol tractors in the sugar areas. He also said that interest rates will save them. It will make a big difference for some farmers but for farmers with massive debts a reduction in interest rates is not their saviour in the short term. But I will not go into that matter. I simply make the point that Australia still has the third cheapest fuel among member countries of the Organisation of Petroleum Exporting Countries. The honourable member was rather confused about Goondi and the mill rationalisation that took place there. The Sugar Mill Adjustment Committee reported to the State and Federal governments, and both governments decided that they would go along with the Committee's recommendation subject to requirements in the implementation phase. The growers in that area challenged that decision and, as was necessary, this matter went before the Central Sugar Cane Prices Board. It was when the Board was in the process of studying the Sugar Mill Adjustment Committee recommendation that the Queensland Government decided to take other action by legislating to give effect to the Committee's recommendation. The reason why we had to take a reasonably quick decision in this area was that the Goondi mill was up for sale. The Commonwealth Government was presented with a fait accompli by the Queensland Government. We had no idea what was in the Queensland Minister's mind or the Queensland Government's mind, but given that we had already agreed to the original Sugar Mill Adjustment Committee recommendation, given that it still seemed to us to be a sensible recommendation, we went along with it. Of course we applied the responsible caveats to try to do something about the workers involved because at the end of the day with amalgamations it can be the workers who pay for all the gain in milling efficiency. I involved myself to try to make sure that those workers were effectively taken care of. I am still unclear as to the extent to which some of the assurances that were given by the millers will be adhered to. I think I can say that we were faced with a situation in which a mill was going to close in any case. It is better for that to take place in a planned, rather than an unplanned, way. This is a very simple piece of legislation. It falls into line with the Government's general approach to rural research funds. When we finally got together a package of measures for the sugar industry which centred on adjustment money for the growers, adjustment money for the mills and research funding, we had a situation in which the sugar industry had put before it what was available to it all along. The industry shilly-shallied on the research component but it now sees the wisdom of what we are proposing. I do not want to go into the politics of this industry. The internal politics in the industry are very difficult. Australia has a massive length of sugar coast and it is very hard to hold the industry together. Frankly, the Premier of Queensland does not understand the industry. He prevaricated and blocked every move at every stage to the extent that he was not even prepared to allow his own Minister to talk to me. It was only when the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) intervened that we actually got the 100-days committee-the committee chaired by Mr Russell Savage-and something on the table that we could address effectively. Those are simply the facts of the matter. Mill amalgamation is also proving exceptionally difficult. The Savage committee said that one of the catalysts for change in this industry, one that will give savings and have it placed in a better position for the years ahead when prices return to their former levels, would be to amalgamate mills. The growers have been resisting this. They have been resisting for very valid reasons on some occasions, and on others they really want to get back to the status quo. That is their right-I do not debate that-but I think it is often to their advantage to put aside their industry politics and their personal politics and look to their own interests rather than take positions on some of the very vital questions that affect their lives. The honourable member for Dawson asked me when the funds would be available. Some funds could be spent in 1987-88 but this scheme will become fully operational in 1988-89. In the meantime the industry will have its own funds but this scheme effectively doubles the money available to it. As I have said, the industry shilly-shallied. It has always made contributions but it could have turned them to double effect any time it wanted to. There are no government subsidies other than the research money to be provided and the general plan to try to help the industry. When some of the purists in the economic world such as the National Farmers Federation, for example, talk about free trade they never acknowledge at the same time that the sugar embargo gives massive protection to this industry. As the honourable member for Dawson pointed out, in the days when sugar prices peaked the subsidy by the sugar industry for Australian consumers was also quite enormous. According to estimates, it varied between $400m and $700m through the late 1970s and early 1980s. The honourable member for Dawson said that the Bureau of Agricultural Economics did good work on the European Economic Community's crazy policies, that it produced the red book and the green book, for want of better terms, but that they were not published or available in Europe. Actually, they were published in three languages that I know of-French, German and Italian-and probably in other languages, and were freely available. Another book on the effects of the EEC's agricultural policies, a general equilibrium approach, has also come out. So the BAE has continued to do very good work. Several speakers mentioned the United States of America. The problem is that the United States has been subsidising its sugar production by about US18c a pound, and this was in recent times when the world price was between US2.3c and US6c or US8c a pound. Today it is less than US6c. These high United States administered sugar prices have led to reduced consumption of sugar and provided an umbrella under which alternative sweeteners, mainly corn-based, have expanded market share. The result is that a substantial contraction in United States import quotas has occurred. For example, between 1981 and 1985 imports declined from 3.7 million metric tonnes raw value to 1.9 million metric tonnes, a drop of 48 per cent. The expectation is that if the present program continues further cuts in United States imports will be needed with the prospect that the United States could shortly become a net exporter of sugar. One estimate is that the 1987 quota of just under one million short tonnes will need to be reduced to 500,00 or 600,000 short tonnes in 1988. Australia's share of the 1987 quota is 8.28 per cent or 75,530 tonnes, which is worth an estimated $39m. The high level of assistance and the associated high price of sugar and the decline in consumption have prompted proposals from various United States sweetener interests for modification of the sugar regime through a review of farm legislation or as part of trade legislation currently being considered in Washington. The United States Congress has always been a forum in which issues are settled more in a wheeling-dealing atmosphere with no strong party discipline. It lets policies all hang out, if I can express it in that way, and as measures go through the various committees, the House of Representatives and the Senate, it is very hard to determine what will come of the process and at what time. It is very difficult for anyone to get some hold on that. It appears that the Administration in general has a better attitude towards massive protection and over-subsidisation but in the upshot the picture is rather clear: The United States will effect its own Caribbean initiative and its own relations with the central Americas due to domestic political pressure from its own farmers. The strongest farmers are not the sugar farmers in Florida and Hawaii but the corn farmers in the mid-west of America. We are in a very difficult situation. It is farmer versus farmer in the United States and, of course, it is its farmers versus our farmers in another context. The EEC has done something to put its sugar policies into more balance. It has applied co-responsibility levies which have had the effect of bringing down stocks and production to some degree, but the situation is still relatively open-ended. I will not go through the technical ways in which the EEC has been getting its industry under some control. It is still massively rich compared with our industry. I point out that it was paying production subsidies of about $460 a tonne when its export subsidies were about $600 a tonne, at a time when the world price for sugar was about $223 a tonne. One simply cannot compete with that. The honourable member for Dawson also did his statutory jumping up and down in regard to the capital gains tax and income equalisation deposits. This does not actually affect the sugar producers at present. Most of them wish that they had some money for IEDs and wish that they were actually getting some capital gain. But I will not go into that. The honourable member for Corangamite (Mr McArthur) tried to identify some Liberal principles on agriculture. Now that the coalition has split-we have split Liberals, split Nationals and desperates in between-we will hear more of these sorts of comments on agricultural policy made in this House. He referred to the 1914-15 Act, and the 1922 Act, which has been the bible of the industry. I think the honourable member for Page (Mr Ian Robinson) made the point that there are reasons for the regulations. I accept that point. The reason, basically, is that there is an intrinsic relationship between the growers and the mills; but there is a limit to it. As with most things, I do not think one can keep harking back to about 1914-15 and think that measures of that time will be appropriate in today's trading environment. I have always been opposed to having judges involved in making decisions about an industry in which business or economic decisions need to be made. Anyhow, the industry has freed up to some degree. I simply make the point that it should have been freed up years ago. The honourable member for Corangamite made some points about industrial relations. There were recommendations in the Savage committee report. Unfortunately, of course, that report was thrown away by the Queensland Government the moment it was released publicly. Because the Queensland Premier would not allow his Ministers to talk with me, the deal that we put together was really negotiated eventually at the official level. This is one of the terrible things about dealing with Queensland: One cannot get rational, proper, Cabinet decision-making. Eventually one has to try to work out ways and means of getting around the stupidity of the Premier, to try to put in place something that will actually work. It is a pity that industrial relations, in the wash-up, were not effectively addressed, because the unions are not opposed to many of the things that are being proposed at present. They have been subjected to capacity to pay principles for quite some time. They have had their awards belted down in the Queensland courts. They accept that amalgamations will take place. They have reservations about continuous crushing. I think they feel more strongly about the different hours matter. We provided the unions with some funds so that they could negotiate effectively with the millers. By and large, they are not opposed to what is going on. They understand the problems which the industry is experiencing. I think some of the SMAC recommendations do not take the workers' views into account enough, and I think there is a need for the Commonwealth Government to keep this clearly in mind. By and large, we have some sensitivity in the industry. That is why the present Queensland legislation on industrial relations is so provocative and so negative. The growers in the Pioneer Valley and the Innisfail area have been more opposed to amalgamation-far more opposed-than the unions. The growers, of course, have been fully involved and consulted. They have either appealed under the requirements regulations of the co-operatives Act or appealed to the Central Sugar Cane Prices Board. They have talked about High Court appeals and God knows what else. The growers have their interests. I have already covered that point. Again, I am not being overly critical; but, for God's sake, do not just pick on the unions when there is just as much resistance to change, if not a darned sight more, in the growing industry. The average rural wage, as you probably know, Madam Deputy Speaker, is $220 a week while the average wage throughout Australia is $453 a week. We hear a lot about the wages being paid in some industries. For example, the wages paid at the Newcastle grains terminal used to be $700 or $800 a week. They have been cut to $400 a week. But no one gives any publicity to that fact. There is a lot of adjustment, but one will get decent change only by co-operation rather than by provocation. The honourable member for Page said that this was a most efficient industry. Technically, at the mill level, it is an exceptionally efficient industry by world standards. Technically, at the growing level, with certain combinations of people and machinery, it is a very efficient industry. Structurally, regulation-wise, it is not so. I have already said that it is freeing up. It could be by far the most efficient industry in the world. Even with the lousy prices we are getting now, I believe that this industry can become even more efficient. Part of the way in which this industry will become so efficient is through research and development, concentration on markets and the efficiencies that can be made. Queensland, particularly the Burdekin Valley and areas like that, is very well situated for the growing of sugar and will be competitive world-wide. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith. Bill (on motion by Mr Kerin) read a third time. Consideration resumed from 2 April, on motion by Mr Peter Morris: That the Bill be now read a second time. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. The Bill. Mr KERIN(Werriwa-Minister for Primary Industry)(9.17) —I move: Clause 12, page 5, line 30, insert ``, and any information or thing (including any document) obtained as a direct or indirect consequence of the submitting of the return or the provision of the information, as the case may be,'' after ``provided''. Sub-clause 12 (2) of the Bill provides that a person is not excused from submitting a return or providing information on the grounds that such might tend to incriminate the person. It also provides that any return or information so submitted or provided is not admissible in evidence against the person in proceedings pursuant to the legislation. The Senate Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills has brought to the Government's attention that the provisions of sub-clause 12 (2) might not adequately protect a person's rights and liberties in that protection from self-incrimination is unduly restricted by the Bill as presently drafted. It is the Government's policy to extend the protection from self-incrimination in these circumstances from proceedings in relation to the actual return or information which has been provided to protection also in relation to information or things arising as a direct or indirect consequence of the return of information which is actually being submitted. I am sure that that is very plain to all honourable members. The honourable member for North Sydney (Mr Spender) would understand; he is a lawyer. Mr Spender —Call it transactional immunity. Mr KERIN —Transactional immunity, all right. This is a further extension of the immunity which we have always included in our legislation. Only a few weeks ago it was included when the same sort of legislation-nearly identical-was introduced for another commodity. The Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills wants to go one little step further. As honour- able members would understand, there has been discussion about this with the Office of the Parliamentary Counsel; but the Government felt that, if other people see this as being necessary, we would accept it. So, we put forward this amendment which gives effect to the policy I have just enunciated. Amendment agreed to. Bill, as amended, agreed to. Bill reported with an amendment; report-by leave-adopted. Bill (on motion by Mr Kerin)-by leave-read a third time. Motion (by Mr Lionel Bowen)-by leave-agreed to: That so much of the Standing and Sessional Orders be suspended as would prevent Order of the Day No. 17, General Business, being called on forthwith. Debate resumed from 19 March, on motion by Madam Speaker: That the Bill be now read a second time. Mr LIONEL BOWEN(Kingsford-Smith-Attorney-General)(9.21) —I seek leave from my honourable friend the honourable member for North Sydney (Mr Spender) to table proposed resolutions that would be related to parliamentary privilege-those proposed resolutions relate to procedures to be observed by committee for the protection of witnesses-together with explanatory notes. Leave granted. Mr LIONEL BOWEN —I thank the honourable member for North Sydney. I seek leave to have the proposed resolutions incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. The proposed resolutions read as follows- HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES PARLIAMENTARY PRIVILEGE Proposed Resolutions 1. Procedures to be observed by committees for the protection of witnesses That, in their dealings with witnesses, all committees of the House shall observe the following procedures: (1) A witness shall be invited to attend a committee meeting to give evidence. A witness shall be summoned to appear only where the committee has made a decision that the circumstances warrant the issue of a summons. (2) Where a committee desires that a witness produce documents relevant to the committee's inquiry, the witness shall be invited to do so, and an order that documents be produced shall be made only where the committee has made a decision that the circumstances warrant such an order. (3) A witness shall be given reasonable notice of a meeting at which the witness is to appear, and shall be supplied with a copy of the committee's order of reference, a statement of the matters expected to be dealt with during the witness's appearance, and a copy of these procedures. Where appropriate a witness shall be supplied with a transcript of relevant evidence already taken. (4) A witness shall be given opportunity to make a submission in writing before appearing to give oral evidence. (5) Where appropriate, reasonable opportunity shall be given for a witness to raise any matters of concern to the witness relating to the witness's submission or the evidence the witness is to give before the witness appears at a meeting. (6) A witness shall be given reasonable access to any documents that the witness has produced to a committee. (7) A witness shall be offered, before giving evidence, the opportunity to make application, before or during the hearing of the witness's evidence, for any or all of the witness's evidence to be heard in private session, and shall be invited to give reasons for any such application. If the application is not granted, the witness shall be notified of reasons for that decision. (8) Before giving any evidence in private session a witness shall be informed whether it is the intention of the committee to publish or present to the House all or part of that evidence, that it is within the power of the committee to do so, and that the House has the authority to order the production and publication of undisclosed evidence. (9) A chairman of a committee shall take care to ensure that all questions put to witnesses are relevant to the committee's inquiry and that the information sought by those questions is necessary for the purpose of that inquiry. Where a member of a committee requests discussion of a ruling of the chairman on this matter, the committee shall deliberate in private session and determine whether any question which is the subject of the ruling is to be permitted. (10) Where a witness objects to answering any question put to the witness on any ground, including the ground that the question is not relevant or that the answer may incriminate the witness, the witness shall be invited to state the ground upon which objection to answering the question is taken. Unless the committee determines immediately that the question should not be pressed, the committee shall then consider in private session whether it will insist upon an answer to the question, having regard to the relevance of the question to the committee's inquiry and the importance to the inquiry of the information sought by the question. If the committee determines that it requires an answer to the question, the witness shall be informed of that determination and the reasons for the determination, and shall be required to answer the question only in private session unless the committee determines that it is essential to the committee's inquiry that the question be answered in public session. Where a witness declines to answer a question to which a committee has required an answer, the committee shall report the facts to the House. (11) Where a committee has reason to believe that evidence about to be given may reflect adversely on a person, the committee shall give consideration to hearing that evidence in private session. (12) Where a witness gives evidence reflecting adversely on a person and the committee is not satisfied that that evidence is relevant to the committee's inquiry, the committee shall give consideration to expunging that evidence from the transcript of evidence, and to forbidding the publication of that evidence. (13) Where evidence is given which reflects adversely on a person and action of the kind referred to in paragraph (12) is not taken in respect of the evidence, the committee shall provide reasonable opportunity for that person to have access to that evidence and to respond to that evidence by written submission and appearance before the committee. (14) A witness may make application to be accompanied by counsel and to consult in the course of a meeting at which the witness appears. In considering such an application, a committee shall have regard to the need for the witness to be accompanied by counsel to ensure the proper protection of the witness. If an application is not granted, the witness shall be notified of reasons for that decision. (15) A witness accompanied by counsel shall be given reasonable opportunity to consult counsel during a meeting at which the witness appears, and may make application for the reimbursement of legal costs. A committee shall give consideration to reasonable reimbursement of such costs. (16) Where a person incurs expenses in direct consequence of making a submission to a committee or appearing before a committee, the person may make application for reimbursement of the expenses. A committee shall give consideration to reasonable reimbursement of the expenses. (17) An officer of a department of the Commonwealth or of a State shall not be asked to give opinions of matters of policy, and shall be given reasonable opportunity to refer questions asked of the officer to superior officers or to a Minister. (18) Reasonable opportunity shall be afforded to witnesses to make corrections of errors of transcription in the transcipt of their evidence and to put before a committee additional material supplementary to their evidence. (19) Where a committee has any reason to believe that any person has been improperly influenced in respect of evidence which may be given before the committee, or has been subjected to or threatened with any penalty or injury in respect of any evidence given, the committee shall take all reasonable steps to ascertain the facts of the matter. Where the committee considers that the facts disclose that a person may have been improperly influenced or subjected to or threatened with penalty or injury in respect of evidence which may be or has been given before the committee, the committee shall report the facts and its conclusions to the House. 2. Procedures for the protection of witnesses before the Privileges Committee That, in considering any matter referred to it which may involve, or give rise to any allegation of, a contempt, the Committee of Privileges shall observe the procedures set out in this resolution, in addition to the procedures required by the House for the protection of witnesses before committees. Where this resolution is inconsistent with the procedures required by the House for the protection of witnesses, this resolution shall prevail to the extent of the inconsistency. (1) A person shall, as soon as practicable, be informed, in writing, of the nature of any allegations, known to the Committee and relevant to the Committee's inquiry, against the person, and of the particulars of any evidence which has been given in respect of the person. (2) The Committee shall extend to that person all reasonable opportunity to respond to such allegations and evidence by: (a) making written submission to the Committee; (b) giving evidence before the Committee; (c) having other evidence placed before the Committee; and (d) having witnesses examined before the Committee. (3) Where oral evidence is given containing any allegation against, or reflecting adversely on, a person, the Committee shall ensure as far as possible that that person is present during the hearing of that evidence, and shall afford all reasonable opportunity for that person, by counsel or personally, to cross-examine witnesses in relation to that evidence. (4) A person appearing before the Committee may be accompanied by counsel, and shall be given all reasonable opportunity to consult counsel during that appearance. (5) A witness shall not be required to answer in public session any question where the Committee has reason to believe that the answer may incriminate the witness. (6) Witnesses shall be heard by the Committee on oath or affirmation. (7) Hearing of evidence by the Committee shall be conducted in public session, except where: (a) the Committee accedes to a request by a witness that the evidence of that witness be heard in private session; (b) the Committee determines that the interests of a witness would best be protected by hearing evidence in private session; or (c) the Committee considers that circumstances are otherwise such as to warrant the hearing of evidence in private session. (8) The Committee may appoint, on terms and conditions approved by the Speaker, counsel to assist it. (9) The Committee may authorise, subject to rules determined by the Committee, the examination by counsel of witnesses before the Committee. (10) As soon as practicable after the Committee has determined findings to be included in the Committee's report to the House, and prior to the presentation of the report, a person affected by those findings shall be acquainted with the findings and afforded all reasonable opportunity to make submissions to the Committee, in writing and orally, on those findings. The Committee shall take such submissions into account before making its report to the House. (11) The Committee may recommend to the Speaker the reimbursement of costs of representation of witnesses before the Committee, and the Speaker is authorised to make reasonable reimbursement of such costs. (12) Before appearing before the Committee a witness shall be given a copy of this resolution. 3. Criteria to be taken into account when determining matters relating to contempt The House declares that it will take into account the following criteria when determining whether matters possibly involving contempt should be referred to the Committee of Privileges and whether a contempt has been committed, and requires the Committee of Privileges to take these criteria into account when inquiring into any matter referred to it: (a) the principle that the power of the House to adjudge and deal with contempts should be used only where it is necessary to provide reasonable protection for the House and its committees and for members against improper acts tending substantially to obstruct them in the performance of their functions, and should not be used in respect of matters which appear to be of a trivial nature or unworthy of the attention of the House; (b) the existence of any remedy other than that power for any act which may be held to be a contempt; and (c) whether a person who committed any act which may be held to be a contempt: (i) knowingly committed that Act, or (ii) had any reasonable excuse for the commission of that act. 4. Criteria to be taken into account by the Speaker in determining whether a motion arising from a matter of privilege should be given precedence of other business. Notwithstanding anything contained in the Standing Orders, in determining whether a motion arising from a matter of privilege should have precedence of other business, the Speaker shall have regard only to the following criteria: (a) the principle that the power of the House to adjudge and deal with contempts should be used only where it is necessary to provide reasonable protection for the House and its committees and for members against improper acts tending substantially to obstruct them in the performance of their functions, and should not be used in respect of matters which appear to be of a trivial nature or unworthy of the attention of the House; and (b) the existence of any remedy other than that power for any act which may be held to be a contempt. 