Thursday, 28 May 1987 Madam SPEAKER (Hon. Joan Child) took the chair at 10 a.m., and read prayers. Debate resumed from 29 April, on motion by Mr Barry Jones: That the Bill be now read a second time. Madam SPEAKER —I understand it is the wish of the House to debate the Customs Tariff Amendment Bill concurrently with the Excise Tariff Amendment Bill 1987 and the Customs (Valuation) Amendment Bill 1987. There being no objection, the Chair will allow that course to be followed. Mr MOORE(Ryan)(10.01) —The House is debating together the Customs Tariff Amendment Bill, the Excise Tariff Amendment Bill 1987 and the Customs (Valuation) Amendment Bill. The Opposition will be moving in relation to the Customs Tariff Amendment Bill a second reading amendment which will be circulated in my name. We will be opposing one clause in the Customs (Valuation) Amendment Bill 1987 in the Committee stage. The main provisions of the Customs Tariff Amendment Bill 1987 are to bring about changes associated with the Government's policy for the manufacture of motor vehicles and changes to rates of customs duty applicable to certain refined petroleum products; to implement the Government's decisions on the Industries Assistance Commission report on the chemicals and plastics industries; to bring about various changes associated with the Government's policy for the manufacture of motor vehicles and changes to rates of customs duty applicable to certain refined petroleum products; to implement the Government's decisions on the Industries Assistance Commission report on the chemicals and plastics industries; to bring about various changes associated with the Government's decision on the post-1988 assistance arrangements for the textile, clothing and footwear industries and amendments made in the context of the current TCF sectoral policy; to implement the Government's decision on the IAC's report on the power electronics industry; and to implement the Government's decision on the IAC's recommendation on citrus fruit. The Opposition notes the general move in the car industry plan and the gradual introduction by 1992 of a base quota of 57.5 per cent for all imported cars. On top of that, changes will be made to the excise in relation to petroleum products in line with changes to excise duty applicable to equivalent locally produced goods in this sector. The Government has also moved in the area of plastics. The IAC's major recommendations are that a maximum long term tariff rate of 15 per cent be implemented and phased in over a period of three to five years. The first reductions proposed by this Bill allow for general tariff rates above 25 per cent to fall to that level. Further, rates on certain basic chemicals are to be reduced to 20 per cent. These proposed reductions can become effective from 1 February 1987, as indicated in the Minister's Press release of 1986. An expectation on the phasing of general applicability in industry is provided in respect of fertiliser grade phosphetic acid. As from 1 November 1986 imports will enter duty free. This will enable Australian manufacturers to increase their output of high analysis phosphatic fertilisers in response to the changes in subsidy arrangements announced in the 1986-87 Budget and to maintain supply to farmers at competitive prices. The Bill also implements that part of the Government's decision relating to the concessional entry of a number of products. These amendments are affected by policy by-laws. The Opposition, at its December 1986 meeting, decided to support in principle the thrust of the Industries Assistance Commission recommendations. It had previously adopted the view that the Government's proposals on future assistance to the chemicals and plastics industries should provide a predictable and steady basis for necessary change and rationalisation within the industries. The proposal to phase tariff reductions over three to five years will greatly assist downstream industries, such as the plastics, glass, alumina, paper and chemical industries, which utilise large volumes of chemicals as an input product. The Opposition will not oppose this proposal. In relation to the clothing, footwear and textiles changes, the legislation provides for the general tariff rate of 25 per cent on knitted fabric laminated with expanded or foam rubber to be reduced to 2 per cent. The general tariff rate on knitted towelling is increased from 35 per cent to 60 per cent, which is a very substantial change, and the general tariff rate on interior textile blends is increased from 2 per cent to 25 per cent. The latter two changes are being effected to remove anomalies which permit the goods involved to enter at rates lower than those applying on substitute products. The proposed amendments in respect of the current textiles, clothing and footwear plan provide for the following: Variations to the developing country exclusions from preference-these amendments are made annually; the enactment of 1987 tender quota rates applying to TCF import allocations; the extension of the validity of the 1986 quota allocation; the phased duty arrangements in respect of a number of articles of the Australian New Zealand Closer Economic Relations Trade Amendment; and changes providing special provisions in relation to footwear from New Zealand and hand made footwear from developing countries to avoid large variations in rates which could occur because of currency fluctuations. The substantive legislation to effect the Government's decision on the TCF industries is yet to be introduced into the Parliament. In relation to the power industry, about which we propose to move second reading amendment, the Government has accepted the IAC's major recommendations for a uniform 20 per cent tariff for most power electronic goods. Some power electronic goods, presently tariffed at 30 per cent, are to receive a general tariff of 25 per cent for one year and then phase to the long term rate of 20 per cent. Schedule 11 also includes increases in the general tariff rate to the uniform rate of 20 per cent for a number of power electronic goods. These goods are presently free of duty or incur only small amounts of duty levied. The proposed rationale for these arrangements is to ensure uniformity or neutrality in the assessment of goods; that is, substitutable goods should receive similar tariff treatment. The most common duty rate currently applicable to the power electronics industry is 25 per cent. As the Government's decision on assistance to the power electronics industry and, indeed, the current amendments, involve a reduction of only 5 per cent in absolute tariff levels, it may be argued that the proposals do not reflect a strong enough commitment on the part of the Government to curtail protectionist measures. While the 20 per cent rate for the power electronic goods industry aligns its assistance arrangements with those of other electronics based activities, it should not be considered the long term protectionist rate for the industry as a whole. The Opposition will move an amendment to give emphasis to this aspect, and to draw attention to the fact that the proposals in this area do not underscore the importance of making the electronics industry more internationally competitive. Import preference for developing countries has been an area that has been constantly under review and which does cause concern from time to time. In accordance with the principles of the revised Australian system of tariff preferences for imports from developing countries which formed part of the Customs Tariff Amendment Act 1986, all new quotas are to have a margin of preference of 5 percentage points. This is a reduction of 2 1/2 percentage points from that which applied to quotas in existence at the time of implementation of the revised developing countries preference scheme. In many areas the preferences granted to developing countries have been of enormous benefit to those countries. In some cases their implementation has brought about a distortion in the way in which com- panies have acted in relation to the placement of certain manufacturing arrangements. There are also minor changes in relation to duty on goods of New Zealand origin. Some of these changes from time to time are drawn from the comments of industry. The second Bill is the Excise Tariff Amendment Bill 1987. The amendments involve alterations that have occurred since 1 October 1986 to the excise duty on certain refined petroleum products and naturally occurring liquefied petroleum gas. Once again this brings to the fore the Government's policy in relation to petroleum taxation. We all no doubt remember that when the current Government campaigned in the March 1983 election all Australians were promised a reduction in the petrol price of 3c per litre. So all the electors of Australia should well recall that promises made by the present Government should not be taken too seriously. We were promised that there would not be an early election, and we will be having one. In 1983 all Australians were promised a 3c reduction in petroleum prices. What has occurred? In March 1983 the excise on a litre of petrol was 6.155c per litre. That excise today is 19.84c per litre. Mr Braithwaite —Almost double. Mr MOORE —The honourable member for Dawson knows the implications for the farming community in his area and all of those who are so dependent on it. Every member of the House would be well aware that a 3c reduction, when an increase of 13.5c per litre has been promised, is some turnaround. If we hang 13.5c over the average price of 54c a litre, we get some idea of the impact that has occurred. That has occurred since this Government was elected. It promised a 3c a litre reduction. Instead of that, there has been a 13.5c increase in that same period. What can we expect in the future from a Government that increases levies in that manner? In addition, it should be borne in mind that while the excise has been increased from 6.1c to 19.8c a litre, in the same period the price of oil has gone down around the world. There has been a great reduction across the board from $30 and $40 a barrel down to last night's price of $19 a barrel. Yet the Australian user of petroleum has been hit by this increase in excise charges which provides revenue to the Government. That should not be forgotten. People were promised a 3c a litre reduction. What did they get? They got a 13.5c a litre increase in government charges in that area. That is some record of promises. Petrol is used by all Australians every day in both their commercial and recreational activities. The Government ought to hang its head in shame in relation to its attitude to the general public in this area. I turn to the budgetary implications. The revenue raised from the crude oil and LPG levy has fallen by 67 per cent while the adjustment to excise has been seen to raise revenue from that source by 95 per cent. As honourable members can see, as the price of petrol has gone down the profit margin that flows to the Government from that sector has fallen by 67 per cent. The excise charged, reflecting the increase from 6c to 19c, has in fact gone up by just short of 96 per cent-95.9 per cent. It must be worrying to the Government that the excise received from the Bass Strait crude will start to decline, and that will occur from about 1990 onwards. The effects of the decrease in crude oil revenue from the Bass Strait will inevitably flow on and affect the whole government sector. The Government cannot continue to sock the petroleum users of Australia with increased excise to make up for the fall in production from that area and therefore in the levy that comes from that. I do not think there is one person in the House who would not be concerned at the way things have gone. On top of that, honourable members should look at petroleum pricing. The price of petrol in Australia has changed markedly. The Prices Surveillance Authority gave maximum endorsement to the industry price, in other words the wholesale price, based on all capital cities, for motor spirit of 97 octane rating of 44.5c in Sydney on 1 March 1987 and 49c on 16 May 1987. In fact the retail price throughout Australia in that period went from 43c to 54c and, in some cases, such as Hobart, from 48c to 64c per litre. Tasmania is very dependent on petroleum as it is a long way from the mainland. These outlying areas are therefore required to use high levels of petroleum. Darwin is another case in point. The price there was 44c in March 1983 and it rose to 55c in December 1986. In the same period crude oil prices have fallen and the Government catch up has been in the form of excise, which has gone up by just short of 96 per cent. That is quite a record to defend. The Government promised a 3c reduction but, through its actions, and not through the price of oil, it has forced a significant increase in the price of petrol on to all Australian users. Finally, the third Bill, the Customs (Valuation) Amendment Bill gives effect to some areas in which the Government has felt that people have been importing goods and not paying the appropriate rates of duty. Over the last few years the Australian Customs Service has become increasingly aware of evidence of importers undervaluing imported goods in order to reduce the duty payable. It is worth recalling that in yesterday's debate I instanced the new measures to be introduced on 1 July relating to passengers returning from overseas. When they go through the barrier they will be required to certify their $400 worth of duty free goods. I said at that point that any man's suit would go over that figure and certainly the value of any other duty free items would rapidly add up. As I have said, the reason for the introduction of this Bill is that the Government has become aware of evidence that importers undervalue imported goods in order to reduce the duty payable. That is exactly the same argument that I used yesterday against the proposal that a Customs Officer at the barrier from 1 July will be required to ask 65,000 returning Australian tourists to vouch for the value all their duty free items. Does the Government really genuinely believe that all invoices obtained overseas will be genuine? These invoices could be from the Middle East countries, from the United State of America, from South America, or from African countries. I will bet that even the Minister for Science (Mr Barry Jones) would be able to tell an account which was slightly at variance with reality. Mr Barry Jones —Even the Minister Assisting the Treasurer on Prices. Mr MOORE —Yes, in that capacity alone, he would know an account which was at some variance with the real value. Those accounts will flock in to the poor Customs officers at the Sydney (Kingsford-Smith) Airport in particular. They will be asked at 7 a.m. to make returning passengers produce vouchers, many of which will be totally false. They will have to enter into discussions at that hour of the day about the genuineness of the vouchers, while the large queues of people wait. I feel sorry for Mr Hayes. Mr Murphy, the New South Wales Collector of Customs, will have a tremendous time answering the complaints that will flow to the Minister, who will no doubt pass them on to the Australian Customs Officer, which will have to have more people not only at the barriers inspecting bills to see whether they exceed $400, but also answering letters of complaint. As $200 now has to be put up each time a complaint is made, a great old time will be had. People coming through the barrier will tell falsehoods about the $400, they will make complaints to the Minister if duty is charged, the Minister will have to write to them, and the people will have to pay $200 if they want to apply for a refund of the duty. What a fiasco. We will have a great paper chase at the Sydney Airport. I ask the Minister to use a little common sense in this area. Mr Barry Jones —There are opportunities for Brisbane, too, in this. Mr MOORE —Not so many international flights land there, but common sense abounds in Queensland. To claim that it will be possible to turn up evidence of importers undervaluing imported goods and at the same time to place so much reliance on officers at the barrier to pick up people who front up with falsified documents for imports over $400 is to stretch the bounds of belief more than I care to this morning. Regrettably, the findings of the review that was undertaken in association with the Attorney-General's Department have not been made available to the public. The review brought to light a number of apparent loopholes and avoidance practices being exploited by importers. That would have required, I would have thought, the Attorney-General's Department taking some action in that regard. If the Attorney-General's Department had always been efficient and quick, many of the problems that afflicted the previous Government would not have occurred. I refer to the bottom of the harbour schemes. In my view the Attorney-General's Department was the principal culprit. Another proposed change in this legislation involves the granting of new powers to the Comptroller-General in his capacity to review Customs determinations or decisions. The Opposition has been critical of the powers already vested in the Commission of Taxation, and hence extending the powers to another administrative bureaucrat is not desirable. This change involved an exponential increase in the powers conferred on the Comptroller-General when it is more than likely that the current provisions are not being utilised in the most effective manner. Further, the unlimited rule in respect of the Commissioner of Taxation is subject to a number of conditions. While this particular amendment does not apply to the circumstances where duty is short-paid through error, it does, however, result in an intolerable increase in the powers available to the Comptroller-General in obtaining a retrospective charge on customs assessments. The recommendation which allows for an extension of the ability to go back beyond one year is of some concern in relation to these matters. That ability to go back, tied with what the honourable member for Dawson (Mr Braithwaite) pointed out yesterday was its retrospective nature, is of concern to the Opposition, and is something which I am sure the honourable member for Dawson will expand on. It certainly was my experience that the resources of the Customs Service were heavily taxed to maintain surveillance and service at the required commercial levels. But the extension of discretionary powers to the Comptroller-General is something that we would all be hesitant about and it is something that the Opposition has always been reluctant to do. I can say from personal experience that heads of departments say `Now, Minister, just sign here for a delegation of power' or, as I have heard Commissioners for Taxation, say: `Really, you should not worry about that particular aspect; if you give me the discretionary power, I will look after it for you'. I think those sorts of activities are regrettable and, in the main, are done so that Ministers can shirk their administrative responsibility, at the same time allowing discretion to build up in the hands of Taxation Commissioners or other Department heads such as the Comptroller-General, who has enormous powers under the Customs Act-quite unprecedented powers. To me that is alarming and disconcerting and I do not personally approve of it. This is the Opposition's position: A second reading amendment in relation to the Customs Tariff Amendment Bill and an objection to a clause in the Customs (Valuation) Amendment Bill 1987. I move: That all words after `That' be omitted with a view to substituting the following words: `Whilst not opposing the Bill the House is of the opinion that the uniform general tariff rate of duty on power electronic goods under