5. Protection of persons referred to in the House (1) Where a person who has been referred to by name, or in such a way as to be readily identified, in the House, makes a submission in writing to the Speaker: (a) claiming that the person has been adversely affected in reputation or in respect of dealings or associations with others, or injured in occupation, trade, office or financial credit, or that the person's privacy has been unreasonably invaded, by reason of that reference to the person; and (b) requesting that the person be able to incorporate an appropriate response in the parliamentary record; if the Speaker is satisfied: (c) that the subject of the submission is not so obviously trivial or the submission so frivolous or vexatious as to make it inappropriate that it be considered by the Committee of Privileges; and (d) that it is practicable for the Committee of Privileges to consider the submission under this resolution; the Speaker shall refer the submission to that Committee. (2) Where a submission is referred to the Committee of Privileges under paragraph (1), the Committee may determine not to consider the submission if the Committee considers that the subject of the submission is not sufficiently serious or the submission is frivolous or vexatious. (3) If the Committee pursuant to paragraph (2) decides not to consider a submission referred to it, the Committee shall report that decision to the House. (4) If the Committee decides to consider a submission referred to it under this resolution, the Committee shall: (a) invite the person who made the submission to give written or oral evidence to the Committee in relation to the submission; (b) make the submission available to a member who referred in the House to that person and invite that member to give written or oral evidence to the Committee in relation to the submission; and (c) invite any other person, including any other member, to give written or oral evidence to the Committee in relation to the submission, if the Committee is satisfied that that person may give evidence relevant to the submission. (5) In considering a submission and receiving evidence under this resolution, the Committee shall meet in private session. (6) The Committee shall not publish a submission referred to it under this resolution, its proceedings or any evidence received by it in relation to such a submission, but may present minutes of its proceedings and all or part of such submissions or evidence to the House. (7) In its report to the House on a submission referred to it under this resolution, the Committee shall report whether persons invited to give evidence in relation to the submission have accepted such invitation, and may make either of the following recommendations: (a) that no further action be taken by the House or by the Committee in relation to the submission; or (b) that a response by the person who made the submission, in terms specified in the report and agreed to by the person and the Committee, be published by the House or incorporated in Hansard. (8) In considering a submission and reporting to the House the Committee shall not consider or judge the truth of any statements made in the House, of the submission or of any evidence received by the Committee. (9) In its report to the House on a submission referred to it under this resolution, the Committee shall not make any recommendations other than those specified in paragraph (7). (10) The Committee shall not present to the House its minutes of proceedings or all or part of any submission or any evidence received by it if the disclosure of that material would have the effect of: (a) unreasonably adversely affecting or injuring a person or unreasonably invading a person's privacy, in the manner referred to in paragraph (1); or (b) unreasonably adding to or aggravating any such adverse effect, injury or invasion of privacy suffered by a person. 6. Matters constituting contempts That, without derogating from its power to determine that particular acts constitute contempts, the House declares, as a matter of general guidance, that breaches of the following prohibitions, and attempts or conspiracies to do the prohibited acts, may be treated by the House as contempts. Interference with the House (1) A person shall not improperly interfere with the free exercise by the House or a committee of its authority, or with the free performance by a member of the member's duties as a member. Improper influence of members (2) A person shall not, by fraud, intimidation, force or threat of any kind, by the offer or promise of any inducement or benefit of any kind, or by other improper means, influence a member in the member's conduct as a member or induce a member to be absent from the House or a committee. Members seeking benefits, etc. (3) A member shall not ask for, receive or obtain, any property or benefit for the member, or another, on any understanding that the member will be influenced in the discharge of the member's duties, or enter into any contract, understanding or arrangement having the effect, or which may have the effect, of controlling or limiting the member's independence or freedom of action as a member, or pursuant to which the member is in any way to act as the representative of any outside body in the discharge of the member's duties. Molestation of members (4) A person shall not inflict any punishment, penalty or injury upon or deprive of any benefit a member on account of the member's conduct as a member. Disturbance of the House (5) A person shall not wilfully disturb the House or a committee while it is meeting, or wilfully engage in any disorderly conduct in the precincts of the House or a committee tending to disturb its proceedings. Service of writs etc (6) A person shall not serve or execute any criminal or civil process in the precincts of the House on a day on which the House meets except with the consent of the House or of a person authorised by the House to give such consent. False reports of proceedings (7) A person shall not wilfully publish any false or misleading report of the proceedings of the House or of a committee. Disobedience of orders (8) A person shall not, without reasonable excuse, disobey a lawful order of the House or of a committee. Obstruction of orders (9) A person shall not interfere with or obstruct another person who is carrying out a lawful order of the House or of a committee. Interference with witnesses (10) A person shall not, by fraud, intimidation, force or threat of any kind, by the offer or promise of any inducement or benefit of any kind, or by other improper means, influence another person in respect of any evidence given or to be given before the House or a committee, or induce another person to refrain from giving such evidence. Molestation of witnesses (11) A person shall not inflict any penalty or injury upon or deprive of any benefit another person on account of any evidence given or to be given before the House or a committee. Offences by witnesses etc (12) A witness before the House or a committee shall not: (a) without reasonable excuse, refuse to make an oath or affirmation or give some similar undertaking to tell the truth when required to do so; (b) without reasonable excuse, refuse to answer any relevant question put to the witness when required to do so; or (c) give any evidence which the witness knows to be false or misleading in a material particular, or which the witness does not believe on reasonable grounds to be true or substantially true in every material particular. (13) A person shall not, without reasonable excuse: (a) refuse or fail to attend before the House or a committee when ordered to do so; or (b) refuse or fail to produce documents, or to allow the inspection of documents, in accordance with an order of the House or of a committee. (14) A person shall not wilfully avoid service of an order of the House or of a committee. (15) A person shall not destroy, damage, forge or falsify any document required to be produced by the House or by a committee. unauthorised disclosure of evidence etc (16) A person shall not, without the authority of the House or a committee, publish or disclose: (a) a document that has been prepared for the purpose of submission, and submitted, to the House or a committee and has been directed by the House or a committee to be treated as evidence taken in private session or as a document confidential to the House or the committee; (b) any oral evidence taken by the House or a committee in private session, or a report of any such oral evidence; or (c) any proceedings in private session of the House or a committee or any report of such proceedings, unless the House or a committee has published, or authorised the publication of, that document, that oral evidence or a report of those proceedings. 7. Raising of matters of privilege That, notwithstanding anything contained in the Standing Orders, a matter of privilege shall not be brought before the House except in accordance with the following procedures. (1) A member intending to raise a matter of privilege shall notify the Speaker, in writing, of the matter. (2) The Speaker shall consider the matter and determine, as soon as practicable, whether a motion relating to the matter should have precedence of other business, having regard to the criteria set out in any relevant resolution of the House. The Speaker's decision shall be communicated to the member, and, if the Speaker thinks it appropriate, or determines that a motion relating to the matter should have precedence, to the House. (3) A member shall not take any action in relation to, or, refer to, in the House, a matter which is under consideration by the Speaker in accordance with this resolution. (4) Where the Speaker determines that a motion relating to a matter should be given precedence of other business, the member may, at any time when there is no other business before the House, give notice of a motion to refer the matter to the Committee of Privileges. Such notice shall take precedence of all other business on the day for which the notice is given. (5) A determination by the Speaker that a motion relating to a matter should not have precedence of other business does not prevent a member in accordance with other procedures taking action in relation to, or referring to, that matter in the House, subject to the rules of the House. (6) Where notice of a motion is given under paragraph (4) and the House is not expected to meet within the period of one week occurring immediately after the day on which the notice is given, the motion may be moved on that day. 8. Motions relating to contempts That, notwithstanding anything contained in the Standing Orders, a motion to: (a) determine that a person has committed a contempt; or (b) impose a penalty upon a person for a contempt, shall not be moved unless notice of the motion has been given not less than 7 days before the day for moving the motion. 9. Exercise of Freedom of Speech (1) That the House considers that, in speaking in the House or in a committee, members should take the following matters into account: (a) the need to exercise their valuable right of freedom of speech in a responsible manner; (b) the damage that may be done by allegations made in Parliament to those who are the subject of such allegations and to the standing of Parliament; (c) the limited opportunities for persons other than members of Parliament to respond to allegations made in Parliament; (d) the need for members, while fearlessly performing their duties, to have regard to the rights of others; and (e) the desirability of ensuring that statements reflecting adversely on persons are soundly based. (2) That the Speaker, whenever the Speaker considers that it is desirable to do so, may draw the attention of the House to the spirit and the letter of this resolution. 10. Reference in court proceedings to proceedings in the House (1) That, without derogating from the law relating to the use which may be made of proceedings in Parliament under section 49 of the Constitution, and subject to any law and any order of the House relating to the disclosure of proceedings of the House or a committee, the House declares that leave of the House is not required for the admission into evidence, or reference to, records or reports of proceedings in the House or in a committee of the House, or the admission of evidence relating to such proceedings, in proceedings before any court or tribunal. (2) That the practice whereby leave of the House is sought in relation to matters referred to in paragraph (1) be discontinued. (3) That the House should be notified of any admission of evidence or reference to proceedings of the kind referred to in paragraph (1), and the Attorneys-General of the Commonwealth and the States be requested to develop procedures whereby such notification may be given. 11. Consultation between Privileges Committees That, in considering any matter referred to it, the Committee of Privileges may confer with the Committee of Privileges of the Senate. Mr LIONEL BOWEN —The draft resolutions were prepared by parliamentary officers at the request of the Manager of Government Business in the Senate, Senator Gareth Evans, who was also Deputy Chairman of the Joint Select Committee on Parliamentary Privilege, and were presented by him at the commencement of debate on the Parliamentary Privileges Bill in the Senate. I am not moving the proposed resolutions at present. I am merely tabling them so that they can be debated in the context of this legislation and to allow the opportunity for comment and discussion on their terms before they are formally brought forward for debate. I am aware that many of the proposed resolutions deal with sensitive and difficult issues and may require further refinement in the course of that discussion and debate. The proposed resolutions represent the other part of the package of changes recommended by the Joint Select Committee on Parliamentary Privilege. The Bill deals only with those changes to the law relating to parliamentary privilege requiring statutory enactment. Briefly those changes are: Abolition of the category of contempt involving defamation of the Houses or their members; statutory codification of the penalties which may be imposed by the Houses for contempts; abolition of the power of expulsion of members; specification of the cause of any penalty or imprisonment imposed by a House and consequent review by the courts; uniform qualified privilege in relation to parliamentary proceedings; statutory protection of witnesses; and limitation of the duration of immunities from civil arrest and from compulsory court attendance. The matters dealt with by the proposed resolutions cover all of the other recommendations of the Joint Select Committee and are specified in the explanatory notes. The proposed resolutions reflect the terms of the Joint Committee's recommendations, except where those recommendations have been departed from for particular reasons which are explained in the explanatory notes. I have not had the opportunity to discuss the terms with members of the Joint Committee or with members generally but, by putting them forward at this stage, it is thought it would stimulate discussion and comment and assist members in their consideration of the Parliamentary Privileges Bill. I thank the House. Mr SPENDER(North Sydney)(9.25) —The Parliamentary Privileges Bill seeks to achieve two purposes: First, to give effect to the recommendations of the Joint Select Committee on Parliamentary Privilege, being recommendations which can only be given effect to by changes to the statute law; and, secondly, to overcome the effect of certain decisions of the New South Wales Supreme Court, most notable the decision in the case Regina v. Murphy. The Bill is an historic occasion for the House since this House, together with the Senate, acquired the powers, privileges and immunities of the House of Commons at the time of the framing of the Constitution. So the privileges, to use an omnibus expression of this House, go back to the privileges of the House of Commons in 1901. If one looks to the history of the privileges of that House, one finds that they go back to the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. It is all very good to have an interest in how our privileges came into existence but it is at least surprising that the privileges of this House should depend upon precedents, some of which go back so far. The obvious question arises: Are the privileges of the House fit and apt for these days? The decision that was reached by the Joint Select Committee on Parliamentary Privilege was that they were not and that changes should be made. So if this Bill is passed by this House-and it has already been passed by the Senate-it will have the effect of giving substantial effect to the proposals of the Joint Select Committee. The Bill will be historic in another sense. Most parliamentary reports seem to gather dust in some archive or other but this is going to be a parliamentary report which will not gather dust. As the Chairman of the Joint Committee, I am particularly glad that that should be so. I am glad not simply because I was Chairman but because reformation of parliamentary privileges was long overdue. It seems to me peculiar that we should have to look for our precedents to the practices of the House of Commons of many years ago. For all the respect and perhaps the veneration that some honourable members here would have for the House of Commons, we are Australians, not English. I now wish to say something about the recommendations which have been given effect to. Some have been modified. Some of the changes were so obviously needed that one can only remark that it is a wonder that they were not made earlier. For example there is a delightful rule to the effect that members of parliament are exempt from arrest on civil process 40 days and 40 nights at either side of the parliamentary sitting. This rule goes back to times many years ago when it might have taken one 40 days to get down over the cart tracks of England to the House of Commons. But even allowing for some of the iniquities of this Government, I must confess the transport system of this country is such that we do not really need those old rules. Mr Lionel Bowen —They are State run. Mr SPENDER —The Attorney-General says that the roads are straighter now. So long as they do not veer too far to the left from time to time. Mr Lionel Bowen —They are State matters, too. Mr SPENDER —Yes, they are State matters. Before going to the main recommendations of the Committee which are given effect to, let me deal with the proposal to overcome the decision in the case of the Queen v. Murphy and one other case. The effect of the decision in the case of the Queen v. Murphy was to allow the accused to be cross-examined on a written statement which he had submitted to a Senate committee and which had been treated as in camera evidence and also for the prosecution to make submissions to the jury questioning the truthfulness of the accused on the basis of that evidence despite objections by the defence. I have very real concerns about this proposal in the Bill to overcome the effect of that decision. It had nothing whatsoever to do with the case but with the question of principle, which I will outline. Let us take a hypothetical case in which a witness comes before a parliamentary committee and gives evidence which is quite untruthful and which amounts to a charge of serious criminal conduct against a third person. That third person is charged. The same witness is called and gives different evidence but the evidence is vital to the case for example, vital to the prosecution. Should it not be open to the accused person to say: `The evidence he is giving is untruthful. What he says now is different from what he said before the parliamentary committee.'? That, I think, concerns Senator Gareth Evans very greatly. He was Deputy Chairman throughout the life of the Privilege Committee. He had in mind moving an amendment to overcome this problem but came to the conclusion in the end that he would not. I quote from Senator Evans's speech in the other place on 17 March this year when, after referring to what Senator Cooney had said, he stated: I for one have been much exercised by this particular issue since it came to prominence and I for one was concerned about a potential overreach of the traditional interpretation, but I have been persuaded, for reasons that I am happy to spell out in more detail at the Committee stage if it becomes an issue, that however much one twists and turns and tries to confine or narrow the scope of this matter in some of the ways that Senator Cooney indicated it is almost impossible-in fact I think it is impossible-to find some principled basis on which to do that in a way that will not create more anomalies than are involved in the retention of the traditional protection. Let me give an example of what Senator Evans may have had in mind. Let us assume that somebody is called before a parliamentary committee to give evidence, he gives certain evidence and then later in a court case gives different evidence. He is then cross-examined on the difference between the evidence he gave before the parliamentary committee and the evidence that he gives in court. He says: `Well, of course I said that before the parliamentary committee but the chairman interrupted me as I tried to state my evidence more fully and directed the Hansard reporter not to take my evidence down'. He might say: `The Hansard report has been edited', or that members of the committee displayed a bias against him and effectively stood over him during the giving of his evidence so that he was not able to give a fair account of himself. Those are the kinds of problems that might arise. Concerned as I was at the need to make sure that anyone who goes to court has the right to test evidence brought against him-and so concerned was I that I circulated a memorandum to all my colleagues referring to this problem and saying that I intended to move an amendment to overcome what I saw as something that could give rise to real injustice-I have come to the conclusion that I agree with Senator Evans and that whatever one does there will be problems but it is probably better that we accept the Bill as it is presently expressed and not try to adjust it by amendment. I am also concerned to see that this Bill becomes law. It is important that it should. It has been passed by the Senate. If we amend it here and it then has to go back to the Senate, one does not know what its fate will be because it is not a Bill which has high priority in Government business, even though the Speaker herself presented the Bill to this House. So on balance I accept the proposal which is contained in clause 16 of the Bill. I will now pass on to some other matters. One of the chief matters the Bill deals with is that parliamentary offence called contempt by defamation of parliament. It goes back hundreds of years and it is astonishing that the Australian Parliament would need this sort of protection. We saw an example some years ago when Mr Oakes wrote an article which was uncomplimentary to some of the members of this House. It said that some of the members of the back bench were division fodder and worked too little and that some of them may have drunk too much. I must confess that I did not find that very disturbing. When the matter was raised here in this House I and some others on what was then the Government side called for a division. I seem to recall voting with the present Minister for Science (Mr Barry Jones), the Minister for Communications (Mr Duffy), the honourable member for Boothby (Mr Steele Hall) and a few others. On the other side was a most unlikely combination of faces, including the present Prime Minister (Mr Hawke), who was perhaps wondering what he was doing voting to send off a matter of privilege concerning Mr Oakes. Is there any need for such a thing to happen? Of course there is not. If we are called incompetents, fools or drunks, so be it. We have in this House the most robust capacity to say things about others and absolute privilege attends anything we do say. So we can hardly complain that we are badly done by. If we are defamed individually we can take out individual remedies. It is a very good thing that that absurd anachronism should be disposed of by this Bill. Next, as the law presently stands, if someone is imprisoned by this Parliament-and the only case of imprisonment that has taken place is that of Browne and Fitzpatrick back in the 1950s when a journalist and I think an editor were effectively gaoled for three months without a hearing-because he is charged with contempt and it is thought fitting that he should go to gaol, the power of the Parliament lasts only so long as the life of the House. So if a person commits a contempt of a most serious kind on the last day of the session, he can be put into gaol for one day only and then when the House reconvenes after, for example, an election, the person can be recommitted. It is perfectly stupid that we do not have a power, to fine-and the balance of opinion is that we do not-and that we do not have a power, should it ever be necessary, to sentence someone to a precise term of imprisonment with an outer limit. That is now provided for. The outer limit is six months. The fine is a fine of no more than $5,000 in the case of a natural person and not exceeding $25,000 in the case of a corporation-although it seems to me, judging by recent events, that some corporations would treat $25,000 with about as much interest as one would treat buying a bus ticket. However, we will worry about whether or not the amounts are sufficient if that problem ever arises in the future. I hope that we never have to use these procedures but it is salutary that they should now be laid out clearly with outer limits so that we know what our powers are and so that everybody else knows what the limits to those powers may be. Next, the Bill provides that the House will not have a power to expel a member from membership of a House. This is right. It has happened on only one occasion. The person who was expelled, if I recall correctly, was expelled on the motion of William Morris Hughes. The man was dealt with most unfairly and in an atmosphere of high prejudice. It should not have happened. One could see the intrusion of party bias in what took place, and it should never happen again. We have rules in our Constitution which lay down the qualifications for holding office in this House and provide disqualification from holding office in this House. It is the electors whose right it is to determine who should be here. It is therefore right that that provision go out. Next, the Bill includes a provision that, where a person is committed for contempt of the House, the resolution and the warrant which follows that resolution should specify the grounds on which the person has been committed. That is only right. If we are to go to the extreme of gaoling someone, we should state our reasons so that those reasons appear on the face of the warrant. The provision in the Bill departs somewhat from the recommendation of the Joint Select Committee, but it departs from it in a way which I support. If this Bill is passed, it will now be open for the High Court to examine whether, on the basis of the grounds stated in the warrant, a contempt had been committed. That is quite right because it is wrong that someone should be sent to gaol without any right of review being open to that person. Next, there are certain protections for witnesses who appear before parliamentary committees. We do not have statutory protections for witnesses-that is, statutory protections which create offences for those who seek to interfere with witnesses who are giving evidence before committees. Such protection should exist; there should be criminal penalties which can be proceeded with by reference to the ordinary criminal trial processes, rather than always having to invoke the cumbersome procedure of the House itself taking action against an individual. Those who seek to influence wrongly the evidence that a person is to give before a parliamentary committee should understand that from now on that will be a criminal offence which can be dealt with in the same way as any other criminal offence. The absurd immunities from arrest to which I have referred have been scaled down considerably. We now no longer need protection 40 days and 40 nights either side of our attendance here; we have five days and five nights which, allowing for strikes, inclement weather, State problems or any other problems that might arise, would still be enough to get us from wherever we find ourselves in this country to this House. Indeed, since arrest on civil process is, as far as I can recall, a legal curiosity, we should not have to be bothered with it in any event. This Bill effects major changes in the laws of parliamentary privilege. I have introduced a Bill into this House to give effect to the recommendations of the Committee's report, but these are substantially covered by this Bill. Senator Macklin did the same in the Senate. I am perfectly content that this Bill should give effect to the recommendations of the Committee and that mine will now pass into the dustbin of history, along with that of Senator Macklin. I ask all members to support the Bill. I believe that it is necessary for us to come into the 1980s. As Australians we should state what our main privileges should be and say that there are some privileges which we inherited in 1901 which have nothing to do with the way in which this Parliament should run in the 1980s. Finally, I wish to thank all members of the Committee. The Committee started off in the days of the Fraser Government with me as Chairman with Senator Gareth Evans as Deputy Chairman. The other members of the Thirty-Second Parliament's Committee were the honourable member for Fairfax (Mr Adermann), Senator Georges, the honourable member for Melbourne Ports (Mr Holding), as he then was, Senator Jessop, the honourable member for Lalor (Mr Barry Jones), as he then was, Senator Kilgariff, Senator Macklin and the honourable member for Barker (Mr Porter). In the next Parliament it was agreed that I should continue as Chairman, which was a fairly gracious gesture, particularly as this was a reconstituted committee, since, as a general rule, when governments change, chairmanships also change. Senator Gareth Evans, who was then the Attorney-General, continued as Deputy Chairman. The other members were the honourable member for Fairfax, Senator Georges, the honourable member for Maribyrnong (Mr Griffiths), who joined the Committee, the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs (Mr Holding), who continued his membership, as did the Minister for Science (Mr Barry Jones), and Senators Jessop, Macklin and Ray. I wish to pay particular tribute to all members of the Committee and perhaps especially to those government members who became Ministers but who stayed on the Committee showing a very real interest in its work. Senator Gareth Evans had a major portfolio to hold down, and it was very good of him to stay on the Committee and still attend its meetings when he had many other things that he would no doubt rather have been doing. The same could be said about the Minister for Science and the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs. I wish also to pay tribute to the clerk of the Committee, Mr Bernard Wright, and to the draftsman of this Bill, Mr Comans, who has approached a difficult subject and dealt with it with great clarity. I commend the Bill to the House. Mr GEAR(Canning)(9.47) —I welcome the opportunity to speak on the Parliamentary Privileges Bill. At the outset I should make it clear that whilst I am Chairman of the Standing Committee on Privileges, I am not speaking on behalf of the Committee in this debate. My remarks are entirely my own. The Bill has two principal purposes: First, to implement those recommendations of the Joint Select Committee on Parliamentary Privilege which need to be implemented by legislation and, secondly, to restore and enshrine the traditional interpretation of Article 9 of the Bill of Rights and override the interpretation given to article 9 in the cases involving the late Mr Justice Murphy in the New South Wales Supreme Court, where it was held that witnesses before parliamentary committees could be cross-examined in court on the evidence that they had given to those committees. These interpretations were regarded by those concerned with the position of Parliament as a serious departure from traditional interpretations of Article 9. Madam Speaker is to be congratulated for joining with the then Senator Douglas McClelland, the former President of the Senate, in sponsoring this Bill and bringing it forward for consideration. Parliamentary privilege is indeed a vital matter, going as it does to the very basis of the Parliament's authority and operations, and so it is entirely