reference should be further reduced in the medium to long term'. Mr Braithwaite —I second the amendment and reserve my right to speak. Mr RONALD EDWARDS(Stirling)(10.27) —The honourable member for Ryan (Mr Moore) indicated that we are dealing with the Customs Tariff Amendment Bill, the Excise Tariff Amendment Bill and the Customs (Valuation) Amendment Bill in a cognate fashion. I will make a series of comments about the Bills and then react to the comments of the honourable member for Ryan. Firstly, I will deal with the Customs (Valuation) Amendment Bill. The honourable member for Ryan pointed out that the Government has had drawn to its attention some avoidance and minimisation practices in the Customs area. This Bill is clearly designed to deal with those practices. The honourable member for Ryan pointed out that the Attorney-General (Mr Lionel Bowen) has an area in which some movement is necessary. One observation I would make about that is that not all practices are made public because it is very important to crack down on those practices without necessarily drawing attention to them in advance so that they can be discontinued. So the Government's clear intention is to crack down on those avoidance practices in the same way that we have in relation to taxation matters. I remind the community listening to this debate that this Government has had a very clear commitment in dealing with taxation avoidance and minimisation practices. We also have a clear commitment to dealing with avoidance and minimisation practices in the Customs tariff area. In passing, I point out that the Government is of the view that the Australia Card is important in dealing with taxation minimisation and avoidance practices and welfare abuse-but that is a matter for separate debate, particularly during the election campaign which is now on. I would ask the Australian public to think carefully when making their choice on 11 July and point out that this Government has a very firm commitment to dealing with taxation minimisation and avoidance practices and welfare abuse. The Australia Card is part of that, and we have a very clear policy in this area. The Opposition parties, for their part, are being somewhat obstructive. However, in making some further comments on the Customs (Valuation) Amendment Bill, I point out that some practices, which have been identified, need to be dealt with. I will give some examples of known avoidance practices. There is a practice known as transaction splitting whereby an importer pays part of the purchase price to an associated company of a vendor, ostensibly for services rendered in relation to goods. Clause 4 of the Bill extensively redrafts key definitions of the Act designed to eliminate that practice. Very clearly, we are trying in this Bill to stop the practice of transaction splitting whereby the amount of valuation is reduced by the commercial arrangement that is entered into. Secondly, it has been discovered that, in cases where a price threshold affects the duty rate, some importers are combining transactions for two different types of goods; in other words, they stay below the price threshold by price averaging the two. Some importers are succeeding in deliberately understating the true value of one of the goods, thereby minimising or avoiding duty. Clause 5 of the Bill is designed to deal with that practice. So there are two examples that we are trying to deal with. The first is to have a financial arrangement that enables people to avoid the full impact of duty and the other is to have a pricing arrangement, by way of price averaging, to stay below a price threshold in relation to one of the items that might otherwise be subjected to duty. To give further example, the examination that has been conducted has revealed that the deduction normally allowed for commission paid to an importer's buying agent is being manipulated by the misrepresentation of an alleged agency relationship, whereas the true picture is that the middle man is the agent of the vendor or, in some cases, the vendor himself. Clause 6 (c), of the Bill will close that loophole by allowing only commissions paid to genuine buying agents acting solely for the purchaser to be deducted from the customs value. So it will not be possible to create an artificial agency relationship where that artificial agency is really the middle man. The Bill, in clause 6 (c), clearly identifies that relationship. Incidentally, the deduction of buying commission from the Customs value of the goods is required by the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade valuation code. I will say something more about that in a moment. In considering the Customs (Valuation) Amendment Bill we are dealing with aspects of avoidance and minimisation. We on this side of the house view that as being very important not only from the point of view of its impact on the revenue, which is clearly a matter of concern-the May statement indicated our concern about fiscal responsibility-but also from the point of view of the unfairness of those practices in relation to Australian manufacturers and producers. The Australian community would be very aware that since the Hawke Labor Government has been in office there has been a commitment to do something about improving the competitive position of the Australian manufacture in terms of the freeing up of the Australian dollar. The Australian manufacturer is now more competitive in relation to importers. Wherever I go in my electorate and other electorates I see the energy and commitment that has been released by this change in the valuation of the Australian dollar. We now have an Australian manufacturing sector and a tertiary sector that are far more competitive and are delivering goods, services and employment to the Australian community. My colleague the honourable member for Chifley (Mr Price), who is in the chamber, continually presses for the competitiveness of the Australian manufacturing industry. He is aware of the value that that contributes to the Australian community, certainly in the western suburbs of Sydney, which is a very important base for Australian industry. I draw to the attention of those listening to this debate and who are to make a judgment about how they might act on 11 July the fact that this Government has done something about rejuvenating Australian industry. We are very pleased about our performance; it is everywhere to be seen. Let me make an observation about the employment and profit side of our competitiveness. Let us look at the gross operating surplus of trading enterprise companies and take as a dateline 1981-82 when the gross operating surplus increased by 1.8 per cent. In 1982-83 it increased by 4.5 per cent. Then there was the change of government in 1983-84 and the gross operating surplus of trading enterprises increased by 29.3 per cent; so whilst gross operating surplus in the slump of 1981-82 grew by only 1.8 per cent, with the new Hawke Government in office, the gross operating surplus increased dramatically. By 1983-84, with the full impact of new policies, the gross operating surplus increased by nearly 30 per cent-in fact, by 29.3 per cent. By 1984-85, that gross operating surplus grew at the rate of 14 per cent and in 1985-86 it grew at the rate of 13.9 per cent. In other words, as I say to my colleague the honourable member for Chifley, that is well in excess of the inflation rate. From 1983-84 to 1985-86 there was a significant increase in company profitability, which is a clear indication that the policies are working not only in terms of the domestic economy because we have a prices and incomes accord which delivers competitiveness on the ground, but also they are working in terms of the external economy. Our international competitiveness is growing; Australia's exporters are moving; this economy is winning; and the Australian people are winning. One of the gratifying aspects of moving around electorates like those of Stirling and Chifley is that people are aware that things are on the move, that the economy is growing and that Australian business is getting on with business. Honourable members should recognise that, in relation to these Bills, we are talking about things that are very important to the Australian community. Australian industry is winning as are the Australian people. We are very pleased about that. Further on this question of customs valuation, the honourable member for Ryan made some points about the new $400 limitation on duty free imports. I think his comments require some discussion because, as always, the honourable member for Ryan makes sensible comments in this House and I commend him for that. I recognise that this House has an important role to play in creating a national debate. In relation to the question of duty free goods, there is to be a $400 limit. I say to the Australian community who may be listening and to the many people, for example, in the electorate of Stirling who may travel overseas, that that $400 limit does not include clothing. So clothing items that may be purchased whilst overseas are not included in that $400 limit. I know that the honourable member for Franklin (Mr Goodluck) is experienced in these matters, but I have been concerned for some time about this question of duty free imports and that we should press ahead with the inwards duty free question. Very sensibly, this Government has now allowed for people to buy duty free goods when they return to Australia and those goods are alcohol, tobacco and perfume products. However, it is my view that we did not go far enough. Really, we should have covered things like videos and cameras, because very often they are the items that are of concern to people; they are items that are very much related to the issue of product reliability. The honourable member for Ryan made a point which I think is sensible in this context. He talked about the difficulty of valuing those goods on invoices received when the goods have been bought overseas. The great attraction of buying goods in Australia, particularly when people return, is that there is much more reliability in relation to the suppliers of those goods. Further, there is after-sales service. When we made those decisions in relation to inwards duty free goods, I was concerned that we covered only alcohol, tobacco and perfume products. It seemed to be a nonsense that the duty free arrangements encouraged Australian people to buy goods overseas. Mr Goodluck —Buy them in Australia. Mr RONALD EDWARDS —Exactly, buy them in Australia, as the honourable member for Franklin said. That has been a policy commitment of the Government, and I think this view is shared by honourable members opposite. That is why we have the `true blue' campaign. We are very keen for people to buy goods in Australia, to keep the money here and to keep the jobs here, because we are keen to see Australia on the move. Why I argue that we need to extend the limit is that I think very clearly that we should cover those other items, such as videos and cameras, that have been left out. People often say to me that that is of concern to them. The other issue that I want to raise, and which it is important to raise in this context, is that we have extended a monopoly franchise arrangement to those duty free suppliers at airport franchises. I favour an extension of that franchise to a number of duty free operators in cities. I do not believe that we should authorise a franchiser only in a monopoly location. Unfortunately, from the research that I have done into the competitive price of goods bought at duty free concession on returning to Australia, it is not really very low; the gains for the Australian traveller for which we would hope are not being realised. The observation is made that we have reduced the ceiling to only $400 on the amount of goods that can be brought in. That puts us on a par with other countries. But the important thing to recognise is that that $400 limit applies to each person returning to Australia so, if a family group of five people were involved, the total value of goods able to be brought in would be $2,000. We also have to recognise that if duty free purchases were too easily accessible import substitution would be limited. In other words, the capacity of Australian manufacturers to sell would be limited. The original concept of duty free goods was to provide a service to people travelling overseas. We have tried to extend that service by allowing people to buy goods when they return to this country. It seems to me that a couple of steps are needed: firstly, to extend the number of duty free items that can be purchased on return to this country; secondly to extend the number of franchisers; and, thirdly, if none of those proves to reach the goal of improving the amount of goods that we are selling in this country, to look at having duty free bond stores so that one could buy the goods, leave them in bond and pick them up on return. Very clearly, this Government is committed to being competitive and to ensuring that we encourage Australian industry. The record shows that. I cited earlier the figures on gross operating surplus. We have to ensure that these provisions support this Government's commitment to industry. My colleague the honourable member for Perth (Dr Charlesworth) is very effective in his electorate which has a significant number of duty free and commercial operations. The honourable member for Perth has displayed considerable interest in this. Many members of this Government are concerned to ensure that we make Australian industry competitive and that we provide optimum conditions to create jobs and to have industry perform effectively. I say to those listening to this debate that many members of the Hawke Labor Government have done their part to ensure that the interests of Australian industry are properly represented and looked after in debates in this chamber. They have also ensured that the employees and the owners of those enterprises are protected. Clearly, the outcome as shown by the figures is quite significant and we are proud of that. There are a couple of other issues that I feel need to be addressed and I will do this in my closing remarks. In looking at the whole question of the harmonisation of the customs tariff provisions, we should commend very strongly the officers of the Department of Industry, Technology and Commerce who have undertaken what amounts to a mammoth exercise. This harmonisation ensures that there is minimal confusion to business on the question of tariffs on imports. We must ensure as much as possible that Australia meets its international obligations. I want to make one or two observations in that context. Much has been said in recent times about the competitiveness of Australian industry and the importance of our being able to export. We are doing a great deal to make the Australian economy more competitive. Our international obligation is a two way exercise. I say to those who reflect upon recent activity in the United States of America, in cutting into our primary produce markets, that this is of considerable concern on our side of the House because Australian producers are not subsidised. They are very competitive and they are very effective. I think many members on both sides of the House, but especially on the Government side, are concerned about the activities of the United States of America in weakening our export market. Recently a multi-party delegation went to the United States. I commend it for its efforts in looking after the interests of Australian farmers. I think that is very important. We are very concerned about that. The other observation that has to be made is that all the subsidy activities in the United States from our point of view have not succeeded in doing anything to increase its market share, but have succeeded only in bringing down market prices. The long term issue that we have to face not only as one country but in relation to other countries such as Canada, Argentina, New Zealand and, hopefully, the United States-and, may I say, also the European Economic Community, because it has borders that stretch beyond its own self-interest-is the issue of production controls which will do something about giving some price stability for our manufacturers in primary products. Very clearly, we recognise our obligation. I think the Parliament recognises its obligation. I say to those who are involved in primary products that, in relation to what they are facing down the track, we will be doing everything we can to ensure their success in their market performance. In closing, I think it is important to emphasise that here we have a very important reform in relation to harmonisation of tariffs. People cannot see it because of the size of the Bill we are dealing with. It is a very substantial Bill; it covers a very wide range of products; and it is a very important exercise. I commend the officers of the Department for the effort they have put in. They are here listening to this debate today. It will clearly be of long term significance to the Australian industry in its dealings with Customs tariff matters that we will now have a much more harmonious arrangement. In respect of tariffs, I believe the Hawke Labor Government has done a great deal towards ensuring the competitiveness of Australian industry. We have encouraged people to buy Australian-made goods and services. The record is on the books. When people look at these matters in the next few weeks during the election campaign I believe that they will see we have got a lot to be proud of in relation to Australia's performance. Mr BRAITHWAITE(Dawson)(10.47) —I cannot let the opportunity pass without replying to some of the comments that have just been made by the previous speaker, the honourable member for Stirling (Mr Ronald Edwards). He spoke about what this Government had done to try to ensure the success of market performance for our primary industries and primary producers. I remind those listeners who might have been taken in by such talk of what this Labor Government has done for the primary producers and the cost of production. In the Customs Tariff Amendment Bill, the Excise Tariff Amendment Bill and the Customs (Valuation) Amendment Bill we are addressing the price of fuel. A promise in March 1983 to reduce the price of fuel by 3c a litre has eventuated in a 13c a litre increase. That is just one aspect. I could also mention the wage system in Australia and the legislation that was introduced into the House and withdrawn for very good reasons; that is, to take it out of the way for an election. I tell the Minister for Science (Mr Barry Jones), who is at the table, that it will not be taken away; it will be an election issue. It involved a system being cemented into place to the detriment of every primary producer, small business and big business in Australia. I subtly remind the honourable member for Stirling that there are such things as fringe benefits tax and capital gains tax, all of which add substantially to the cost of production for those primary producers in respect of whom this Government affects a type of concern for the market conditions operating throughout the world. The honourable member talked of the effects of the tariff, subsidies and bounties in other countries. I will address that matter later on. The three Bills being debated today are the Customs Tariff Amendment Bill 1987, the Excise Tariff Amendment Bill 1987 and the Customs (Valuation) Amendment Bill 1987. I was more than happy to add my name as a seconder to the amendment moved by the honourable member for Ryan (Mr Moore). The National Party of Australia is concerned about particular aspects of Government policy with respect to the first two Bills I mentioned and will use this debate to express those concerns. The Customs Tariff Bill contains 