appropriate that a major Bill in this area should be sponsored by the Presiding Officers. This action symbolises the importance of the matter to the institution and, whilst differing views may be held about particular details, I am sure we would all hope that this Bill could be considered in a bipartisan and constructive manner, as called for by the honourable member for North Sydney (Mr Spender). As I indicated, the Bill seeks to implement those recommendations of the Joint Select Committee on Parliamentary Privilege, chaired by the honourable member for North Sydney, which require legislation for their implementation. However, it is important for it to be understood as part of a wider package, as recommended by the Joint Select Committee. The Committee made many other recommendations, some of which would require changes to the Standing Orders and others of which need resolutions of the Houses to implement them. I therefore urge honourable members to consider the Bill in this wider context. The law of privilege and contempt is very much one of the foundations which are necessary for the operations of the Houses, their committees and members. In the ordinary course, Parliament operates without particular reference to these fundamental matters. However, it has been clear at various times over the years that the law which applies by virtue of section 49 of the Constitution-that is, the law applying to the House of Commons, its committees and members in 1901-is not fully adequate for the needs of the Houses and their committees and members in modern times. The honourable member for North Sydney pointed out some of the more ridiculous aspects of that. A prime example is the serious doubt that exists as to the powers of the Houses to impose fines. There is no doubt that each House has the power to commit persons found guilty of contempt to prison and certain other penalties are available, including admonition. However, the probable absence of fines, or at best the serious doubts concerning the ability to impose them, is a problem. The Bill, if passed, would remedy this and enable fines to be imposed on individuals and corporations in appropriate circumstances. Important matters not covered in the Bill, but to be dealt with by complementary measures, include the procedures for the raising of complaints of breach of privilege or contempt, where the Joint Select Committee recommended the adoption of a procedure whereby complaints are raised in writing to the Speaker and under which the publicity which can often accompany the raising of a matter publicly is avoided and under which the honourable member involved has an opportunity for more considered reflection and is able to discuss and seek advice and where the Speaker is similarly able to consider it in a more appropriate way than is possible under the present arrangements. Such procedures work successfully in the House of Commons, the New Zealand House of Representatives and the Legislative Assembly in Victoria. Perhaps the most important general recommendation of the Joint Select Committee concerned the adoption by the Houses of a general policy in this area. The Committee recommended that the Houses should resolve that their contempt powers should be exercised sparingly and only when they were satisfied that the use of the powers was necessary to protect themselves, their committees or members from actions or threats of actions which were considered to constitute, or threaten, substantial interference with the performance of their functions. This general policy was adopted in the United Kingdom House of Commons in 1978 and, as we understand it, it has served well to guide members individually, the Speaker, the Committee of Privileges and the House itself in the exercise of these great powers. In conclusion, I again congratulate the Speaker and the former President for bringing the matter forward. I also want to congratulate the honourable member for North Sydney and his colleagues on the Joint Select Committee who conducted such a thorough and useful review of the whole area of privilege and contempt. I urge honourable members to support the thrust of the Bill, but to consider it as one very important part of a wider package of changes, which seek to retain the most important elements of the traditional law and practice but which make them more relevant to the modern parliament and which seek to strike an appropriate balance between the rights and responsibilities of members and the reasonable rights and expectations of others in the community. I hope that the complementary measures can be considered as soon as possible. Mr McGAURAN(Gippsland)(9.54) —The Parliamentary Privileges Bill is a very important piece of legislation. It calls into question some of the most fundamental questions surrounding the powers as well as privileges of this Parliament. However, I very much fear that we will have to convince those people who are still listening to this broadcast of its importance. Those who were listening to the broadcast I very much suspect have tuned off in droves as we began what some may cynically regard as being navel gazing, or introspective examination of our own procedures surrounding this place. However, I do stress that the Parliamentary Privileges Bill has a wider importance to all members of the community and not just to members of parliament. The legislation which has passed through the Senate follows two basic elements. The first is to correct, for want of a better word, the judgments that have followed the well-publicised and now notorious Murphy trials in the New South Wales Supreme Court and, secondly, to give effect to the Joint Select Committee on Parliamentary Privilege, to which the member for North Sydney (Mr Spender) has referred at length. In the first instance, I want to concentrate my remarks on the Murphy trials. Honourable members would be aware that Mr Justice Hunt in his judgment, in Regina v. Murphy ruled that parliamentary proceedings could be used as evidence of an offence or of a civil liability to establish the motive or intention of a person for the purpose of proving an offence or a civil liability as well as to attack the credibility of a person. So, this legislation seeks to restate what has always been thought to be the long-held position, which is the immunity of parliamentary proceedings from any such question or examination. Such immunity derives from Article 9 of the Bill of Rights of 1688, which is enshrined in our parliamentary system by virtue of section 49 of the Constitution. Article 9 is as follows: That the freedom of speech and debates or proceedings in parliament ought not to be impeached or questioned in any court or place outside of parliament. Since 1688 that has been a sacrosanct rule governing the proceedings of parliament, namely, that what was said in parliament or in the committees could not at a later time be called into question, certainly not least of all in a court of law. That is why I say that this legislation does raise fundamental questions of importance for every citizen, because, particularly in a climate of divisive politics, citizens are entitled to ask about the workings of privilege in this chamber. It is my view-and I suspect that this belief is shared by most honourable members-that the public is heartily sick of the slander and careless denigration of reputations that, sadly, occur too frequently in this place. Politicians are often their own worst enemies: The more times that a person's reputation is sallied in this place, it being known full well that the attacker is protected from any sort of defamation or recourse at law that would normally attend to such comments outside this chamber, the esteem in which the public holds politicians is again lowered. So, it is very important for people to consider the rights and privileges attending to this chamber. It had always been believed that section 49 of the Constitution, which I have read, was previously taken to mean that parliamentary proceedings would not be called into question in a court or a tribunal. During the course of the trial of the late Mr Justice Murphy it was decided that Article 9 of the Bill of Rights of 1688 would be breached only if an adverse effect on parliamentary proceedings resulted. Furthermore, Mr Justice Hunt found: The protection provided by Article 9 must be balanced against the requirement of court proceedings. Honourable members would be aware that during the Murphy trial witnesses, as well as the accused himself, were cross-examined on the evidence which they had given to Senate committees-including, incidentally and probably most disturbingly of all in camera evidence. Submissions were also made by counsel for the various witnesses, for the accused as well as the prosecution, as to the credibility of those witnesses, based on evidence that they had given at the Senate committee hearings. So, for the first time persons were being challenged in a court of law on evidence that they had given in proceedings of the Parliament. Mr Millar —On oath. Mr McGAURAN —On oath, as my friend and colleague, the honourable member for Wide Bay says-one of the most experienced and, I might say, distinguished Deputy Chairmen of this chamber. The judgment to which I have referred might not necessarily be followed by other courts and indeed a judgment has been delivered since Mr Justice Hunt's judgment in the Murphy case which is quite contrary, and that was the case of the Australian Broadcasting Commission and Another v. Chatterton, as well as Chapman v. Chatterton, which judgment was delivered in August 1986. Interestingly, the Acting Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of South Australia, Mr Justice Zelling, adhered to the traditional interpretation of Article 9. Without going into all of the reasons for that judgment, I should simply say that Mr Justice Zelling found that what was said in parliament by a defendant could not be later used in a case of defamation against him for something that he had said outside parliament to explain or add to his comments made outside parliament. The South Australian Supreme Court again found that absolute privilege, unquestioned privilege, attached to the proceedings of parliament and that they could not be used even to describe a course of action or in any way to add to or subtract from comments made outside parliament. However, it was the judgment of the Presiding Officers-the President and the Speaker, both of whom introduced legislation in their respective chambers-that one cannot leave as fundamentally important a matter as this hanging in the air. That is why this legislation specifically declares the immunity of parliamentary proceedings from any question or examination. Moreover, the legislation prohibits the unauthorised use of evidence taken in camera and not released by the parliamentary committee concerned. I well understand, and the National Party of Australia is persuaded by, the arguments made out by the Presiding Officers in their second reading speeches. In summary, the Presiding Officers have argued that if Mr Justice Hunt's interpretation of Article 9 is followed there is a serious threat to the freedom of speech of members of parliament, to whom it applies, as well as witnesses, as in the case of the late Mr Justice Murphy, before a parliamentary committee. While a member may not be sued or prosecuted for something that he or she has said or done in the course of parliamentary proceedings, the member's participation in those proceedings could be used to establish the member's motive or intention in relation to the words said or acts done outside parliament. In other words, Mr Justice Hunt's judgment in Murphy's case would support a civil or criminal action in relation to words said or acts done outside parliament. In summary, a member's participation in parliamentary proceedings could be used against the member in court proceedings in a way not previously thought possible. Similarly, use could be made of evidence given by witnesses before parliamentary committees. Witnesses, therefore, would become more reluctant to accept the invitation to give evidence before parliamentary committees. As Madam Speaker makes the point in her second reading speech, this may well lead to committees having to use compulsive measures which do not have a tradition in the system of committees of the Parliament. Moreover, that may be not only undesirable but also unproductive or impractical in some cases. On behalf of the National Party, however, I raise some concerns which I do not think this legislation properly addresses. By that I mean that a number of us have had experience of sloppy, inaccurate or sometimes deliberately misleading evidence being given to parliamentary committees. Why cannot those witnesses be held to account at later court proceedings? I am quite worried by this. From my discussions with the honourable member for North Sydney, I know that he shares my fear that witnesses could give evidence before a parliamentary committee but, later in a court of law, could give a completely different type of evidence and there would be no way of cross-examining them to show that at that court they were perjuring themselves. People in the community should understand that when they go before a parliamentary committee they have to tell the truth. Where in the legislation is there a mechanism for bringing people to account if one story is told to a parliamentary committee and another to a court of law? In other words, the deceptive witness under this legislation acquires the same immunity in a parliamentary committee as a member of parliament has inside this chamber. I worry that the Parliament has sanctions and it must be able to impose penalties on deceptive witnesses. The obligation of witnesses to tell the truth before parliamentary committees is not properly spelt out in this legislation. I very much hope that the Attorney-General (Mr Lionel Bowen), who has carriage of the legislation in place of Madam Speaker this evening, will address that issue of where in the powers of the Parliament we can ensure that witnesses are held to account for their evidence. I realise that my time is limited this evening and that other members wish to speak, not least of all the honourable member for Fairfax (Mr Adermann) on behalf of the National Party. I restate my Party's view that we accept the legislation; we welcome it; we congratulate the honourable member for North Sydney and other honourable members who participated in the Joint Select Committee. I still have a grave fear that the immunity given to witnesses before parliamentary committees, where their evidence cannot be tested at a later tribunal or court hearing, is insufficiently addressed in this legislation. Mr CLEELAND(McEwen)(10.06) —Since 1901 the Australian Parliament has determined the extent of its powers as to both privilege and contempt by reference to section 49 of the Australian Constitution. Since 1901 neither the Senate nor the House of Representatives has seen fit to enact legislation delineating what powers are appropriate in the Australian context and, by reference to Australian society, to ensure the proper independence and integrity of the Senate and the House of Representatives. Instead, the Parliament has been content to seek reference to the conventions of the House of Commons and, by so doing, has failed itself and the Australian public. It is surely incongruous that in 1987 the question of what constitutes contempt of the Parliament is, to say the least, uncertain. In 1981 Senator Button, with some expert assistance, drafted a Bill which would have codified into criminal law all of the categories of contempt. The Bill provided a convenient checklist of the categories of contempt. If the Bill is examined it will be discovered that the only contempts which should now be regarded seriously, apart from interference with members, are those relating to interference with or obstruction of parliamentary inquiries. Until 1975 it was argued that the Australian Parliament inherited the unwritten rules or conventions which had long been associated with the House of Commons. Conventions of the Constitution have been described by Dicey as customs, practices, maxims or precepts which are not enforced by the courts, making up not a body of laws but constitutional or political ethics. The lack of ethics in 1975 established once and for all the fact that the practitioners of conservative politics in Australia would use whatever means was available to them to grab power. To hell with political ethics and political morality and the myth that the Australian Constitution was clothed in conventions which civilised nations respected for the inherent morality that they imposed upon the body politic. It was only when the Senate found that a privilege assumed by it to be within its prerogative powers was challenged in the courts that the moribund Australian Parliament decided to take action. This Bill is the result of a court challenging the assumption of a convention held by the Senate. While at the outset I express my support for the Parliamentary Privileges Bill 1987, I say that it does not go far enough. It is a piece of legislation introduced by the Presiding Officers as a result of a challenge to the powers of the Senate. This legislation does not clarify the many questions that exist as to the extent of the powers assumed by the Parliament by reference to section 49 of the Constitution. In this regard it is clearly deficient. It would be inappropriate not to refer to the work of the Joint Select Committee of Parliamentary Privilege and its report. As a result of that report the honourable member for North Sydney (Mr Spender) introduced into this House a private member's Bill which has yet to be debated. I do not support all of the matters dealt with in that Bill, but I appreciate the efforts to introduce clarity in a clouded area of law. I look forward to the day when this House properly accepts its responsibilities and debates the entire issue. It is, however, the area of contempt on which I wish to concentrate. There is much confusion in Australian writings and little attempt to distinguish between two distinct issues-those of privilege and contempt. It is unfortunate that the words `privilege' and `contempt' continue to be used in relation to matters which have nothing to do with privileges and immunities. What were properly called offences or contempts against the House of Commons continue in Australia to be referred to as breaches of privilege. This has led to the erroneous notion that for every offence against the Parliament there must be some corresponding privilege. So-called privileges which had nothing to do with immunities under the law, and which historically simply did not exist, were invented to rationalise every use or proposed use of the powers of the House. In reality, the British Houses, and the Australian Houses by virtue of section 49 of the Constitution, possess only one major immunity-the immunity of their debates and proceedings from any inquiry or any action, civil or criminal-and only one major power, the power to punish persons for contempts. The immunity allows the legislature the freedom to debate openly and inquire into all matters and to regulate its own proceedings. The real rationale of the power to deal with contempts is that it enables the enforcement of the power to conduct inquiries; that is, to summons witnesses and to compel evidence. That this is historically the most important use of the contempt power is illustrated by the so-called privileges resolutions which, as a matter of tradition, are passed by the House of Commons at the beginning of each session and which deal with the tampering of evidence and the giving of false evidence. In 1984 Sally Walker, lecturer in law at the University of Melbourne, published in the Adelaide Law Review research paper No. 4 a definitive examination of the operation of the contempt powers as practised by the State and Federal parliaments. This study makes it clear that the parliaments of Australia have accepted that they have broad and undefined powers which are ascertainable by reference to precedent. When questions are properly raised as to the appropriateness of the adoption of such powers some members of parliament and parliamentary clerks become apologetic and defensive about it. They talk about quaint but irrelevant traditions springing from the time of Charles 1 or the practice of the House of Commons in the seventeenth century. There has yet to be in this country a serious examination of the role and purpose of the contempt power. If the Parliament is to exercise the power to punish for contempt, it is time that there was a certainty as to what the Parliament means by the use of the word. It is not good enough to determine after an event whether or not an act or omission complained of is or is not contempt and, if it is, what punishment should be applied. Where publication by media is concerned there must be the recognition that contemporary Australian society has the right to be informed by the media of what the Parliament is doing. If the Parliament is offended by such publication in the absence of evidence of interference with the due functions of the Parliament, I believe that the Parliament is acting capriciously. The use of such an undefined power of contempt is unquestionably a limitation on that freedom of expression which is essential to the achievement and maintenance of a democratic society. In Gallagher v. Durack the late Mr Justice Murphy said: The law of criminal contempt . . . is so vague and general that it is an oppressive limitation on free speech. No free society should accept such a censorship. The absence of a constitutional guarantee does not mean that Australia should accept judicial inroads upon freedom of speech which are not found necessary or desirable in other countries. At stake is not merely the freedom of one person; it is the freedom of every person to comment rightly or wrongly on the decisions of the courts in a way that does not constitute a clear and present danger to the administration of justice. If one changes the word `court' to read `parliament', the statement of the late Mr Justice Murphy should be enshrined on the walls of the Parliament. Stephen, in his History of the Criminal Law, published in 1883, stated: Two different views may be taken of the relation between rulers and their subjects. If the ruler is regarded as the superior of the subject, as being by the nature of his position presumably wise and good, the rightful ruler and guide of the whole population, it must necessarily follow that it is wrong to censure him openly, that even if he is mistaken his mistake would be pointed out with the utmost respect, and that whether mistaken or not no censure should be cast upon him likely or designed to diminish his authority. If on the other hand the ruler is regarded as the agent and servant, and the subject as the wise and good master who is obliged to delegate his power to the so-called ruler because being a multitude he cannot use it himself, it is obvious this sentiment must be reversed. Every member of the public who censures the ruler for the time being exercises in his own person the right which belongs to the whole of which he forms a part. He is finding fault with his servant. If others think differently they can take the other side of the dispute, and the utmost that can happen is that the servant will be dismissed and another put in his place, or perhaps the arrangements of the household will be modified. To those who hold this view fully there can be no offence such as sedition. There may, indeed, be breaches of the peace which may destroy or endanger life, limb or property, but no imaginable censure of the Government, short of a censure which has an immediate tendency to produce such a breach of the peace ought to be regarded as criminal. Stephen distinguishes between those who hold a feudal view of society as opposed to those who take a democratic view. Debate interrupted. Madam SPEAKER —Order! It being 10.15 p.m., I propose the question: That the House do now adjourn. Mr HAWKER(Wannon)(10.15) —Last night the honourable member for Bendigo (Mr Brumby) and the honourable member for McMillan (Mr Cunningham) spoke in the adjournment debate after me and tried to mislead the House on the level of road funding that has been allocated by the Commonwealth since this Government came to power. I felt that we ought to put the record right once and for all by citing the figures in real terms to show that, in those real terms, the level of road funding allocated by the Commonwealth, has fallen every year for the last three years. There are two parts to Commonwealth road funding. We have the Australian bicentennial road development program and the Australian land transport program. The Australian bicentennial road development program, as honour- able members will recall, was an initiative of the Fraser Government which did not actually come into its first full year of funding until 1983-84. The honourable member for Bendigo and the honourable member for McMillan were very quick to cite the figures for the previous year, 1982-83, and thereby try to distort the real picture. We find that, for 1983-84 under the ABRD program $417m was allocated to road funding throughout the Commonwealth. For the land transport program $778m was allocated. But if we add these figures together and then adjust them into real terms so that we in fact allow for inflation, we find that, in 1986-87 figures, the amount allocated for these two programs for 1983-84 totalled $1,359m. If we look at the figures for 1984-85, we find that $1,334m was allocated, a drop of some $25m in real terms. If we look at 1985-86 we find that the figure is down to $1,245m, again quite a significant drop. For 1986-87-again in real terms, because in dollar terms the figures are now frozen-we find that $1,152m is to be allocated. So if we take the figure from 1983-84 and put it in real terms, we find that road funding has dropped by $200m in real terms. That is a fairly significant cut by anyone's measure, and to suggest that this Federal Government has kept up road funding is totally misleading. Once we take into account the effects of inflation, we find that road funding has indeed been cut by this Government every year since 1983-84. The point that I was trying to make yesterday-a point I will make today and a point I will continue to make-is that this Federal Government is cutting road funding. It is causing enormous problems in this country. I think it is quite scandalous for the honourable member for Bendigo to try to defend his Government, because he represents a country constituency, as indeed does the honourable member for McMillan. Both of them ought to know the impact of this cut in road funding on country people. We have already been given warning that in the mini-Budget there is likely to be a further cut in road funding. In fact, we are told that we are looking at a cut that could be of the order of $150m. If what the Victorian Minister has suggested is correct, this could mean for Victoria, a further cut of $40m. By any measure this is very significant when one considers the impact it is having on local roads. A few honourable members of this House ought to spend a bit more time having a look around the country because it is a very serious matter. I thought that in my remaining time I would switch to another subject, because I can come back to road funding anytime. Today the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) made some reference to the assets test. I thought I might, for the benefit of honourable members, remind the House how inequitable this assets test is. As has been demonstrated on many occasions, the assets test is highly discriminatory against people in the country, especially people on small farms and, more particularly, soldier settlers. As a simple example, a soldier settler may have a farm worth, say, $250,000. His house will be valued at $50,000, and he will find himself excluded from the pension. A person in the city who has a house worth $300,000, $400,000 or $500,000 in many cases will still be eligible for a pension. If there is some sort of equity there, I fail to see it. In fact, judging by the way house prices are rising in some places in the cities I would be surprised if, despite the assets test, there are not now some millionaires receiving the pension, because of the value of their houses. So much for the equity and the claims of the Labor Government that the assets test is fair. By any measure, it is highly discriminatory, and it is highly discriminatory against small farmers. Mr SIMMONS(Calare)(10.20) —Most people in this House have probably heard of a small centre in central western New South Wales, Gulgong, perhaps best known as the town on the $10 note. Gulgong has a population of about 1,900 people, but this week marks the beginning of a most innovative program at the official opening of which I was fortunate enough to be present last Sunday. I take this opportunity to congratulate the Mudgee Shire Drug and Alcohol Committee based in Gulgong, which alternatively calls itself the Gulgong Drug Awareness for Youth Committee, or G'DAY for short. It is a most interesting move. Last Sunday, 3 May, the Stay in Control Awareness Week began, with an official opening by the regional director of the Department of Health in the Orana region, Bob Taylor. The program is most interesting because it attempts to look at a wide-ranging set of programs for an entire week in the local community. To give some indication of the wide level of support for this program, I indicate that the chairman of the group is the Deputy President of the Mudgee Shire, Councillor Col Bailey. It is also supported by Sister Mary Devoy of St Joseph's Convent, Gulgong; Mr Mike Williams, a former chairman and co-founder of the G'DAY committee; Dr Glenys Caterson, a local medical practitioner; and another Councillor from the Mudgee Shire, Councillor Rod Hartas. Those names and occupations indicate that the Gulgong Drug Awareness for Youth Committee enjoys a wide level of community support. This week it is attempting to focus on some of the positive initiatives that people can take to try to steer young people in the community and other people generally away from drug and alcohol dependency. As an indication of some of the wide ranging programs that are being put into operation this week, I instance a program for drugs and the elderly in the community, a drug and alcohol counselling session, a library display, a discussion with school groups throughout the community, and an awareness workshop which will focus on such concepts as self-esteem, communication, assertiveness and time management. There is also to be an interesting night concerned with positive parenting, finally ending up with a country and western dance, which I suppose in a country centre is a most appropriate way to end a week that is involved with looking at the concept of a positive alternative set of lifestyles. The emphasis is on family and community support. There are positive alternatives, the Gulgong community believes, to looking at the temptations that are involved in alcohol, tobacco and hard drug dependency. The G'DAY concept is spreading. It began in 1985 and since that time the New South Wales Department of Health, through its regional director