12 schedules enacting a range of changes to the Customs Tariff Act 1982 covering nearly all aspects of government trade, sectoral and industry policy. A large part of this Bill adjusts tariff rates on imported petroleum products to match variations in the excise rates applicable to equivalent local products as a result of the import parity prices. It also implements a large part of the recommendations of the Industries Assistance Commission on the chemical and plastics industries, as well other IAC recommendations. Other amendments relate to the closer economic relations agreement, the textiles, clothing and footwear industries and the car plan. The changes in excise and customs duties in certain refined petroleum products are designed to offset exactly the changes in revenue from crude oil excise and royalty. I do not wish at this stage to deal with the legislation in relation to tariff rates on oil imports but, as I have pointed out previously, there is an inadequacy in the Government's revenue policies with respect to the Australian oil industry as expressed in the Excise Tariff Amendment Bill. I refer now to the car plan. Among a number of changes associated with the Government's sectoral policy for the car industry, the base quota validity period for all new motor vehicles is extended to 18 months, allowing a three-months leeway before and after the calendar year. A general tariff rate of 60.5 per cent, 3 per cent above the base quota rate, is introduced for vehicles imported in each of four periods of 18 months under the multiple period tender scheme. The developing countries margin for new quota allocations is brought into line with Australia's new system of tariff preferences, those countries being issued with a margin of 5 per cent instead of 7.5 per cent. The rates of duty earlier phased down on citrus fruit juices will be reintroduced until 9 December 1987 as a result of the IAC interim report on citrus fruit, after which the rates will again phase down. The National Party welcomes this IAC report on citrus industry support. This assistance for the industry should increase revenue by $235,000 in 1987. My colleague the honourable member for Hinkler (Mr Conquest) will debate this aspect when he speaks later. I refer now to the closer economic relations with New Zealand and the forum island preferences. Under the provisions of CER, duty free entry is granted to child safety and booster seats and ball-point pens of New Zealand origin. It is interesting to note, when referring to the theme of buying `true blue' Australian products, that about six months ago one of these ball-point pens was placed in my hand. I understand that it was a Bic pen, which was commonly available in Australia. However, the Department of Trade and Resources, which is promoting this program, made available on its counter New Zealand Bic pens with which people could write an order for true blue Australian products. I wonder what improvements this aspect of the legislation will make, given that the Department of Trade and Resources can get all the ball-point pens of New Zealand origin that it requires. That was a rather interesting point. The amendments provide for phased reduction to duty free on certain rubber goods of New Zealand origin following mutual determination under CER. Not only has the National Party always supported CER but it was Doug Anthony, its great supporter, when Minister for Trade, who implemented that program. The duty reductions under CER will result in a modest decrease in revenue. Other amendments concerning passionfruit products complete the implementation of the new forum island countries preference scheme, allowing for duty free entry of passionfruit pulp under the terms of the arrangement. Although there is no immediate risk to Australia's passionfruit industry from imports, the National Party is most concerned that the Government closely monitor the duty free entry of passionfruit pulp under the forum island countries preference scheme to identify any severe effects on the local industry. If the Minister can give those assurances, we will be more than happy. I refer now to clothing and footwear. A series of amendments made in the context of current textiles, clothing and footwear sectoral policy cover variations in developing country exclusions, tender quota dates of duty, extension of the 1986 quota allocations, phased duty reductions under CER and changes to avoid large variations in duty rates on footwear from New Zealand and developing countries as a result of currency fluctuations. In the context of the Government's decision on the textiles, clothing and footwear industries, the tariff rate on knitted towelling and towels increases from 35 per cent to 60 per cent and the tariff rate for interior textile blinds increases from 2 per cent to 25 per cent. These changes are designed to remove anomalies that permit these goods to enter at rates lower than those that apply to substitute products. Mr Hand —I am interested in what you are saying. Mr BRAITHWAITE —This is certainly rivetting stuff, and it is good to know that the honourable member from the left wing is listening. It is good stuff. It is encouraging the attendance of members in the chamber, which the Minister at the table has long sought, to hear these, as I say, rivetting explanations. Mr Hand —What is wrong with the TCF package? What is wrong with it? Tell us. Mr BRAITHWAITE —I am just trying to assist the Minister at the table. I am not saying what is wrong with it; I am saying what the Bill does. It might be of interest to the honourable member for him to listen for a while instead of interjecting. Another amendment reduces the general tariff rate on knitted fabrics laminated with plastic from 25 per cent to 2 per cent. It should be placed on record that the National Party of Australia broadly welcomes the reduction of assistance with respect to textiles, clothing and footwear. The decisions of relation to those industries should result in a net increase of approximately $2.1m in a full year. I now deal with chemicals and plastics. The main part of the Government's decision on the IAC report on the chemicals and plastics industries is also implemented and provides the first step in the phasing in of the long term rates. Most tariff rates above 25 per cent fall to 20 per cent, while rates on some basic chemicals are reduced in the first phase to 20 per cent. Other provisions will permit the duty free entry of caustic soda and certain films and plates for specific purposes. Other changes give effect to the Government's decision on the IAC report into the chemicals and plastics industries, allowing for the duty free entry of fertiliser grade phosphoric acid, and for the import of high density polyethylene resin for use in the extrusion of film for bag production, at a reduced tariff rate of 20 per cent to December 1987, after which time the applicable rate will become 20 per cent. It has been suggested that the eventual tariff reduction in this area to 10 per cent is too severe, particularly when one takes into account the 5 per cent developing country tariff preference. Chemical companies can set up quickly in developing countries and could thus qualify for 5 per cent tariff entry, making Australian producers vulnerable. The National Party is also concerned to see that Australian industries will be adequately protected from dumping in forthcoming anti-dumping legislation. We would again appreciate assurances from the Government that these concerns will be taken up, the decisions to reduce protection to the chemicals and plastics industries are likely to diminish Customs duties by $10m in the next financial year. I would like to mention the effect of this whole tariff situation as far as our industries are concerned, particularly when tariffs are used as a protective measure. Some people would feel that they provide a crutch for industries in Australia which prevents them from modernising, expanding and adopting technology. I refer to an article in the Australian of 12 May. It was reported that ICI Australia Ltd was prepared to pay $1m to end at least two decades of bad work practices at its Botany complex. I mention this because the million dollar payment was connected with work practices that had developed under a protection scheme offered because of high tariffs which protected the company from the influences of the market. The million dollars was a one-off payment to about 800 workers. The company believes it will save nearly $2m a year in on-going costs which were caused by what the company describes as overtime rorts. For instance, workers will no longer be able to claim for overtime unless they actually work it. The example was given that employees who worked as little as 20 minutes overtime were entitled to be paid for 4 hours. The company came to this arrangement in order to save $900,000 lost because of bad practices. The company was said to be pleased to get rid of on-going, costly and dishonest practices. I think that is a fair criticism of tariffs, duties and everything else of that nature which protect Australian industries from becoming efficient. I think that that says it all. It is interesting that ICI, which will participate in this new arrangement, has already come to the conclusion that it must front up to these work practices which were brought about by the implementation of some of these duties. I refer to electronic goods. Following the IAC report on the power electronics industry a 20 per cent tariff is imposed on most power electronic goods under reference. Of course, there is a lot in this Bill in connection with this area. I do not believe we should spend too much time debating it now because the IAC report covers it. I want to deal particularly with the Excise Tariff Amendment Bill, which amends the Excise Tariff Act 1921 to enact alterations that have occurred since October 1981 to the excise tariff on certain refined petroleum products and naturally occurring liquefied petroleum gas. The alterations to the excise on petroleum products have been made as a consequence of the policy since 1 March 1986 of fully offsetting changes in revenue from crude oil excise and royalty by corresponding across the board changes in excise duty on petroleum products. LPG excise is reduced progressively from $50.77c per kilolitre at 1 October 1986 to $5.02c per kilolitre on 1 May 1987. A reduction is effected in the top marginal rate of the excise duty on old oil from 87 per cent to 80 per cent of the Bass Strait import parity price to offset the substantial decline in world crude oil prices that occurred around August 1986. The decreases in petroleum product excise rates effective from 16 October, 1986, 17 January, 1987 and 14 February, 1987 are expected to result in decreases in revenue of about $85m, $5m and $176m respectively. The increase in excise rates effective from 14 March, 1987 is expected to result in a revenue increase of $30m in 1986-87. These changes are expected to offset the changes in revenue from crude oil excise and royalty. Alterations in LPG excise are expected to reduce revenue by about $50m in 1986-87. The July 1986 reduction in the top marginal rate of excise on old oil from 87 per cent to 80 per cent is expected to reduce revenues by about $67m in 1986-87. But this will be outweighed by a revenue gain of about $300m from increased Bass Strait crude production since that time. In commenting on government policy in this area I can do no better than refer to a statement made recently by the Executive Director of the Australian Petroleum Exploration Association, Mr Keith Orchison. He pointed out that the petroleum industry is the most heavily taxed group in Australia, contributing 12 per cent of the Government's revenue in the last decade. In the last 10 years the petroleum industry has paid more than $50 billion in taxes to Federal and State governments. Of this, petroleum producers paid $34 billion, refiners and markets the remaining $16 billion. The Federal Government received 96 per cent of this $50 billion. That is not a bad take off. This has been picked up in the form of excise on crude oil and LPG production, royalties on offshore production and company tax. Mr Orchison said that the imposition of discriminatory taxes, applying only to the petroleum industry, has resulted in producers paying a top marginal tax rate of 91 per cent on old oil production. Even on new oil production the top marginal rate of taxation under either the excise or resource rent tax systems is close to 70 per cent. Again I can do no better than echo Mr Orchison's comments that the nation would be best served by removing secondary taxation, enabling it to achieve the optimum exploration level need for Australia's oil self-sufficiency. The other proposal in the Excise Tariff Amendment Bill is a mechanism to collect a duty differential on certain manufactured goods, which incorporate an imported product upon which customs duties have not been paid. The collection of duty differentials on certain manufactured goods is estimated to yield $200,000 in a full year. I refer again to the fuel prices. The famous promise of the Labor Government in relation to fuel prices was that a 3c a litre reduction would occur after the March 1983 election. In this Bill what we have seen, far from a 3c decrease, is a 13c a litre increase. This is why the cost of fuel is channelling so much into the coffers of the Federal Government. This Government does not have a great record on promises. One was made as little as two months ago to the effect that there will not be an early election, discounting of course an election on 11 July in favour of one at the end of the year and possibly as late as March next year. There is a huge list of broken promises, starting with fuel pricing and ending with the early election which the Government has now announced. I refer to the $4 billion expenditure cuts announced in the May mini-budget and its basic philosophy of selling off Australian assets in order to meet the expenditure commitments which this Government has built up over time. Finally, I raise the problem of retail fuel prices. It is commonly known that around Australia at the moment there are two wholesale levels-a wholesale level which is available at a lesser price to those freeholding sites, or what we might call the jobbers, and a wholesale level which is available to company leasehold outlets. In my own city of Mackay in the last six months there has been a severe discount war. The freeholders have been able to hold a certain price, because of the reduced wholesale prices available to them through the various schemes offered, whereas the leaseholders have had to bear the full wholesale price, which is sometimes discounted, and try to make a profit. What is happening in Mackay is happening all over Australia. Leaseholders are being forced to the wall by trying to retail fuel at a 2c or 3c a litre margin when the cost to their establishment is often 4c to 5c a litre. I believe that there must be something in the prices surveillance area at which the Minister could look in order to solve the problem. The National Party does not oppose these Bills. We use the debate on them to point out once again the operations of this discredited Government in making promises which it does not fulfil and which, quite often, as in the case of fuel, it reverses. Mr PRICE(Chifley)(11.08) —I have followed the honourable member for Dawson (Mr Braithwaite) in a number of debates and, sadly, this the first occasion on which I have seen him make a speech in this Parliament from the back bench rather than from the front bench. I listened to him say to the House that this Government does not have a great record on promises. I think it would be fair to say that the Opposition does not have a great record on agreements. The Opposition parties cannot even agree to stick together. One of the unintended consequences, of course, is that we see the honourable member for Dawson speaking from the back bench. I wish to make a few comments on the very important Bills before the House-the Customs Tariff Amendment Bill 1987, the Excise Tariff Amendment Bill 1987 and the Customs (Valuation) Amendment Bill 1987. The honourable member for Dawson tempts me to pick up some of the points raised. I was very interested in his comments about petroleum marketing and his concern for leaseholders. In fact, I share his views, but I do not think the solution is to have an investigation of prices, although I recognise that there are many consumers who are concerned about the daily changes in prices. We have to look at whether we can continue to afford to have petroleum companies so vertically integrated that they are involved directly in marketing, and whether we ought to convert those leaseholds to freeholds. If that were done, we would see consistently lower prices, and more consumers would benefit from them. He also talked about some work practices in a particular company. I do not think there is anyone on either side of the Parliament who would defend bad work practices. It is important to point out to the House that work practices do not just miraculously arrive from one source in the equation. We do not all of a sudden have a union implement some work practice, with which perhaps we do not agree, without the agreement of employers. The real difference between the two sides of the House is the methodology used to correct work practices. I compliment the trade union movement because it has indicated time and time again its willingness to sit down with management and discuss and negotiate work practices. I think that is a most responsible attitude and a most responsible approach. After all, those practices were put in place through that process of negotiation and, if necessary, they should be removed through the same process of negotiation. That is happening, and negotiation has been a key feature of this Government's industry plans. Unfortunately, the Opposition is always prepared to point the finger at the trade union movement. The Opposition believes that it should be possible to wipe out these practices with one stroke of the pen. That has an air of unreality about it and I think it shows that the Opposition is basically not fit to run this country. But that will be decided on 11 July. I think that this whole area of customs and excise and what the Government has done in relation to industry policy will be at the forefront of the people's minds when they make their decision on 11 July. The Government has done a lot-and perhaps our greatest sin is that we have succeeded. I do not know that the Opposition feels too comfortable about that. I will contrast the two approaches. On the one hand, Mr Deputy Speaker, whenever you have been in the Chair during debate on Customs legislation a number of Opposition members have said that essentially the solution to our problems is to zero out tariffs immediately and then all the problems would be solved. At times there is some divergence of opinion on that but certainly the hardliners opposite-whether they are in the National Party, the wets, the dries or those in between-say that. On the other hand, the Government's approach is to take it industry by industry. It is fair to say that in the Hawke Government's first term we did not have too many choices about which industries needed to be picked up quickly. When the Opposition was in government the Broken Hill Proprietary Co. Ltd was going to pull the plug on Australia's steel industry. This Government was faced with the mammoth task of trying to decide what should be done for this important industry to save it for Australia and provide a firm launching pad for the future. Under the Opposition it would have disappeared. However, this Government sat down with management and the unions to develop an approach. Part of that