and office in Dubbo, has focused on this initiative and tried to extend the concept further afield. In another western centre, the town of Warren, the concept has been taken up in a very successful way. One of the organisers of the committee, Mr Williams, indicated that if people wanted to extend the concept by focusing on some of the positive alternatives to drug and alcohol dependence, the name G'DAY could become synonomous with guidance for Australian youth. It is a nice Australian saying and a nice way of focusing on a very positive community approach to a very difficult area. The fact that governments are spending hundreds of millions of dollars in trying to educate the community away from drug dependency indicates that this is a very serious problem for the community. I take this opportunity to congratulate the community of Gulgong on its wide-ranging support of the G'DAY committee. I hope that other interested communities in the area will take note of what is happening. Madam SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr CADMAN(Mitchell)(10.25) —I wish to draw the attention of the House to some of the serious problems and overload that are placed on Australian business by the plethora of taxation laws put by this Government on small business in Australia. A careful analysis is needed, because it is not often considered by this Parliament to be relevant to look at the precise impost on small business men and women when they are required to comply with taxation law. The taxation commandments, as they have been termed by observers, can be applied on a monthly, quarterly or annual basis. For instance, the monthly requirements indicate that on the seventh day of each month businesses have the onerous task of ensuring that group taxation documents are prepared and submitted. On the fourteenth day of each month prescribed tax payments are due. For those in the building industry, such as sub-contractors, it is obligatory to proceed with such payments. On the twenty-first day of each month withholding tax payments are due, as are sales tax payments. Therefore, on a monthly basis four separate tax calculations are necessary for a small business. On a quarterly basis there are requirements to pay provisional tax under the Government's legislation, and provisional tax has to be paid in equal annual instalments on 1 March, 1 June, 1 September and 1 December. That is another impost on the regular monthly payments. Company taxes if paid in quarterly instalments are eligible for payment on a different day of the month-namely, on 15 August, 15 November and 15 February, with a final instalment with the normal final assessment. That is generally paid before the end of March. Therefore, in respect of company taxation there are different dates on a quarterly basis on different months of the year from the dates for payment of provisional tax. In respect of the fringe benefits tax there is another set of dates again. The quarterly benefits for fringe benefits tax fall due on 28 January, 28 April, which is the final payment, and then, following into the next year, on 28 July and 28 October. This is a shocking arrangement for a person who is trying to run a business. Businesses have to make separate calculations, often working with the same figures to make the calculations on practically every day of the month. On an annual basis, on 1 July there is a need to collate, reconcile and balance group tax returns and tax sheets for the salaries and wages of employees. The date of 14 July is the last day on which to lodge tax stamp sheets, and that is also the last day to issue group tax certificates to employees. The last day to lodge group certificates and returns with the Australian Taxation Commissioner is 14 August, and 31 August is the last day for lodgment of individual tax returns. This Government, in seeking to lift up its income, has entered into a whole range of tax arrangements which are complicated and crazy. My friend the honourable member for Hawker (Mr Jacobi) has already brought to the attention of the House the problems of paperwork and the need for this Parliament to simplify the paperwork and regulatory processes. On one simple issue alone-taxation-the Government is demanding of small business an unconscionable requirement which small business is finding an onerous burden and one with which it cannot comply. It is little wonder that there is a tax revolt from small business around Australia because it cannot meet, without sophisticated bookkeeping systems, the requirements of the Australian Government. On top of these taxes are State tax requirements. I appeal to the Minister for Science (Mr Barry Jones), who is at the table and who has the great capacity to simplify the most complicated issues, to chat to the Treasurer (Mr Keating) and say: `It is time to straighten out this issue'. Madam SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr TICKNER(Hughes)(10.30) —Tonight I begin by gently chiding the honourable member for Wannon (Mr Hawker) who is known to us all as a very earnest young man. I suggest that he give very serious consideration to the inconsistency of the line he put with respect to government expenditure. He belongs to a party that is publicly committed to the most draconian cuts in roads expenditure that this country is likely to see in the post-war period. Not only does he criticise this Government for its expenditure on roads but he also seeks to attack another important initiative of the Government and that is to reduce expenditure on the assets test. It is typical of the Opposition that on the one hand it calls for massive cuts in government expenditure and on the other hand when this Government delivers the goods and initiates a number of cuts it is the first to man the barricades to seek to score cheap political points as a result of those initiatives. I note with some approval that the Business Council of Australia will try to do what Don Chipp could not do and that is to keep the bastards honest. The Business Council of Australia has gone on record as saying that it will be watching the Opposition to see what its response will be to the Government's May economic statement. We on this side of the House will also be watching and we will be most vigilant to ensure that when the Opposition's hypocrisy is manifested it is exposed for what it is. I also wish to comment on the matters raised by the honourable member for Mitchell (Mr Cadman) because in the Government ranks is a very active small business sub-committee of the Government members economic committee. I am sure that my colleagues on that committee would share my view that the honourable member's comments are worth looking at. I give him that assurance. He knows that we on the back bench are strident in our efforts to protect the interests of small business which employs so many Australians and contributes so much to the national economy. The matter I seek to raise tonight concerns a conference at which I was able to speak today. Mr McGauran —Yes. Get on to it, will you. Mr TICKNER —I spoke at the Australian Centre for Local Government Studies. I compared the information provided to Federal members of parliament with that provided at the local government level. I spoke in some detail about my experience on the Sydney City Council. I say as an aside to the honourable member for Gippsland (Mr McGauran), who persistently interjects, that one of the reasons I do not interject in such a pathetic way in the House is that for six years I sat opposite people who behaved in a similar manner to that of the honourable member. To put it frankly, I have been there, done that, and I think it is time that people moved on. The matter I raise is the need for action at the Federal level to initiate greater information provisions to local government elected representatives. During the time of the Whitlam Government the Horton Committee of Inquiry into Public Libraries was initiated and it presented its report when the Fraser Government was in office. It concluded that local government is the only area of government that does not have specialised information resources readily at its disposal and designed to meet its needs. The Committee also concluded that few municipal libraries in Australia have yet assumed the role of information providers to elected members. For the first time in the history of this country the Federal Labor Government has created an office of local government that gives local government an effective voice in the national Parliament. That office has as its Minister the honourable member for Reid (Mr Uren). The Minister has initiated a national inquiry into local government finance. I urge him to consider further national initiatives to promote reform and innovation in local government. I believe that a co-operative approach with State departments of local government and State Ministers could bring about a substantial alteration to the existing practices so that at local government level elected members have at least some opportunity to obtain specialist information which is readily available and taken for granted in both the State and Federal parliaments. I hope that this proposal will be seriously considered by the Minister on his return to the Parliament. Mr McVEIGH(Groom)(10.35) —We live in an era in Australian society in which, quite fortunately, there has been a reawakening of the Australian conscience and there is a movement to preserve, for the benefit of future generations, some of our great historical buildings so that people in the future can learn from the hardship and the discipline of those who went before them. I am delighted that the Minister for Science (Mr Barry Jones) is at the table because he was one of the people who were in the forefront of preserving the great Australian films of the past to ensure that those who wanted to enjoy the theatre in the future would be able to sit back and realise that the Australian film industry was really the cradle of the world film industry. We were the people who showed the Americans and the Europeans how it could be done. I am delighted that the Minister was among the pioneers and pathfinders of that particular enterprise. I often wonder about protests when governments, whether they are in Queensland or anywhere else, seek to pull down an old building. I can understand the sensitivity of people who are upset by those particular happenings. I believe that it is appropriate that politicians from all sides of the political spectrum should have a bipartisan approach in preserving historical buildings, thus ensuring that the environment is such that those who follow us will be able to enjoy it. Tonight I want to pay tribute to a breed of horses called Clydesdales, because unlike buildings, films and great performances of the theatre, unfortunately they will not be widely remembered. I hope that my few simple words recorded in Hansard will leave imprinted indelibly on the minds of people who read Hansard the great contribution that the Clydesdale horse made to the development of Australian agriculture. All the young people who live in this wonderful era of the mechanical gadget fail to realise that way back in 1907, and until 1952, the greatest quantity of wheat produced in Australia was produced solely by the power of the horse. That is a fairly significant performance when we realise that the horses, mostly from the humble areas of Scotland, were brought out here to work, be it in the Mallee, where they pulled down the harsh scrub, or be it in the beautiful fertile land of the Darling Downs, where the farmers were able to adapt to harsh, inhospitable conditions by preserving for use on winter crops the abnormally heavy summer rainfall that fell many months previously. All of that was done by the Clydesdale horse. People are going to forget about it. I want to record tonight the wonderful contribution of people such as George Cox from Swan Hill, Alan Marriott from Melbourne, the blind breeders, the Phillips, from the electorate of my friend the honourable member for Gippsland (Mr McGauran), the Jorgensen family, the family of Dave Rees from Forbes in New South Wales, Tom Trewin of Benalla and my very great friend Pat Ehrich from Roadvale in Queensland. Pat Ehrich is a great Australian and, along with his wife and family, among my very best friends. They saw fit to preserve these magnificent animals renowned for their loyalty and strength. I am not belittling the Federal Parliament in saying that I want to record for history the wonderful contribution of the Clydesdale horse and those who seek to preserve it. To me, this is very important, because the Clydesdale horse, with its strength, its gentle docility and its friendship to man in tough times and in good times, has one important characteristic-that is, loyalty. Unfortunately, loyalty is absent from the parliaments today. People have forgotten what loyalty means. Madam SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr BRUMBY(Bendigo)(10.40) —I want to talk tonight about some of the developments that have occurred over recent weeks and, indeed, recent months, in the Opposition parties. We have seen amazing turmoil and division in the Opposition parties. We have seen, of course, that the once great Liberal Party of Australia has now been hijacked by the honourable member for Bennelong, the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard), who has given it an extremely conservative political agenda. He has, as the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) has noted in this House, managed to bring about a situation in which there is now more talent on the Liberal Party back bench than there is on the front bench. Of course, I refer particularly to my colleague the honourable member for Denison (Mr Hodgman), who is a classic example of one who, because he does not agree with the views of the current Leader of the Liberal Party, finds himself on the back bench. We have also seen the National Party of Australia hijacked. Two National parties have really been formed. About half of the National Party has been hijacked by Joh Bjelke-Petersen and the other half is still led by the right honourable member for New England (Mr Sinclair). So there are really three parties in opposition. There is more to this turmoil and division than simply the three parties that are now in opposition. We have seen from Press reports over recent weeks a number of amazing revelations in terms of developments and campaigns against sitting Liberal members in Victoria. There is the well noted campaign, of course, against the honourable member for Higgins (Mr Shipton). That campaign has been running for some months. It now seems likely that, because of pressure on the honourable member for Higgins, he will be forced to stand down and preselection will be reopened for that seat. Unfortunately, we could be seeing the last of the honourable member for Higgins in this place. In recent weeks an even hotter campaign has been waged by outside elements against the honourable member for Bruce (Mr Aldred). That is a much more recent development. The honourable member for Bruce let his views on this process be known publicly when he was interviewed on the 12.30 Report today. I happen to have with me a transcript of that interview. The honourable member for Bruce described the people who have been orchestrating a campaign against him as trying to destabilise the electorate of Bruce for the past 12 months. He stated: . . . that destabilisation, of course, is not confined to Bruce. It's been going on in several other electorates, Higgins, Corangamite and elsewhere . . . He described some of the people who have been trying to take over preselection in Bruce. He said: . . . their aim, I think, is undoubtedly to break the Liberal Party as it exists,- I ask honourable members to take note of this- as a mainstream conservative force, and replace it with something much further to the right of an extreme right neo-fascist nature. That was said by the honourable member for Bruce, a member of the Liberal Party, in talking about elements wishing to take over preselection for his seat. He would not name those individuals and he would not confirm whether John Elliott, the present Treasurer of the Liberal Party, was one of the people that he described as being neo-fascist right wing. He said that the interviewer should direct that question to Mr Elliott. Of course, the honourable member for Bruce is not the only one in the firing line. As I said, there is the honourable member for Higgins. I was amazed, in looking through some files today, to see that on 4 March a group of Victorian Liberal members of parliament-the honourable member for Bruce, the honourable member for Indi (Mr Ewen Cameron), the honourable member for Casey (Mr Halverson), the honourable member for Flinders (Mr Reith), the honourable member for Wannon (Mr Hawker) and the honourable member for Corangamite (Mr McArthur)-put out a combined Press release defending their friend the honourable member for Higgins. They stated: The Liberal Party has a system for endorsing candidates, and those who attempt to undermine Mr Shipton are effectively destabilising the Liberal Party. So they are all teaming together. I think the message tonight is that we have only seen the beginning of the end for those Liberals, because if one looks through the list one will see that the honourable member for Bruce will be defeated in preselection, that the honourable member for Indi will be defeated by the National Party of Australia, that the honourable member for Casey will lose his seat to the Australian Labor Party, that the honourable member for Flinders will lose his seat to the Labor Party, that the honourable member for Wannon is under threat by the National Party and, according to the honourable member for Bruce today, the honourable member for Corangamite will lose his preselection to the right wing neo-fascist forces. Mr DRUMMOND(Forrest)(10.45) —There are 14 or so honourable members of the Opposition who represent wine growers in their electorates. At the same time, I cannot think of any member of the Australian Labor Party Government with wine producing areas in his electorate. This explains the level of absolute ignorance and lack of concern in the way the Hawke socialist Government has dealt with this industry. The latest statistics I can find are reported in the February 1987 Australian Bureau of Statistics bulletin. It says: In the month of February 1987 Total wine sales was 19.5 million litres, an 8.8% decrease from sales in January 1987. By contrast, the January to February sales increased by 8.7% in 1986, and 18.4% in 1985. That, I believe, is the start of a significant decline in sales due mainly to crippling Federal Government imposed taxes. I am sure that Labor members are convinced that wine comes in bottles and that it is probably mined in Central Australia. That is about the level of understanding which their tax policies demonstrate. The taxes which this Government has imposed since 1984, when it promised it would not impose taxes to win that election, have amounted to 20 per cent on wholesale prices throughout the industry. One extraordinary anomaly is that sales tax must be paid on wine that is given away at wineries. The smaller wineries generally allow 10 per cent of their production for this form of promotion at the winery. So for everyone who walks in the door for a tasting, the winery forks out an average of 90c of which 18c goes to the Government. It is not a sales tax in this case; it is a gift tax. Rumours are also spreading that the Labor Government intends to place a further 10 per cent excise on wine in the May economic statement. Already consumers of good bottled wine are paying more tax on an alcohol basis than consumers are on beer. How could any government justify equivalent taxes for a product which is now about as simple to make as lemonade and for wine, a rural product that can only be picked once a year, is reliant on a good harvest, and is stored upwards of one year in oak casks and bottles? If the rumours are true, I am convinced that the Government will precipitate bankruptcies, further takeovers and a loss of regional tourism throughout these areas. There is nothing left in reserve. The reverberations will be felt throughout the local economies of regional Australia, and the Government will be responsible for taking out yet another industry. The wine industry needs relief from the existing tax impositions, and not new taxes. In Western Australia, particularly in the south-west and the Great Southern it is a new industry. Interest rates on capital development are killing small producers who are basically farmers who add value to their products. This is the direction we have to take in Australia. We have to add value to our primary products and start exporting the clean, uncontaminated food and fibre which only the Southern Hemisphere will soon be able to provide to the Northern Hemisphere. Our exports are being hampered by countries which impose various standards and tests on our wine; yet our Government seems unable to agree to similar tests being conducted on our wine imports. Are we a sovereign nation protecting our own industry and our own consumers, or are we not? Trade is life and death, especially with the enormous squandered borrowings that have been rung up by this Government over the last four years. We need import replacement and we need more exports. Most of the small, quality wineries in Western Australia-in fact, in Australia-see the promotion of exports as important to the future. If the product is first class it can stand on the retail shelves around the world and survive the competition. If we are serious about reversing our wine trade imbalance, we must do two things. Firstly, we must ensure that our wine is of the best quality, and for this purpose we should be encouraging wineries to expand their maturing stocks. That can be done by changing the current stock valuation method. Secondly, the Government must aid in the promotion of wine. One cannot take profits out of an industry that cannot afford even a 5 per cent return to its shareholders and expect that it can afford to do its own promotion, especially overseas. A lowering of taxes and/or assistance in promotion is now required. I would much prefer that taxes were reduced and the rest was left to the industry. The wine industry has problems. It has not as yet reached the visible level of economic decline that many of our grain farmers throughout Australia have, but it is an industry which is irate and which feels that it has been unfairly dealt with. It does not much matter really what party one belongs to or how responsible one's party has been-- Madam SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr HOLLIS(Throsby)(10.50) —Over recent weeks some Victorian milk has been sent to retail outlets in New South Wales, raising fears about the start of a milk war. I might say that at this stage only a small number of Victorian farmers have been involved. I hope that the majority of Victorian farmers will bring pressure to bear on their colleagues to see sense and return to the orderly marketing of milk. I have heard this evening that some agreement has been reached and that perhaps temporarily the threat of an all-out milk war has been averted. Almost two years ago many thought a settlement had been reached with the Kerin plan. There was a degree of resentment amongst dairy farmers in New South Wales but it was accepted that the national dairy plan would smooth the necessary Victorian rationalisation. That this is now being flouted by some adds insult to injury. I personally had some reservations about the plan but I saw it realistically as the best way to preserve the industry. Over the years the dairy farmers of Throsby, like all New South Wales dairy farmers, have borne the pain of market oriented rationalisation. The extent of the rationalisation undergone in New South Wales can be gauged by the drop in dairy farmer numbers of 2,000 in the past 10 years, to around 2,700 today, and a drop of more than half the number of factories. Indeed, my own local factory at Jamberoo had to close a couple of years ago. However, Victorian dairy farmer numbers have declined very little, with the total still about 10,000. Of course, what is at stake-and I think I have a bit of a hostile audience-is the lucrative New South Wales market milk sector. Having spent years gearing their industry to this market, the New South Wales farmers will not stand idly by and see this market destroyed. Who can blame them? The Victorians claim that they are more efficient than their New South Wales counterparts. We are told that they produce milk for some 13c a litre against the New South Wales cost of around 19c a litre. But this argument, as my farming colleagues must agree, ignores the fact that New South Wales farmers have to produce milk year round to meet a rigid quota, and this inevitably involves supplementary winter feeding to maintain production. New South Wales consumers are guaranteed a year round supply of quality milk. In Victoria most milk is produced in the summer months. We in New South Wales do not want a flood of cheap milk in spring and summer only to have it rationed in winter, with what milk is available being very expensive. There will be no winners, only losers, from a milk war. I warn my Victorian colleagues that farmers in New South Wales will not continue to pay a levy to Victoria, only to see their industry destroyed. The real sufferers will be the consumers who will be forced in the long term to pay more for an uncertain supply of milk. Also, many farmers will be forced out of the industry in both States. Unfortunately they will mostly be the younger farmers who often have large overdrafts. I do not go along with plans to give the Victorians a percentage of the Sydney milk market-not even one per cent-because, going on past experience, if we give them one per cent this year it will be 5 per cent next year and more the year after. I would also like to see the 60-day period permitted the Minister-the so-called comfort clause-much shorter. Finally, let me give my Victorian colleagues a warning. They may in the short term have a victory of sorts but it will be short lived. It will be no good coming to me and other New South Wales members and complaining in a year or so when New Zealand milk is imported and forcing them out of the industry. For all concerned and for the dairy industry I hope that the Victorians see sense and stop their provocative action before real damage is done to the dairy industry. Mr IAN CAMERON(Maranoa)(10.55) —I wish to place on record tonight the fact that the very important CSR Hinkler Bicentennial Air Race will be held in Queensland this time next year. It will be staged over nine days and will cover 2,600 nautical miles around the great State of Queensland. It will be open to piston driven, military, turbo-charged, rotary wing and historical aircraft. Even Joh will be flying a helicopter. Joh can still fly a helicopter so he is well ahead of honourable members opposite. Bob Hawke cannot fly a helicopter. He is even flat out walking. He cannot even ride a horse-what is wrong with him? Joh can fly a jet and fly a helicopter. If honourable members opposite do not vote for him, they are all mugs. However, I return to the subject. The air race begins in Brisbane and goes right up through the beautiful and wide expanses of the electorate of Maranoa. It goes through Warwick, Roma, Tooloombilla, Charleville, up through Barcaldine right up to Charters Towers, Ingham, across to beautiful Cairns, through to Normanton and on to Burketown. It then comes back through Mount Isa in the electorate of the honourable member for Kennedy (Mr Katter), travels back to Devoncourt and stops in at Noosa for a bit of a spell. It then travels to Cloncurry, Winton, Longreach, Blackall, Emerald and Bundaberg, which is Bert Hinkler's home town. The air race will spend a whole day at Bundaberg. En route those participating in the air race will attend rodeos and barbecues and will enjoy the typical hospitality of the electorates of Maranoa and Kennedy. I invite all members of the House, particularly those interested in flying-- Mr Peter Fisher —When is it on? Mr IAN CAMERON —It will be flagged off this time next year. It supports the history and efforts of Bert Hinkler, Kingsford Smith and others and it is worth remembering that Qantas Airways Ltd was founded at Longreach. It is intended that the Queensland Royal Flying Doctor Service museum will be established and opened at Cloncurry-a very worthy project. People are looking for donations as well as artefacts that may have been associated with the history of the pedal wireless. Mr Brumby —What about the Stockman's Hall of Fame? Mr IAN CAMERON —This is different from the Stockman's Hall of Fame, which is at Longreach. The race travels to Longreach and we hope that by that time the Stockman's Hall of Fame will be operating and that the pilots and others involved in this most important air race will be able to call in and look at the wonderful new venture that the people of Longreach have embarked upon. I assure you, Madam Speaker, that if you have time to travel up through the large electorate of Maranoa we will look forward to seeing you in the winter months. If you head north, Madam Speaker, you should call into Roma, go on up to Longreach and look at the Stockman's Hall of Fame. After you have done that, you can go on to Cloncurry and look at the new Royal Flying Doctor Service museum being established there. Senator Stan Collard, the President of this air race, has done an enormous amount of work in getting it under way. All sorts of prizes will be offered. Of course, the air race will also tie in with that wonderful project we have got going in Brisbane-Expo 88. I must say how ashamed I am of the Labor States that some of the members opposite represent. I am ashamed of them because they will not tell their Premiers and State members to become involved in Expo 88, put their money where their mouths are, show us some of the products available from other parts of Australia and have State pavilions there. The air race begins in Brisbane and flies right up through Queensland. The air race will end in Brisbane and tie in with the opening of that great project, Expo 88, a magnificent concept which will have numerous pavilions and other things right on the banks of the beautiful Brisbane River. Again, Madam Speaker, if you happen to be in Queensland at that time make sure that you go to Expo 88 because there is no doubt that you will enjoy it. I point out to the House that the air race is a wonderful opportunity for all members to come up to the electorates of Maranoa and Kennedy in Queensland and enjoy themselves for a few days and partake in the great CSR Hinkler Bicentennial Air Race. Madam SPEAKER —Order! it being 11 p.m., the debate is interrupted. The House stands adjourned until 10 a.m. tomorrow. House adjourned at 11 p.m. The following notice was given Mr Barry Jones to present a Bill for an Act to amend certain Acts providing for the payment of bounty or subsidy, and for related purposes. The following paper was deemed to have been presented on 5 May 1987: Acts Interpretation Act-Statement relating to failure to furnish periodic report within specified period-Barley Research Council and Wheat Research Council-Reports for 1985-86.