approach, as I mentioned earlier, included work practices; and part of that approach concerned better industrial relations and better personnel management, which is equally important. The results in the car industry are an example of that. Australia has not exported a car since, I think, about 1968-although we may have exported one or two for a high commissioner or an ambassador. Basically, we stopped exporting cars in the late 1960s. However, if my memory serves me correctly, we will now be exporting something like $300m worth of cars and $400m worth of components. There may have been critics of the car plan, but we now have the results on the board in that industry, and we are pushing through with a number of other industries. Since I first entered Parliament we have seen the heavy manufacturing industry plan, which is a very important plan for the western suburbs of Sydney. One of our real problems is that we do not have enough industry there. The industry that is there has a high component of heavy manufacturing, for example. We have had to put a plug on all the other industries that I have mentioned so far, the car industry, steel and heavy manufacturing. We have had to place a floor under employment to stop it falling, and I hope that in the future that will work to increase employment. We have also latched on to other industries, such as communications, which is a growth industry, and developed approaches and plans for them. In the Customs Tariff Amendment Bill 1987 the Government is giving legislative input to the plastics and chemicals industry. That is a different industry from the heavy manufacturing and the car and steel industries; it has been one of rapid growth. One of the key questions one must ask in terms of any plan that one structures is whether we are optimising growth. I think that in this industry we are doing so. The difference between the Government and the Opposition in terms of industry and employment is that we have developed a co-operative approach between management, unions and government. We have implemented a number of plans. In our period of government, employment has grown by something like 12 per cent. Year to year, there has been an average growth of 3 per cent in the number of new jobs being created. Yet the House will be aware that when we took office employment was declining rapidly. When we go to the people on 11 July we will not be saying that we are satisfied with the current levels of unemployment. We believe that there is more to be done to get the unemployment rate down. Industry needs to make its contribution to Australia by creating jobs through import replacement or exports. Normally, we are accused of relying too much on public employment creation activity. This Government has emphasised, in its approach to industry and others, the need for the private sector to pick up. The honourable member for Dawson talked about changes to the Excise Tariff Act and how they affect petrol and diesel prices. It is fair to point out that the honourable member was a member of the Fraser Government, which implemented world parity pricing. I think that, basically, we have picked up that concept. However, we have had to deal with the tremendous collapse in petroleum prices. The excise component that petroleum contributes to Budget revenue has meant that successive governments need to ensure that there are no violent swings. Accordingly, to offset changes in revenue from crude oil excise and royalty, corresponding across the board changes have been made to excise duty on petroleum products. The net result is that as crude oil prices change, government revenues remain the same overall and petrol price changes are kept to a minimum. In fact, in the Excise Tariff Amendment Bill we propose that the Government receive less revenue rather than more. I now turn to the question of bringing in duty-free goods to Australia and the $400 limit. Many people in my electorate of Chifley go overseas. I first went overseas in 1976. In terms of bringing goods into the country, I have a rather disastrous record. I went to Singapore as part of a union delegation and, rather than bringing in duty-free goods, I left most of my clothing behind at the hotel. Unfortunately, rather than my bringing in goods, there was a net cost to me. Mr Barry Jones —What about your trousers? Mr PRICE —That clothing included trousers, but I had trousers to wear. In fact, the clothes were located in the wardrobe of my hotel room. They were not misplaced as a result of any other activity. Why should people be able to bring goods into Australia purchased at a different price when travelling overseas when not all people have the opportunity to do so? Certainly in my own electorate of Chifley, many people do not have the opportunity and cannot afford to go overseas. Why should they be placed at some disadvantage vis-a-vis other Australian people? Why should we tolerate a situation where some individuals finance part of the cost of their overseas trips by their purchases of goods overseas, bringing them back to Australia and then on-selling those goods? I could mention a few such cases. Quite frankly, I think that we should be fairly patriotic about this matter. In turning our economy around, Australia's performance has been very good and the Government has introduced the `true blue' campaign, which was mentioned by the honourable member for Stirling (Mr Ronald Edwards). Why should we not insist that Australians put their money where their mouths are and back Australia? Perhaps we have to say to those people who have regular trips overseas and who are not prepared to do that: `Sorry, tough.' The Customs (Valuation) Amendments Bill proposes amendments to the provisions in the Customs Act governing valuation of imported goods. Whether we are talking about ordinary taxpayers or businessmen, the changes involved in this Bill are a further sign of this Government's concern about fairness and equity. Following a review, unfortunately it was discovered that certain avoidance and minimisation practices are used by importers in valuing goods imported into Australia. I fully support the Government's stand in tightening these loopholes. There are a number of examples of how these practices occur, but I will not detail them. I hope that the Opposition will support these amendments. All too often when we as a Government have tried, on the basis of fairness and equity, to attempt to redress these anomalies, we have had either outright opposition, or token lip service paid to the Government's proposal, but I am quite confident that these days, people are not prepared to tolerate these practices. These are not the lazy days of the 1970s: it is 1987 and people have come a long way in their understanding of avoidance and minimisation practices. We believe that, like the Government, people are not prepared to tolerate this situation; they are not being given a fair go and we believe that they will welcome this initiative by the Government to eliminate avoidance and minimisation practices. Earlier, a remark was made about honourable members on both sides of the House who take an interest in customs tariffs and excise matters. I think that this is an area in which more honourable members should be involved. It is a pity that a Committee of the House has not looked at this area, because often that is an excellent way for honourable members to become more knowledgable on particular topics. I pay tribute to the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce (Senator Button) and to the Minister for Science (Mr Barry Jones) who represents him in this House. I think that history will record that Australia owes them a debt of gratitude for the initiatives which they have taken; for the boldness of vision, and for the hard decisions which they have had to take in this area. Because of the groundwork that they have laid for the structural changes which have been made, more Australians will be employed now and, more importantly, in the future. I have always had confidence in the Australian people and I am confident that this Government will be returned, but whichever way it goes, posterity will show that much has been done in this area by the Hawke Government and particularly by the two Ministers whom I have mentioned. Mr HODGMAN(Denison)(11.25) —This debate has an unreal atmosphere about it in the light of the terrible political blunder made yesterday by the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) in announcing an election on 11 July next, at which the Hawke socialist Government will be defeated. Mr Barry Jones —Are you running for the leadership? Mr HODGMAN —I can assure the Minister for Science that the destruction of the Hawke socialist Government will not come one day too early for me. As the package of legislation in this cognate debate covers a whole range of issues, it gives me the opportunity to speak generally about this Government's approach to the question of customs and tariffs and to compare that approach with that in the days of the Fraser Government, in the last three years of which I had the honour to be the Minister assisting in industry and commerce matters under that very great Australian, the late Sir Phillip Lynch. In the light of debate yesterday on the Customs and Excise Legislation Amendment Bill, I express a concern that this Government continues to use the customs processes for two basic purposes about which I have very strong reservations. One is the revenue aspect, with the increasing charges that are imposed and continue to be imposed, and the other is the failure to use the customs process to mould what should be a proper basis for a sound economic development of the Australian manufacturing sector. It has to be said that last year, under the policies of this Hawke socialist Government, imports increased by a massive 21 per cent. At a time when our balance of payments figures are critical, for this Government to continue to permit an increase in imports into this country, which day by day are putting decent Australians out of work, is in my humble opinion beyond justification and totally to be condemned. We now have a totally inflexible customs system. We have seen evidence that this Government is now making it the law in this country that any person who challenges an overpayment of customs duty has to pay $200 before the matter will even be reviewed. The Government is saying to people that, if they are overcharged duty and want to challenge that, they have to put up a $200 fee, which is not refundable even if they win. No discretion exists in the system. I have a constituent who recently received an unsolicited gift of jewellery from someone in the United States of America. Jewellery to the value of $400 was sent to her quite unexpectedly and totally unsolicited, and is attracting customs duty. She had not asked for the gift. She did not expect the gift. But no discretion can be exercised in this matter. This legislation continues to codify and rigidify a system which, in my humble opinion, is not working in the interests of justice and in the interests of ordinary Australians. This cognate legislation involving the Customs Tariff Amendment Bill, the Excise Tariff Amendment Bill and the Customs (Valuation) Amendment Bill represents a continuation of the rigid hard line approach of a government whose sole philosophical commitment is doctrinaire. I cannot for the life of me conceive why this Government, in almost every area of government activity, has moved to make the system more rigid and to take away ministerial discretion and responsibility. By analogy, in the area of immigration and ethnic affairs, ministerial discretion has all but disappeared. The function has effectively been transferred to an immigration review panel which currently has some 16,000 cases awaiting determination. The Government refuses to give Australians the right to challenge bureaucratic and administrative decisions, or makes the challenge harder. Again by analogy, freedom of information charges have now made access to information fundamental to the rights of all Australians an expensive operation, to the extent that many people cannot utilise that legislation. If one wishes to challenge a decision of the Commissioner of Taxation and take that matter to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal, one has to put up $200 in order to get one's foot in the door. What if the amount under dispute is $150? We now see the same thing being implemented in the Customs area. The Government hopes to pick up $6m by forcing people to pay the $200 fee where they claim that they have paid excess Customs duty. There is no refund if they win. Worst of all-and this was admitted in the second reading speech-the Government is hoping to pick up a $1m bonus in unclaimed excess Customs duties paid. The Government is punting that, by making it more difficult for ordinary Australians to challenge these matters, there will be about an extra $1m windfall-rather like the unclaimed dividends on the racecourse. This Government says: `We are going to make it hard. We are going to make it difficult for ordinary Australians to challenge'. How can Mrs Smith of Bendigo or Mrs Jones of Hobart challenge a $150 excess duty paid when she is going to have to put up $200 to get the matter reviewed? Even if she wins on the $150, she does not get the $200 refund. This is iniquitous. It is an attitude of a government which has become arrogant, a government which is making it harder for ordinary Australians to exercise their right to challenge bureaucratic decisions. Let us look at some of the decisions in this legislation. I refer specifically, not just as a consumer but as one who has had a considerable interest in the industry over many years, to the speech of the Minister for Science and Minister Assisting the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce (Mr Barry Jones), who is present in the chamber, on the introduction of the Customs Tariff Amendment Bill 1987. Specifically, at page 6 he states: Schedule 5 to the Bill, operative on and from 17 December 1986, implements the Government's decision on the Industries Assistance Commission's interim report on citrus fruit. The Government has decided to re-introduce the rates of duty which applied to citrus fruit juices of tariff sub-item 20.07.2 in Schedule 3 to the principal Act, prior to 10 December 1986, until 9 December 1987. The rates will then phase down on and from 10 December 1987. The Industries Assistance Commission's final report on the fresh fruit and fruit products industries is due in early 1988. The situation is a continuum of the threat we saw to our citrus fruit juice industry in this country a few years ago. If a person picks up a container of orange juice at a supermarket today, the odds are that he will not be drinking Australian orange juice. This Government, in its lunacy, continues the proposition of actually assisting countries with whom we trade to dump their products in our country. Mr Brumby —That is nonsense. Mr HODGMAN —The honourable member says that it is nonsense. Let me give him the classic example on this issue. Last year this Government legislated to pay $70m worth of bounties on fertilisers imported into this country from Morocco, fertilisers which are dumped in Australia with the Government paying a bounty on top of it. I do not know when this Government has done anything constructive on the question of dumping. As Minister Assisting the Minister for Industry and Commerce, in February 1983 I brought in 102 anti-dumping notices two days before the Parliament was to resume. Mr Goodluck —That is right. Mr HODGMAN —The honourable member for Franklin remembers this well. My anti-dumping notices brought ambassadorial visits from the Ambassador of Japan and the Ambassador of Korea to the then Prime Minister and the then Deputy Prime Minister. Threats of legal action were going to be challenged in the court. In the ultimate, not one of those anti-dumping notices was disallowed. Mr Brumby —They were useless. You know that. Mr HODGMAN —The honourable member says that I do not understand. I can tell him that 650,000 Australians have gone out of the manufacturing sector in the last eight years. A significant proportion have gone out because of the policies of this Government, which has been prepared to increase imports into this country by 21 per cent last year. Mr Brumby —What nonsense. Mr HODGMAN —The honourable member should not say: `What nonsense'. On one weekend the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce (Senator Button) announced a 6 per cent increase in imports of textiles, clothing and footwear. The situation is that we are going down a track where, within a decade, we will have no Australian manufacturing sector whatsoever. We are going down a track where Australian school children will be going to school in clothes and wearing shoes that have been made outside this country. The Government says it has the interests of the Australian workers at heart. Poppycock! The Government saw the closure of a textile factory at Churchill in Victoria. I went and spoke to those workers. With a simple decision between the Prime Minister and Premier Cain of Victoria the Government could have saved that particular factory, but it did not. It is the Government which says: `We believe in full employment for females in the work force and we believe in ethnic employment'. Who are the people most effected when they lose their jobs in the textile, clothing and footwear manufacturing industry? Most of them are females and 75 per cent are of ethnic origin. This Government is condemned for its hypocrisy. It is a government which has accepted that there must be reduction in protection and that the only question is: Do we do it quickly, or do we do it slowly? I deny emphatically that the debate on that issue should be capitulated, as it has, where everybody assumes and accepts that in the interests of economic purity we will continue to reduce protection and we will see the final extinction of the Australian manufacturing sector. Six hundred and fifty thousand Australians who were in manufacturing eight years ago are not in manufacturing today. The Government's policies have contributed to it. This Labor Government, claiming to support the workers of Australia, has deliberately pursued policies which have cut the jobs of decent Australians. What is the benefit of trying to have proper balance of trade figures at the very time that the Government is permitting this country to be flooded with cheap imports? That is it in a nutshell. The Government is doing it deliberately. As I reach the end of my time I remind the workers of Australia that last year Prime Minister Hawke went to Beijing in the People's Republic of China. He did not announce then, but it got out when he got to Manila, that at the completion of the eight years of the TCF program implemented by the Fraser Government he looked forward to increased imports of shoes and clothes made in the People's Republic of China. What a great signal that was to our manufacturing sector when our Prime Minister went to the People's Republic of China and repeated a comment made in other places when he said: `As soon as the Fraser Government's 8-year TCF program expires we will be opening the doors'. At the very time that the Government is saying to the industry: `Get efficient'-which it has-and `invest in the future'-which it has-the Prime Minister makes a big fellow of himself in the People's Republic of China and says: `As soon as the TCF program is up, we look forward to increased imports'. I think we have gone mad. I think there has been an absolute hypnotism of Australian politicians by these new-found economic gurus who say that economic purity must be obtained at all costs. In conclusion, what is the rationale-and this Government is practising precisely what I am about to demonstrate-of Australia saying `We are going to divest ourselves of the clothes of protection' at the very time that our major trading partners, the United States of America, Japan and Korea, are increasing their protection? Do members of the Government not read the Congressional reports of what is going on in the United States Senate and the United States House of Representatives now? Does the Government read reports of what is happening in Japan and Korea? We are mad if we divest ourselves of the clothes of protection. The honourable member for Franklin (Mr Goodluck) and I are concerned about the already savage job losses in the electorates of Denison and Franklin as a result of this Government's misguided economic policies. We divest ourselves of the clothes of protection and lie naked. In trade terms we will be raped; and we are. I appeal to the Minister, who is one of the few Ministers in the Hawke socialist Government with any semblance of intelligence, despite his very unfortunate comments about Tasmania and the sunrise industries which we have never yet received, they have never turned up-- Mr Goodluck —We have never got them. Mr HODGMAN —Sunset, sunrise-they are midnight as far as we are concerned. We have not seen any of them. Wherever the Minister has been handing them out, he has not given any to Tasmania. This package of legislation, while not opposed by the Opposition, is a final indictment of a government which quite deliberately has decided to sell out Australian-made and Australian manufactured. The Prime Minister goes on television and says: `Be true blue'. That is great, but his Government's policies have cut the heart out of the Australian manufacturing sector and allowed the country to be flooded with cheap imports. They have put thousands and thousands of decent Australians out of jobs and on to the dole. Honourable members opposite stand condemned for that. They will get the judgment of the people on 11 July, and it will be a very swift judgment. The verdict will be guilty, and the Hawke socialist Government will be thrown out of office. Mr BRUMBY(Bendigo)(11.41) —The Customs Tariff Amendment Bill, the Excise Tariff Amendment Bill and the Customs (Valuation) Amendment Bill are before the House today. The debate has been fairly wide ranging, but I feel that I must respond to the comments of the honourable member for Denison (Mr Hodgman) who, in a typical fashion, has made what can only be described as a very entertaining speech in this House. The fact is that, on any assessment, this Government's economic policies have been good for manufacturing industry in Australia. If the honourable member for Denison cared at least to look at the national accounts figures released yesterday-he made a number of comments about export and import volumes-he would have seen that those figures show that for the six months ending March this year export volumes climbed at an annual rate of 29.8 per cent. That is how much exports are up under the policies of this Government. Imports were virtually static over the same period, increasing by only 0.8 per cent. The honourable member for Denison shakes his head. Mr Hodgman —I talked about last year's figures. Mr BRUMBY —They are not last year's figures; they are the figures for the last six months. They show that export volumes are up by 29.8 per cent and that import volumes are up by only 0.8 per cent. In anyone's terms, that represents a dramatic turnaround in the Australian economy. Under the policies that we have put in place, the Australian economy is turning around. It is meeting the challenge, it is lifting exports and it is reducing imports. The national account figures released yesterday show that the economic growth that we have experienced in Australia in the past year has come from either net exports or import replacement. That is a policy setting that Australia could well have done with two decades ago when the rot first set in under previous Liberal conservative governments. It was the honourable member's government that allowed Australia to have an artificially high exchange rate for years and years. That is what obliterated manufacturing industry in Australia. When we came to government in 1983, manufacturing industry was down in the dumps. It had been cut to its bones by the policy of the Fraser Liberal Government, which had kept the exchange rate far too high, allowing cheap imports to flood into Australia and making our exports, be they primary products, resources such as coal and iron ore, or manufactures, totally uncompetitive on the world market. It is the fundamental realignment that this government has put in place over its four and a half years in government, involving the floating of the dollar, moderate wage levels and movements and progressive reductions in the Budget deficit, which has made this nation more competitive now than it has been for the last 25 years. That is a great achievement. The honourable member for Denison, rather than stand up in this House, and knock, knock, knock, as he does perpetually, ought to acknowledge the turnaround that is occurring in Australia. He ought recognise that the Australian community acknowledges that if we cannot get into manufactures, if we cannot add value to our exports and if we continue to have all our eggs in the resources basket, or in wheat or wool, we will never have a sustainable higher standard of living. Therefore, we have to get into manufactures, high technology and the export of services. All of that is happening under this Government, but it will not happen overnight, by next year or by 11 July. It is a long term project, but it is happening now and the momentum is building. I might say that it has saddened me to see the honourable member for Denison come in here for what I think is fairly described as his valedictory address. It is the last we will see of the honourable member. He has been a colourful character in the Parliament. He has made a contribution over the years. He has gone from being a Minister, to being an Opposition front bencher and he is now an Opposition back bencher. There is only one place that he can go now, and that is why I say that he has given his valedictory address. That saddens me. I do not agree with the honourable member's politics; I believe that he is a negative person, always knocking and never having a positive idea. He has never made a big contribution to manufacturing industry. He would have locked up Australian manufacturing industry for decades under a regime of a highly overvalued dollar, a wage system under which the Government had no control and protection levels which, far from making us more efficient, would simply lock us into an inefficient structure for years and years down the road. It needs to be recognised-again, I make this point for the benefit of the honourable member for Denison-that there is nothing innately special about our nation or our people that gives us the standard of living that we enjoy today. Basically, we have earned our standard of living through export of resources, wheat and wool. If the world turns against us, as it is doing now in paying us a lower price for those products, we are in a position that is no different from that of any country located in Asia. We will have to pay and earn our way, make things better than we have in the past and get into the fastest growing areas of the world economy, which are manufactured goods and services. That is true, and the honourable member for Denison knows it. He knows that this Government has the runs on the board. He knows that manufacturing in Australia is turning around. I mentioned the national accounts figures before. Export volumes are up 29.8 per cent and import volumes are up 0.8 per cent. Our strategy is on track, and it is working. I will give honourable members some local examples in my electorate of Bendigo. Firms such as Empire Rubber (Australia) Pty Ltd, car component manufacturers, are now winning contracts on the open market in Europe and Japan. Fancy thinking that that could have occurred five or 10 years ago under the clumsy policies for which honourable members opposite were responsible! Mr Barry Jones —And the textile firm in Stawell. Mr BRUMBY —I will come to that. Another small firm in my electorate, J. P. B. Products in Bendigo, exports 90 per cent of its product to the American market. It is only a small firm, employing 50 people. It makes tailored, high quality lambs wool seat covers for Mercedes and Jaguars in the United States market. It is exporting 90 per cent of its product. That company did not exist four years ago, and it could not have existed under the policies of the Fraser Government. The Bendigo Ordnance Factory, a government instrumentality, is virtually paying its way through exports that it wins in the free market. We are exporting turbine bases to the United States of America to the value of $10m a year. We are exporting Hamel guns to New Zealand. Firms in my electorate are exporting suits to the Middle East. We are exporting from Sandhurst Dairies Ltd in Bendigo-the honourable member for Denison will like this-feta cheese to the Greeks. That is not bad, is it? A company in Bendigo is achieving that. So the Australian economy is turning around; we have the strategy right. A moment ago the Minister reminded me about a textile firm in my electorate in Stawell, Norwellan Textiles, which the Minister and I had the pleasure of visiting-I have visited that firm many times but I believe that it was the Minister's first visit-last week. That firm will double its exports in the next 12 months. The honourable member for Denison should note that. It has already increased its exports considerably. It is supplying the high quality furniture market and the knitted fabrics market in New York with furniture coverings, using pure Australian wool, which is the best wool in the world, at the top end of the market, and it is doubling its exports. That sort of thing is going on everywhere in Australia. That firm is not atypical in my electorate, although my electorate has been extremely well represented. These are typical examples of what is going on all around Australia. I will conclude, because the time allotted to me in this debate is limited, by saying that this Government has put in place industry policies and a broad macroeconomic policy which have given us an extremely successful economic outcome over the last four years. We have seen the creation of 780,000 jobs. More than 80 per cent of them have been created in the private sector, which is the sector in which we like to see strong job growth. Do honourable members know that that is the fastest rate of job growth that has occurred in any Western economy in the world over that period? That is not a bad achievement. Interest rates and inflation are coming down. We have had a dramatic turnaround in the vol- ume of exports which we are producing and selling overseas. Because we have floated the dollar we have cut imports. We have given impetus to Australian produced products through the `Australian made' campaign. All of those things are good news. As we look towards an election on 11 July, I do not think any member on this side of the House is afraid to go into his or her electorate and stand by the Government's record of what we have achieved for industry in Australia. Australian people are realists. They are not knockers, like the honourable member for Denison. They are not at the twilight of their careers, as he is. They recognise that the decisions that are being taken now will shape Australia's future into the 1990s. They recognise also that we simply cannot go on, as we did in the fifties and sixties, putting all our eggs in one basket; by putting all of our standard of living eggs into coal, wheat and wool. If the price of those products falls, we have problems in Australia. That is why we have brought about this fundamental realignment in industry policy. Next year, the Ford Motor Co. of Australia Ltd will export $400m worth of motor vehicles from Australia. Who would have thought, a dec- ade ago, that it would be possible for an Australian car manufacturer to export $400m worth of products overseas? No one would have thought it was possible. That was impossible under the policies of the previous Government. That company will export its products next year because we have created an environment that gives incentive for producing manufactured goods, gives incentive to add value to manufactured goods and gives incentive to export products overseas. I emphasise those statistics which were released yesterday. They confirm that this Government's economic policies are right on track. They are dead right. Economic growth is good. It has come about through exports and import replacement. That is exactly what needs to happen in Australia. Export volumes are up by 29.8 per cent. That is dramatic. Import volumes are up by 0.8 per cent. They are the national account statistics. The Government formed on 12 July, the third Hawke Government, will continue with those policies which will see us become an increasingly strong export nation. They will see us as a nation meeting the challenge which has been imposed by a tough international environment. I know that under this Government Australia has a good future. In the next few years it will not be easy, but we are meeting the challenge. Mr CONQUEST(Hinkler)(11.54) —I would like to comment on two areas of this legislation which are covered by Schedule 5 and Schedule 6 of the Customs Tariff Amendment Bill 1987. Schedule 5 re-introduces the rates of duty which applied before the automatic reduction in the tariff on orange and tangerine juices, including concentrates, which occurred on 10 December 1986. This legislation gives legislative effect to what had already occurred as a result of the Government's decision following an Industries Assistance Commission short term review on whether temporary assistance should be given to the citrus growing industry. Customs Tariff Alteration Notice No. 11 (1986) contained the change necessary to implement this Government's decision and was gazetted on 10 December 1986. Citrus growers in the Hinkler electorate also expressed great concern last year about the importation of Brazilian fruit juice concentrates. An Australian Customs Service investigation was positive in that it found that the concentrates were being dumped. Fortunately, anti-dumping provisions were imposed immediately. These measures at the time lifted the effective FOB cost of exports to Australia by 30 per cent and relieved some of the pressures on the industry. The Industries Assistance Commission is expected to report on longer term arrangements for the fruit and fruit products industries early next year-I understand in February. While speaking on this Bill I would also like to record my appreciation to Michael Kearnes and Stan Reeves of the Customs Service who assisted me in my inquiries, as well as staff members in the offices of the Minister for Trade (Mr Dawkins) and the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce (Senator Button). This Bill gives effect to rates which will continue until 9 December 1987, and I hope that any decision to change them will be considered only after taking note of the industry's position at that time. Growers in my electorate have recently bought the former R. M. Gow and Co. Ltd juice factory at Mundubbera. This is indicative of their commitment to, and faith in, the industry. I also note that the change applicable to this aspect of the Bill affecting citrus growers should result in increased revenue of $235,000 in 1987. Schedule 6 of the Bill contains a range of changes. One concerns amendments to implement the new forum island countries preference scheme in regard to passionfruit products. A new preference scheme for imports from forum island countries, including Papua New Guinea, came into effect on 1 July 1986. This action was as a result of requests from forum island countries for more liberalised access to the Australian market. A review of our involvement in the South Pacific Regional Trade and Economic Co-operation Agreement between Australia, New Zealand and the forum island countries was undertaken. The result was that we would grant duty free unrestricted access to all exports from forum island countries except those goods where sectoral policies apply. Initially it had been envisaged that the implementation date would be 1 January 1987. With the Government's subsequent revision of tariffs for developing countries to be introduced from 1 July 1986, a decision was made to align the two dates of introduction of the two revised systems. An exception was made for the passionfruit industry, where the changes were to take effect on 1 January 1987, which is what this aspect of the Bill is all about. The forum island countries are the Cook Islands, Fiji, Kiribati, Nauru, Papua New Guinea, Solomon Islands, Tonga, Tuvalu, Vanuatu, and Western Samoa. Again, this legislation is giving effect to what already are the current rates as stated by Custom Tariff Notice No. 12 gazetted on 17 December 1986. The effect of this legislation altered what was previously a general rate of 10 per cent tariff on imports, with forum island countries having a 100,000 litre single strength equivalent per annum free of duty. I have been advised that around 90 per cent of passionfruit imports come from forum island countries, notably Western Samoa and Fiji. In 1983-84 almost 200,000 litres of passionfruit pulp and juice was imported. The steady growth of imports had impacted on the domestic industry for both fresh and processed products. This placed great strain and considerable pressure on domestic processors and, in turn, on growers. This resulted in prices paid to growers by processors not being increased for the five years ending December 1985. To indicate the potential forum island countries have to affect the Australian market-place, it is interesting to note that in 1983 forum island countries were looking to increase the then applying duty free quota from 100,000 to 400,000 litres per annum. With the removal of the quota, and with the removal of any duty, one would be reasonably safe in assuming that the forum island countries would be looking to increase substantially their exports to Australia to take advantage of this new competitive position. The National Party of Australia supports a policy of reducing barriers to trade which follows a path of gradualism and predictability. We will be keeping a close eye on the outcome of the duty free access now accorded forum island countries to gauge what effect it has on Australian growers and producers. I appreciate the intent of the South Pacific Regional Trade and Economic Co-operation Agreement in helping those forum island countries which have fewer industries with export potential. I support our helping them with some reservation. I cannot turn a blind eye to the consequences of decisions which hurt our own industries. I was advised 18 months ago of the impending closure of one of Queensland's two processors of Queensland grown passionfruit. It was attributed to difficulties arising from increasing competition from imports. The factory did in fact close down but subsequently was reopened by a Victorian company and is presently processing fruit juices but not passionfruit products. However the news is not all bad. Recent advice that I have received from the Committee of Direction of Fruit Marketing in Brisbane, based on figures for the first two months of calendar year 1987, is that demand for passionfruit has been exceeding supply. There are a number of reasons for this. The cyclonic weather has affected the crops in Fiji and Western Samoa and imports from those countries have been minimal. Additionally the absence of any significant one-off imports of Brazilian passionfruit products has militated against there being a glut on the market. This industry is noted for its fluctuations in demand and supply, though no regular patterns are normally observable. Just because the situation is good now does not guarantee that this state of affairs will continue for any great length of time. I am told that if supply was better the former Cenco factory would be able to process passionfruit products, as it still retains that capability. I say again that just because the position is favourable for the industry now, it would be remiss of us if we failed to keep a watching brief on the position as it develops over time. I cannot turn a blind eye to it. I understand that there are some restrictions on the length of speeches but before I close I would like to reply to what the honourable member for Bendigo (Mr Brumby) said. He spoke about assistance to the manufacturing and high technology industries of Australia. I agree with him that they must have assistance but I can see no short term great benefits to Australia. I believe that we will still have to rely on our primary rural industries and our extractive industries to correct the problems that we have today. Whilst the Government is giving assistance to the manufacturing industries, I remind the honourable member for Bendigo-it is a pity that he is not still in the House-that it is through almost raping and pillaging the rural sectors that it has been able to fund those industries. I will give one instance of that so that honourable members can understand how money from the rural industries is being utilised to subsidise other areas. Bundaberg rum is a famous product from the city of Bundaberg, which is in my electorate. Some $80m a year is taken from Bundaberg rum in sales tax and excise alone. That is just one industry, one factory, allied with the sugar industry, which produces for government revenue $80m a year in sales tax and excise. Mr GOODLUCK(Franklin)(12.03) —In line with the comments of the Minister at the table, the Minister for Science (Mr Barry Jones), I will be very brief. Schedule 3 of the Excise Tariff Amendment Bill mentions the duty applic-able to certain refined petroleum products. We are going into an election on 11 July and I believe that there is a prime responsibility on the Government to sort out the problems within the petroleum industry. For example, I had a matriculation class from the Rosny College, in Hobart, here today and the first comment the students made to me when I addressed them outside was: `Mr Goodluck, why is the price of petrol in Canberra 10c a litre cheaper than in Tasmania?'. The first observation I made was that in Tasmania there is an imposition of 5.3c a litre fixed by the State Government to make up the shortfall in funds that they receive. But they said: `What about the other 4c or 5c a litre?'. Of course, when we express that in the old terms, it amounts to nearly 25c a gallon. I said `For various reasons', but I found it hard to explain. It is simple to me, but many people misunderstand the point. The pumped up Prices Surveillance Authority has been completely inadequate in fixing the prices for petrol in Australia. The prime role of the Prices Surveillance Authority is to scrutinise prices in areas of the economy where competitive disciplines are diminished and where price or wage decisions have persuasive effects throughout the economy. The complementary role lies in the encouragement and promotion of pricing restraint throughout the community. The Prices Surveillance Authority fixes a maxi-mum wholesale price for petrol in Australia and it does not vary much from capital city to capital city. All of a sudden, we find that in the heavily populated areas, for example, of Melbourne and Sydney-and I have said this many times before-with three million people in Melbourne and three million people in Sydney, the oil companies are able to drop prices below the maximum wholesale price and to sell petrol willy nilly, sometimes for a long period and sometimes for a short period. Today people travel from State to State and see the variation in the price of petrol. Suddenly the oil companies say `We are losing money because of price cutting. Go back to the original price', and up it goes. Of course, the people who are paying the high price all the time ask why. It hurts me to think that the people in Hobart at the moment, with a depressed economy, are paying 65c a litre and even more for petrol. The Minister at the table will say that I know that there is roughly a 5c imposition by the State Government. That brings it back to 60c. There are very few places in Australia that are selling petrol for more than 60c a litre. So we need to have a very good look at this pricing principle after the next election, as the people of Tasmania, and those in some of the country areas, should not be penalised. If we are to talk about tariffs and about making it fair for everybody, surely to God we could organise something in the petroleum market and make it fair for all Australians instead of having this variation. It is useless-and the Minister will understand what I am talking about-having a price watch committee looking at prices in Australia and saying that goods are sometimes dearer in Hobart than they are in Melbourne and Sydney, when we have this high price for petroleum, which surely flows through into transport costs more radically than any other factor. That is one of the reasons why so many things in Hobart are dearer. The people of Hobart are being penalised. The young people trying to afford a motor vehicle are being penalised. I have always said, and I repeat, that after a house the next most important thing in the lives of most young people and older people, people on low incomes, is their car, because it is firstly a means of transportation, and secondly, means of recreation and relaxation. So if the Government makes it difficult for them to afford to run a motor vehicle it will curtail their activities and make their lives even more difficult. We have a system that nobody seems to be able to unravel. We need to look at it very carefully and to take away some of the variations that occur between the States, which make life so difficult for the ordinary person, the low income person and the person in business, who are paying those higher prices. I condemn-and I have said this before at length-some of the methods of marketing used by the major oil companies in Australia. They know what they are doing. They know that they have got control and that they have the mechanism to make things unfair for some and fair for others. The Treasurer (Mr Keating) said that it is theft at the petrol pump. The Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) said: `I will reduce the price of petrol by 2c or 3c a litre'. Boy, it has gone up 18c a litre in some areas of Australia since the Australian Labor Party got into government. So the Government has not been able to handle this matter, yet it talks about price watching, about customs and tariffs and about making things fair for everybody. Surely to goodness the Government could have a good look at this matter. Admittedly we failed, because we went to import parity pricing with the hope of future exploration and future conservation. Let us look at what has happened to liquefied petroleum gas. We export LPG because we have not got the capacity to store it in Australia. The Japanese must be laughing all the way to the cooker, sometimes for 7c or 8c a litre. In some States at the moment LPG can be bought for 17.3c a litre to 23.5c a litre. In Hobart we are paying 34c a litre because Boral Limited has a monopoly. The company said to me that it would try to reduce the price when it came to Tasmania, but it failed dismally. Surely, if we are going to make it fair for all Australians, especially young Australians, we should be able to do something about the pricing. I hope that during the election campaign much is said about the pricing of petrol, the pricing of LPG and the pricing of diesel. It should be fair and equitable to all Australians. Mr ADERMANN(Fairfax)(12.10) —Speakers in this debate have covered all of the issues. Therefore, I do not intend to enter the debate except to ask one question. I am heartened that the Minister for Science (Mr Barry Jones) is at the table. His responses are usually helpful. I would like the Minister, in his reply to this debate, to respond to a specific question. How effective is the pricing mechanism for fuel? Oil companies go to the Prices Surveillance Authority and ask for, and apparently justify, a rise of 1c or 2c a litre. They get their rise and then within days or weeks we see a price war. I will illustrate this point by referring to the situation in my own home town. The price of petrol is 43.9c or 44.9c a litre, but the day after a price war finishes it goes to 55c or 56c a litre. This happens so frequently that it seems to make a mockery of the applications that the petrol companies put to the Authority. Would it not be better to look at the whole situation in order to get some stability and some fairness in the price? Happy as motorists are when they go to a bowser to fill their tanks in the middle of a price war, they are frustrated when perhaps an hour later they see a 12c or a 15c rise. I would like the Minister to comment on the effectiveness of the pricing arrangement, the honesty of the oil companies in putting up their applications, and the ease with which they seem to be able to get their increases. The frequency of this stupidity of price cutting seems to show that they have the capacity to provide fuel to the motorists of this country much cheaper than they are doing. Mr BARRY JONES(Lalor-Minister for Science)(12.13) —I thank honourable members for their contributions. In the spirit of trying to keep the length of the debate down I will try to cover as much distance as I can in the shortest space of time. The honourable member for Ryan (Mr Moore) led for the Opposition. On the Customs Tariff Amendment Bill, the Government cannot accept the second reading amendment moved by the Opposition. He referred to the Government's decision on the Industries Assistance Commission's report on power electronics, stating that the Opposition regarded a uniform rate of 20 per cent as being too high. A rate of 20 per cent is, of course, the rate which was recommended by the IAC following an extensive inquiry process in which all interested parties had the opportunity to put forward their views. This rate is consistent with that which already applies to related industries, in particular the telecommunications industry and the consumer electronics industry. The 20 per cent rate should improve resource allocations by removing tariff induced distortions in investment production and consumption decisions. In terms of further reductions of assistance in the medium and long term, the Government has a commitment to reduce the dependence on barrier assistance for the whole of the manufacturing sector and to the encouragement of more competitive and export oriented industry through a variety of positive adjustment measures. While the Government has no specific time-table for reviewing the power electronics industry at this point, its attitude to this industry in terms of barrier assistance is consistent with that for manufacturing as a whole. On the Excise Tariff Amendment Bill, the honourable member for Ryan said that he was concerned that the Government's fuel pricing policy is causing unnecessary increases in fuel prices. I think we cover this ground on each occasion that similar measures are put before this chamber. The important thing is to ensure that there be no misunderstanding about how the system works. The Government fully offsets changes in revenue from crude oil excise and royalty by across the board changes in excise payable on petroleum products. While petrol price changes are kept to a minimum as a result of this policy, about one-third of the effect of the crude oil price increases still flow through to the consumer. The net result is that as crude oil prices change government revenues remain the same over all and petrol price changes are kept to a minimum. I will deal with the point made by the honourable member for Fairfax (Mr Adermann) later on. The honourable member for Ryan also referred to passenger concessions in connection with the Customs (Valuation) Amendment Bill. He spoke of the new passenger concessions as though they pose difficulty in assessing values. In effect, all that will happen is that the value of the goods will be indexed. The $200 was set, I think, when the honourable member for Ryan was Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs-possibly even earlier. One would have to say that $400 now is perhaps the appropriate equivalent of what $200 was in value in a simpler era. I do not see it as a practical problem. Concessions have always been based on value. The only thing that has changed is the number of dollars permitted. I might comment on valuation at the Committee stage. The honourable member for Dawson (Mr Braithwaite) expressed concern that the Government should monitor imports of passionfruit products from South Pacific forum island countries. In these Bills we really see the world. A tremendous range of activities is covered. He said that there was no danger from such imports at the moment. He also mentioned the dumping of chemicals and plastics. The honourable member can be assured that we are continuing to monitor this and that we are well aware of developing country imports in this regard. We have to make up our minds whether we are in world trade, whether we are aimed at international competition, or whether, as we were in the old days, we are always essentially defensive, always operating on a basis of saying that we cannot compete and therefore we will put up barriers to protect us. The honourable member for Denison (Mr Hodgman) raised some points. I am sorry to disagree with the honourable member about his assessment of the customs system. The principal purpose of customs originally, of course, was to protect local industry through the tariff and customs Acts. On the other hand, it is impossible to develop an industry which is export oriented and which is capable of restoring Australia's share of world trade if the emphasis is constantly put on barrier protection rather than raising the quality of goods or on developing strategies for exporting, and so on. There is a community of interest, among the drier members of the honourable member's own Party and the Government on this issue. I detect a slight element of divergence between the position taken by the honourable member for Denison-and I suppose the honourable member for Franklin as well to a degree-and the-- Mr Hodgman —We work for our textile workers and we will continue to do so. Mr BARRY JONES —Let me just mention something about the textile industry. We all remember that before the changes were brought in for the textile, clothing and footwear industry there were cries of gloom to the effect that if Senator Button's reforms were introduced employment in the textile industry would be decimated. One area that was singled out was the north coast of Tasmania. There was a lot of discussion about what would happen in Devonport. It was said that Devonport, a town with a heavy textile employment, would become a ghost town. The information from Senator Aulich is that not one job in textiles has been lost in Devonport, and there is no projection for job loss either. The reforms to TCF have been accepted by the industry, they have been accepted by the unions, and we believe that in the next few years we will have a much healthier industry, capable of exporting. I must take up a comment from the honourable member for Denison. At one stage he spoke about what he described as the loss of 650,000 jobs in manufacturing. I would be curious to see his arithmetic. It is perfectly correct that there has been a decline in the proportion of people in the labour force employed in manufacturing in Australia since its high point in 1965. In 1965, there were 1,282,200 people-or 27.6 per cent of the total labour force-employed in manufacturing. By February 1987, that proportion had fallen very sharply by 40 per cent to 1,135,700 or 16.2 per cent of the total labour force. The actual reduction in the number of manufacturing jobs was 146,500. The same people are not involved because so many new people have come in to replace those who died or retired in the meantime. Mr Hodgman —That I challenge. Mr BARRY JONES —Of course, one can make any kind of projection that one wants. If we say that the 1965 figure was the `right' figure and that that 27.6 per cent should be an immutable figure that goes on forever, if we deduct the difference between 27.6 per cent and the present figure of 16.2 per cent, I suppose we could say that the number of jobs lost is the difference of 11.4 per cent. From a statistical point of view the honourable member for Denison would concede that this would be a nonsensical methodology. We cannot apply it at all. Mr Hodgman —I didn't use that method; I just used industry figures. Mr BARRY JONES —It is simply not correct to say that 650,000 jobs have been lost in manufacturing. Mr Hodgman —It is. Mr BARRY JONES —The honourable member must produce the figures. Mr Hodgman —You talk to the Australian Manufacturing Council because that is its figure. Mr BARRY JONES —That is just nonsense. I confirm from my own experience what was said by the honourable member for Bendigo (Mr Brumby). Who would have thought five years ago that we would be selling steel to the United States of America? But we are. Who would have thought that we would be selling motor engineers to Europe and Japan? And we are. Who would have thought that we would be selling completed motor vehicles to Japan? And we are. The honourable member for Bendigo also spoke of a whole number of operations involving new, small, innovative and lively companies which are getting up their products and selling them on the world market. The honourable member for Denison also said that my predictions about sunrise industries had not happened in Tasmania. If that is the case, Tasmania is the only State where it has not happened. Back in 1982-83 I made a number of predictions which were not very popular in Tasmania at that time, but subsequent events have borne them out. The first was that Tasmania's reliance on high and rising per capital electricity generating capacity would not be a powerful contributor to job growth. That has proved to be absolutely true and the Hydro Electric Commission and even the Tasmanian Government have now conceded as much. My other prediction was that the reliance on traditional industries would not be enough. Tourism, I am gratified to see, is developing as a significant area of job growth. There are underlying problems in Tasmania which, I suspect, relate to the skill base and perhaps more than anything else to the flight of capital from Tasmania. In fact, Tasmania with 3 per cent of Australia's population is not spending 3 per cent of investment capital. The people of Tasmania who own a lot of the capital choose to apply that money somewhere else. I think that the failure to generate venture capital in that State and the fact that it has failed to make the area attractive for innovators to develop their own prospects is a tragedy. I thank the honourable member for Chifley (Mr Price) for his appropriate reference to the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce (Senator Button) and his generous reference to me for our role in promoting industry restructuring. I think that will be one of the outstanding achievements of this Government. Both the honourable member for Franklin (Mr Goodluck) and the honourable member for Fairfax (Mr Adermann) asked questions about petrol pricing. That matter is outside the reach of the three Bills currently being debated. Differential pricing for petrol in various locations throughout Australia is due to a host of variables. I will respond to that in more detail on a later occasion. There was a particularly significant example in Victoria around the Easter period when, for reasons of their own, the petrol companies in the Melbourne metropolitan area decided, perhaps as an Easter gift, to drop the price of fuel very sharply. Once Easter was over they quite arbitrarily raised the price. Of course, needless to say, the blame for the rise in the petrol price, which looked so arbitrary, was attributed to either the Victorian Government or the Commonwealth Government. It had nothing to do with either government-it was the petrol companies themselves in a frolic of their own. Mr Adermann —They do it frequently. Mr BARRY JONES —Absolutely. I would be very happy to ask the Prices Surveillance Authority to investigate this matter immediately and come back with more specific information which can be debated at the first opportunity in the new Parliament. As a final point, I refer to the comment of the honourable member for Denison about citrus fruit. The Government's decision to reimpose the higher duty is to help the industry. The honourable member referred to dumping. I point out that there was a preliminary dumping finding against Brazil last November. This has had the effect of raising the effective cost of imported juice by about 30 per cent. Since then the world price of juice concentrate has risen by over 50 per cent, anyway. I thank honourable members for their contributions to this debate. Amendment negatived. Original question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith. Bill (on motion by Mr Barry Jones) read a third time. Consideration resumed from 27 May, on motion by Mr Barry Jones: 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 Barry Jones) read a third time. Consideration resumed from 27 May, on motion by Mr Barry Jones: That the Bill be now read a second time. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. Clauses 1 to 8-by leave-taken together, and agreed to. Clause 9 (Review of determinations and other decisions). Mr MOORE(Ryan)(12.30) —I indicate that the Opposition will oppose this clause. Mr BARRY JONES(Lalor-Minister for Science)(12.30) —I think that the honourable member for Ryan (Mr Moore) is wrong in opposing the clause, and I will tell him why. He is not beyond redemption; he is a reasonable fellow, and I think that if I put the case firmly enough he might change his mind. As I said in my second reading speech, current provisions restrict the time limit for redetermination of value to 12 months. This prevents the recovery of duties owing through schemes which misrepresent the true value of goods. It is simply unacceptable to the Government that the perpetrators of such schemes should be beyond the reach of Customs so far as recovery of the duty is concerned. Clause 9 of itself does not permit recovery. That is authorised by other long-standing provisions of the Customs Act. As the explanatory memorandum accompanying the Bill specifies, the amendment contained in clause 9 does not extend in any way to the 12-month time limit specified in section 165 of the Customs Act within which duty short-paid through error can be recovered. The new arrangements will enable duty to be recovered for longer than 12 months only where an abuse is discovered. I think that is reasonable enough. Clause agreed to. Remainder of Bill-by leave-taken as a whole, and agreed to. Bill reported without amendment; report adopted. Bill (on motion by Mr Barry Jones)-by leave-read a third time. Debate resumed from 6 May, on motion by Mr Barry Jones: That the Bill be now read a second time. Mr MOORE(Ryan)(12.33) —While the Minister for Science (Mr Barry Jones), who is at the table, busily gathers himself for another trot around the track, I draw the attention of the House to the main provisions of the Bounty and Subsidy Legislation Amendment Bill 1987. First, the amendments to the Bounty (Textiles Yarns) Act 1981 arise from the Government's decision on 28 November 1986 concerning the textile, clothing and footwear industries. Secondly the amendments to the Fertilisers Subsidy Act 1986 give effect to the Government's intention that locally produced fertiliser should be subject to the new assistance arrangements set out in the Act from 20 August 1986. Thirdly, the amendments to the Subsidy (Cultivation machines and Equipment) Act 1986 correct the Act's provisions for eligibility for subsidy. Fourthly the amendments to the Bounty (Books) Act 1986, amongst other things, acquit undertakings given to the Senate Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills that certain determinations by the Comptroller-General of the Australian Customs Service would be subject to parliamentary scrutiny. In relation to the Bounty (Textile Yarns) Act, this measure forms part of the Government's decision on the textile, clothing and footwear industries to remove the present disincentive from local yarn producers who wish to engage in export production by extending the eligible production costs upon which bounty is paid to include producer's overheads associated with export production. This amendment has been introduced not as a subsidy measure to export production but to address an anomaly in the present Act which has penalised yarn producers engaging in export trade. I will deal with the amendment to the Fertilisers Subsidy Act later, as the Opposition intends to move an amendment. Clause 21 amends section 9 of the Subsidy (Cultivation Machines and Equipment) Act to remove the present technical impediment on manufacturers of equipment prior to the commencement of the Act in April 1986 from receiving subsidy on that equipment where the equipment was held in stock at the commencement of the Act. The Government has indicated that the current legislative provisions do not effectively enact the stated intention of making all classes of bountiable equipment held in stock as at 15 April 1986 eligible for subsidy. Clause 10 of the Bill treats the Comptroller-General's declarations for the purposes of section 4 of the Bounty (Books) Act as if they were regulations, to preserve parliamentary scrutiny of the declarations via the tabling and disallowance provisions applicable to regulations. The provisions apparently give effect to the Government's policy by replacing standard appropriation provisions in Commonwealth Acts with annual appropriation provisions. The Opposition is most concerned with clauses 18 and 19, which relate to the Fertilisers Subsidy Act. That Act gives effect to the Government's decision last year to remove the subsidies payable on imported fertilisers, which is a subsidy on consumption, and reallocate those savings by increased subsidy payments on locally produced phosphatic fertilisers. The new arrangements were intended to operate from 20 August 1986. However, as the Minister indicated in his second reading speech, some uncertainty has been expressed as to whether or not the legislation effectively provides for this operation. The proposed amendments in clauses 18 and 19 make it clear that this is the case. This points to the further indifference of the Government towards embattled Australian farmers. Honourable members opposite do not seem able to understand that Australian farmers are struggling for their very survival. They should not have their import costs further increased by a government that sees them as a potential source of revenue. Farmers in this country are already paying an average of $9,000 a year per farm as their contribution towards protecting jobs in inefficient and non-competitive sectors of secondary industry. This Bill will force many farmers to increase their payouts in order to help an industry which is poorly located and unable to meet the demands placed on it by end users. Since the mid-1970s, Australian farmers have turned more and more to the use of nitrogenous and high analysis combination fertilisers, as they are better suited to modern farming techniques. These types of fertilisers are economic in terms of transport, handling and application costs. As well, they provide the necessary facilities to supply a combination of nutrients in particular requirements. The Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce (Senator Button) in another place indicated that Australian manufacturers have the necessary production capacity to meet farmers' fertiliser requirements. He has ignored the fact that the plants are too small to be cost efficient and that they are located in areas quite apart from utilisation points. In reality, maximum high analysis phosphate fertiliser production capacity effectively is less than half its noted capacity and represents only two-thirds of current consumption. Even if existing plants were of a scale to produce HAPF on an internationally competitive basis, Australia's capacity, combined with high cost shipping services, would mean that it would not be economically feasible to move HAPF production from Western Australia, where there is an excess manufacturing capacity, to the eastern States, while at the same time remaining competitive with imports. The domestic manufacturers have acknowledged this equation. They account for over 70 per cent of the total imports of DAP, MAP and ISP high analysis fertilisers. Farmers are struggling already with the high freight charges incorporated into the cost of many of the imports as well as with the cost of shipping their end products. The Minister in another place, the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce, has acknowledged that some farmers will continue to rely on imported fertiliser products. The present structuring of the industry means that the individual manufacturers will have substantial market power. In Australia the structure of the industry is such that in each of the States there is a monopoly. Without the imported fertiliser there is not the competition to ensure that we receive fertiliser at the most efficient and economic price. Unless imported HAPF products are treated equally with domestic products for the purpose of the fertiliser subsidy, there is a very real likelihood that domestic manufacturers could absorb the subsidy which is paid to them. In its 1982 report the Industries Assistance Commission recognised this possibility. I am not convinced, and nor is the National Farmers Federation, by the Government's assurances that it can monitor price movements in order to prevent manufacturers absorbing the subsidy. The very real risk in changing the fertiliser subsidy is that it will not be passed on to the final user to encourage greater use of fertiliser. After all, this is the purpose for which the subsidy was introduced. The rationale behind the introduction of the subsidy by the Menzies Government was to try to improve the productivity of Australian soils which have been depleted over a long period. It was the basis for extending the subsidy to imported fertilisers in 1982. The subsidy, which costs taxpayers $55m, is the highest component of the Government's assistance to farmers in this country. When placed beside the Government's assistance to many other industries in the country, it pales into insignificance. The average level of effective assistance to the Australian farm sector is about 9 or 10 per cent, compared with 27 to 30 per cent to the manufacturing sector. Australian farmers have to compete with those farmers in the European Economic Community who have an effective assistance level of about 160 per cent and the farmers of the United States of America with an effective assistance level of 100 per cent. But the Government has tampered with the subsidy, the only substantial measure of assistance to the farm sector, by converting a subsidy system into a scheme now partly designed to assist the manufacturing industry and which is no longer for the total benefit of the Australian farming sector. The Government has claimed that this measure will produce some benefit for the Australian balance of payments. The total annual balance of trade saving has been estimated at less than $10m. This will make hardly any impact at all. What is $10m when the current account deficit has increased by more than $6 billion in this financial year alone? Rather than trying to justify an attack on the Australian farm sector while claiming balance of payment deficit problems, the Government should make some real attack on Australia's economic problems. The Australian farming sector does not borrow from overseas in order to undertake its operations; it does not repatriate great profits to shareholders in other countries; it does not make great drawings upon capital inflows into this country, but it does make a tremendous contribution to export earnings by earning between 37 and 40 per cent of Australia's total export income. No industry is more vital in remedying Australia's overseas balance of payment deficit, when its overseas indebtedness is expected to reach in excess of $100 billion this financial year, than the Australian farm sector, but the Australian farm sector will be disadvantaged by this decision. One wonders what the Government is about. I understand that the Department of Primary Industry was horrified when it discovered that the Government had taken this decision. I think that the decision really means that the Minister in another place, the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce, has proved to be too strong for the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Kerin). Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Drummond) —Order! It being 12.45 p.m., the debate is interrupted in accordance with sessional order 106a. The debate may be resumed at a later hour. The honourable member will have leave to continue his speech when the debate is resumed. Question proposed: That grievances be noted. Mr HODGES(Petrie)(12.45) —Why the early election is the question that all Australians must ask themselves. Only a few weeks ago the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) said: `I see no reason why the Government should not run its full term.' This election could be held as late as April 1988. It is being held nine months earlier than the latest possible date, or at least five months earlier than would be normal-in November or December. Why is Prime Minister Hawke not waiting until after the ordinary August Budget? I will tell honourable members why: It is not because of Senate obstructionism, and it has nothing to do with the Opposition, but let me assure the House the people will not be fooled by flimsy reasons put forward by the Prime Minister. However, the early election has everything to do with a government that is running scared and frightened about the economy later in the year. `If we leave it until later in the year things will worsen and we will have absolutely no chance' said Prime Minister Hawke. Why has the Treasurer (Mr Keating) been urging the Prime Minister to go to an early election? For the very same reasons. He knows that the economy is shaky. `Let us have a mini-Budget', he said. `I can act tough, con the media, be tough with the States and look strong and confident, and then we will have an early election. The real truth about the state of the economy will emerge as the months roll by, and with that our chances will lessen. Let us get in as early as possible'. That will not work. Prime Minister Hawke and Treasurer Keating must take the Australian people for fools. Oh, yes, the sheep in the Australian Labor Party will go along and grab the ALP ticket and vote it down the line. But the swinging voters, in Rankin, Brisbane, Lilley, Herbert and Leichhardt in Queensland; in Chis- holm, Dunkley, Ballarat, Bendigo, McEwan and Burke in Victoria; and Barton, Eden-Monaro, Lowe and Hunter in New South Wales will not be fooled. That 20 per cent of intelligent voters in the swinging voter category who, like all Australians, have been hurting badly under this Hawke socialist Government, will see through the early election stunt and vote for the Opposition-the Liberal and National parties. There is no point in Prime Minister Hawke saying: `We have made all the tough decisions in the mini-Budget'. The mini-Budget is a very superficial document. Prime Minister Hawke is saying to the Australian people: `I do not have the guts to bring down an ordinary Budget, but trust me now'. There are deep suspicions in the minds of the electors. They are asking: `Can Hawke be trusted?'; `Can Keating be trusted?'. The clear answer is: `No, they cannot'. The living standards of Australians have suffered their biggest fall in more than 40 years. Affected are families, the elderly, the young, home buyers, small business and farmers. Every individual Australian is feeling the bite of the Hawke socialist Government. But there is one simple, single question Australians should ask themselves: `Am I better off now or is my family or my business better off now than four years ago when the Hawke socialist Government came to power?'. The answer on all counts is no. In 1983 the average family needed to spend 19c in every dollar of its weekly income to pay off a home loan. In December 1986 they had to spend 27c of every dollar earned on the home mortgage. The average home mortgage under Prime Minister Hawke has risen by $281 a month, an extra $70 a week. Private dwelling investment has fallen in each of the past five quarters. In December 1986 it was 9.2 per cent lower than in December 1985. New dwelling commencements have fallen dramatically. They were 17.1 per cent lower in December 1986 than they were in December 1985. Rental accommodation availability continues to decline, whilst rental costs have increased to prohibitive levels. Under Prime Minister Hawke interest rates have soared. A home loan costs at least 15.5 per cent, Bankcard costs 23 per cent and a small overdraft costs 21 per cent. We have all this pious nonsense from the Prime Minister and the Treasurer about interest rates falling. For two years we have been listening to statements about the economy turning around. I would hate to be hanging by the neck waiting for that to happen. Home buyers are worried sick with increased mortgage payments; many are walking away from their homes. Many are depriving themselves of essentials, not luxuries, in order to keep the family home. Despite the Government's so-called tax reform program, a one income family with two children is $37 a week worse off now than when Prime Minister Hawke came to power. Australia's inflation rate is now four times that of the United States and Japan. Australia's inflation rate is 9.4 per cent, the organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development average is 2.4 per cent. But the Treasurer says that the economy is turning around. Our foreign debt stands at a staggering $105 billion, up from about $40 billion when the Hawke Government came to power. The debt stands at the equivalent of $26,000 for every Australian family. Bob Hawke is rapidly sending this nation broke. In addition to the single income family paying $37 more a week in tax than it did in 1983, the Medicare tax, which was one per cent, is now 1.25 per cent, an increase of 25 per cent. It will no doubt increase again if the Hawke Government gets its way. With increases in the Medicare tax, private health insurance, hospital cover, and the cost of pharmaceuticals, health costs have risen an average of $280 for Australian families as a result of the actions of this Government since June last year. Yet we have 100,000 Australians waiting in line for elective surgery at our public hospitals. Medicare is costing $4.7 billion and the tax is bringing in $1.6 billion. It is not delivering the service and it is a financial disaster. Let me illustrate why the Hawke Government is the biggest taxing government in Australia's history. It introduced the tax on lump sum superannuation, automatic twice yearly tax increases for beer, cigarettes and petrol, the Medicare tax, the resource rent tax, a tax of 10 per cent on wine, the fringe benefits tax, the capital gains tax, and new sales taxes. It abolished negative gearing, which has caused rents to rise. It disallowed genuine entertainment expenses as a tax deduction, and it abolished the concessional expenditure rebate. The elderly and veterans have not escaped the sting of the Hawke Government. Returned servicemen and women and aged pensioners have been kicked in the guts by the Prime Minister and the Treasurer. The deferment of the consumer price index increases in pensions took $130m out of the pockets of pensioners. The 2 per cent discounting of the Defence Force retirement benefits and the Defence Force retirement and death benefits pensions have caused hardship to those pensioners. Pharmaceutical benefits have been cut drastically with pensioners now having to buy common analgesics, such as aspirin and paracetamol, anti-histamines and cough mixtures. They will not forget this Hawke Government as they go to the polls this winter, when they have to pay for all those commonly used pharmaceuticals. Supermarket prices have risen sharply and we have the Minister for Science and Minister assisting the Attorney-General on Consumer Affairs (Mr Barry Jones) and his bevy of notepad pimps, who are running around the supermarkets checking prices, when the real reason for the price increases is inflation. Mr Deputy Speaker, at a news conference yesterday the Prime Minister said: Bob Hawke's word is one of the most valuable commodities in Australian politics. With his record of broken promises it is little wonder that the Prime Minister is paranoid about his integrity and his honesty. On 20 November, speaking about interest rates, he said that Australia would reap the benefits of low interest rates. This is a broken promise, of course we have seen interest rates rise and they have been at record levels ever since. Also on 20 November he said: `We expect inflation will be less than 5 per cent in the year ahead, and we are determined to keep it below 5 per cent'. It is 9.4 per cent and it has never been down to 5 per cent. On 13 November 1984 he said that the Medicare levy would not rise in the term of his Government. We all know that it went up 25 per cent. `There will be no capital gains tax', he said. `Let me make it clear there will be no capital gains tax'. That is another broken promise. Bob Hawke has broken so many promises, Mr Deputy Speaker, that his promises are now not worth two bob. The Prime Minister has had his run; he has had his chances and he blew them. The public is sick and tired of excessive union power and unions running the country. The biggest taxing, the biggest spending Government in Australia's history must go. People want an alternative. It is time for a change. The alternative is John Howard. Mr Howard and the Liberal and National parties stand for reduced government spending and lower taxes. Mr Howard and the Liberal and National parties stand for elevating families to their rightful place in our society and the Minister at the table, the Minister for Social Security (Mr Howe) knows exactly what that means in terms of the bad deal that Australian families have had under this Government. It has forgotten about the plight of the average Australian. Middle Australia has had it in the neck from the Hawke socialist Government and on 11 July the people will not forget any of the Government members because a number of them will not be back here; only those with the safe seats will return to this chamber. The alternative is John Howard. The Liberal Party will reduce taxes, abolish the capital gains tax, abolish the fringe benefits tax, abolish the assets test and bring lower taxes for Australians through lower government spending. Australians generally will benefit. I have no doubt that John Howard will lead the Liberal and National Parties to victory on 11 July. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr KENT(Hotham)(12.55) —I would like to bring to the attention of the House the very serious concerns that I, and many others in my electorate of Hotham and the Australian public share about the process of food irradiation. More specifically, I wish to discuss the recommendations of the recently completed inquiry by the Australian Consumers Association. At the outset let me state that I am concerned about the process of food irradiation for a number of reasons. First, of course, like any consumer I am concerned that an unsafe and dangerous product will be placed on our supermarket shelves and that I, like many others, may not have any choice but to purchase and consume a product that I am not satisfied meets the basic requirements of wholesomeness, nutritional value and quality. Secondly, and no less importantly, as the member for Hotham I have specific concerns about the safety aspects of the irradiation plant itself, the health risks and dangers that it poses for workers and the environment. This is particularly important as one of the two commercially owned and operated irradiation facilities in Australia at the moment is located near my electorate in Dandenong, Victoria. The plant operated by Steritech, a division of Pacific Dunlop Ltd, currently uses radiation from cobalt 60 to sterilise medical supplies, corks and wine casks. Steritech is eager to expand its operations to include the large scale irradiation of food. The location of the plant in an area which is densely populated raises important questions about the safety of the plant and the consequences to the local population in the event of a nuclear accident. In addition, the report of the inquiry into food irradiation by the Australia Consumers Association states: There are few actual measurable checks on the industry- that is, the irradiation industry- There are no simple commercially viable tests to see if food has been irradiated at all. There are no tests to measure how much irradiation food has received. Doses are calculated from the emission rate of the source, the size of the box of food, the density of the food and the time that the food is exposed to the irradiation source. It is only from accurate records in the facility and accurate labelling of the batches that irradiated food could be traced. Other than by taking cultures beforehand, there are no reliable tests to see if irradiated food had an unacceptably high count of spoilage micro-organisms before treatment. It is not possible to detect afterwards, if irradiation has been used to `clean up' food which would be considered `spoiled'. There are no ways of testing if food has been re-irradiated, and there is not way of detecting if food contains irradiated ingredients. In spite of the available evidence and that presented in the report, the ACA inquiry has given its approval to the introduction of food irradiation in Australia subject to a number of conditions. The inquiry recommends: That a Federal food irradiation Act be proclaimed to encompass all facets of the food irradiation industry, and that the responsibility to co-ordinate all matters under the Act be vested in a national body. In reading the ACA report, I believe that rather than presenting findings and outlining a convincing case for the introduction of food irradiation, the inquiry demonstrates very clearly that irradiated food cannot be demonstrated to be 100 per cent safe. It cannot be considered 100 per cent wholesome nor can it be shown to retain its pre-irradiation nutritional qualities. The report makes plain that international scientific evidence is contradictory and that leading scientific and medical researchers have not reached a consensus and have been unable to reassure the public that the consumption of irradiated food is not a health risk in itself. The ACA report correctly takes account of the conclusion reached in March this year by the British Medical Association. That conclusion was: Irradiation of foodstuffs could pose long term health hazards. The Board of Science of the British Medical Association has endorsed this conclusion and called for a full-scale study of the risks and benefits of process. The British Medical Association Board of Science stated: `Such a study is necessary before the process can be confidently accepted in this country'. Yet, the ACA has recommended the establishment of Federal legislation to enable food irradiation in this country. In its examination of the reasons why Australia would benefit from food irradiation, the ACA report lists some eight possible reasons-from the extension of the shelf life of foods to the possible benefits gained from reducing the post-harvest use of pesticides. However, in each case the ACA concludes that there is no need for it at the present time. In spite of this, the ACA has nonetheless recommended the introduction of food irradiation. Similarly, if one looks at the position taken in the submissions presented to the inquiry, the overwhelming majority are opposed to food irradiation. For example, from a total of 88 submissions to the inquiry, two sought information, three expressed views in favour and 83 were against the introduction of food irradiation. On this basis it seems quite clear that the recommendations put forward by ACA make no sense whatsoever. However, if we look at the submissions of those supporting irradiation, the following groups appear: Horticultural Holdings Ltd, the Australian Atomic Energy Commission and the National Farmers Federation. On the face of it we can see that the very few vested interests are pushing very hard for the introduction of irradiation despite the growing tide of public opposition to it. As well as highlighting the obvious discrepancy between the evidence presented by the Australian Consumer Association inquiry and the recommendations which the ACA has put forward, it is becoming increasingly clear that, like other types of nuclear technology, food irradiation is not in the short or long term interests of our farmers or our community. The spectre of accidents is always present. Predictably the owners of irradiation plants like Steritech in Dandenong and the staff of the Australian Atomic Energy Commission, who have spent many years promoting this technology, claim that there are no health risks to workers or local communities. They have done their best to bluff the public regarding the safety of the nuclear industry. However, even the ACA inquiry, which has been very favourable to these vested interests, states: `Presumably staff at the Australian Atomic Energy Commission facility at Lucas Heights in Sydney, have the equipment and expertise to handle emergencies, but when Steritech's facility had a stuck cobalt rack they called Canada'. In the case of a nuclear accident or emergency, will we also have to wait for help to arrive from Canada? As well as being shocked at such an admission, I think that it is very cold comfort indeed to the many thousands of people who live in Dandenong and surrounding areas in Victoria and those in close proximity to the other Steritech facility in New South Wales. While the vested interests have tried very hard to dissociate food irradiation from nuclear technology, it goes without saying that the process is based on the operation of a radioactive source, most commonly cobalt 60. Cobalt 60 has a half life of 5.3 years and as such it needs to be replaced regularly. Gamma rays from cobalt 60 are more than the equivalent of 2 million chest X-rays. The radioactivity in the pool of water in which the radioactive isotopes are immersed when the plant is not operational is also considerable. There are many potential dangers and points at which accidents can happen throughout the process of food irradiation itself, the transportation of radioactive isotopes and the disposal of radioactive waste. The ACA inquiry cites eight accidents in facilities using cobalt 60 over the past 12 years alone. Yet, the vested interests still argue that it is safe. The important point which arises from what we know so far is that the dangers are real for us all. They are even more acute for workers and for the population who are in closest proximity to the plant itself. As someone who lives close to Dandenong, and as the member representing many people who live and work nearby, I certainly do not want a nuclear industry growing up around me and my community. Mr ANDREW(Wakefield)(1.05) —I rise in this grievance debate, first to commend the honourable member for Petrie (Mr Hodges) who, speaking on behalf of the Opposition earlier in this grievance debate, laid many of the ground rules for what will be an intensive election campaign. I refer to the member for Petrie because he is a Queensland member and because one week ago today-almost to the hour-I stood in the Evans Deakin shipyard in the city of Brisbane, along with the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard) on the occasion of the launching of the Opposition's rort task force. There, in the Evans Deakin shipyard in what was once a dry dock, now filling with stagnant water, among the rotting timber, rusting buildings, rusting steelwork and long grass, the Leader of the Opposition introduced the rort task force which he said would comprise Senator Warwick Parer as the chairman, Senator Jocelyn Newman and Senator Susan Knowles, the honourable member for Warringah (Mr MacKellar), the honourable member for Higgins (Mr Shipton) and me, the honourable member for Wakefield. Why did the Leader of the Opposition choose this desolate place in which to launch a rort task force and why did he choose Brisbane? First, Mr Deputy Speaker, he selected Brisbane because the chairman of the rort task force, Senator Parer, is from Queensland and because the Leader of the Opposition was due to be in Brisbane on that day and so it seemed appropriate to combine the two functions. But even more significantly the site was chosen because the Evans Deakin shipyard was once a great and viable shipbuilding industry which was closed principally by the actions of unions in introducing restrictive work practices. It was the action of groups such as the Federated Ship Painters and Dockers Union of Australia who, through a restrictive work practice-it obliged Evans Deakin to employ painters and dockers on a day by day basis and then sent the number of painters and dockers available rather than the number that Evans Deakin required-eventually forced the closure of Evans Deakin shipyard. Where once there were 1,500 full time workers and 4,000 subcontractors employed, today there is nothing but a desolate old shipbuilding site. The Leader of the Opposition has launched a rort task force because Australian industry has been bedevilled by rorts. The best known rort of all is probably the dim sim allowances that was paid to builders on a Melbourne site simply because they said they were distracted by the attractive wafting odours of Chinese cooking nearby. When the rort task force was announced and I went on a radio talk back program in my own State, my office was besieged by phone calls from people who were aware of rorts and who thought that these should be brought to the task force's attention. I was not amused to be sitting in my office not half an hour ago and to hear the honourable member for Chifley (Mr Price), in commenting on the Customs Tariff Amendment Bill, say that the Liberal Party was in fact-and I use his words-obsessed with work practices, attacking unions and pointing the finger at the trade union movement. I remind the honourable member for Chifley and all members in this House that the role of Opposition's rort task force, and the task of the Opposition itself, is not to attack the trade union movement but to encourage Australian workers to be productive. I see myself as a unionist, as do the majority of people on this side of the House. It is easy to presume that those of us with rural backgrounds know nothing about manufacturing industry and to lose sight of the fact that our very involvement in the National Farmers Federation or the United Farmers and Stockowners and any other agricultural body is in itself involvement in a union movement but involvement in a voluntary one and that is a significant difference. By suggesting that we were simply attacking unions and saying that as restrictive work practices had been introduced by negotiation they should be taken out by negotiations, the honourable member for Chifley failed to see that the nation is not in a position to trade restrictive work practices. We are literally going broke and the issue facing everyone in Australia-and the Australian electorate on 11 July-is the issue of productivity. Restrictive work practices are not something we can trade with but something we must root out. Nowhere are these practices more prominent than in the shipping industry. Let us consider the sobering truth that the average Australian stevedoring gang comprises 15 men while the average stevedoring gang in the United States of America and the United Kingdom comprises four men. Let us consider the unbelievable fact that it costs 44 per cent more-more, if you please-to transport steel from Port Kembla to Fremantle than from Fremantle to Japan. It costs more-I emphasise more-to transport alumina from Queensland to Tasmania than from Sardinia to Tasmania. These costs are largely reflected in stevedoring and shipping practices. They are reflected in the fact that our container terminal employees have a 27.5 per cent annual leave loading and a 35-hour week. They are also reflected in the fact that Australian National Line vessels expect their captains to receive full table service and their vessels to be manned by two full crews so that half the year can be spent in shore time. People involved in these industries might say: `Why should we not have these privileges? After all we have negotiated them'. We cannot have them because we cannot afford them and my comment as a member of the rort task force is to say that if these people want full table service on liners, they can have it provided they are prepared to work so that Australia's productivity matches the productivity of its overseas competitors. Our port costs are 70 per cent higher than comparable overseas ports. Comparable ports in North America handle twice the number of containers per hour than their Australian counterparts and while production in our port facilities is the lowest, our strike figures on the wharf are second only to Canada. Who pays? Every Australian pays for rorts and no one pays a higher price than the exporters. Consider, Mr Deputy Speaker, what rorts do to my farmers and to yours. Wheat terminals in the United States of America, for example, handle somewhere between 60,000 and 120,000 tonnes per man while in Sydney and Newcastle, the figure is 14,504 tonnes per man. Delay and uncertainty in the way in which export produce is handled has meant that horticultural products have been held up on the wharf when they have been perishable-held up even in airline terminals when they have been perishable and the sale has been lost. Today, 28 May 1987, the French registered vessel Capitaine Wallis is sitting at Geelong waiting to load wheat because the unions refuse to load it in a protest against what is currently happening in Fiji. I am not happy about some things that are happening around Australia but my protest would never be designed so to disadvantage other fellow Australians. The question that might be asked by Australians and by the House is; Who will tackle rorts and who has the record? I want to use the little time left to me to remind the nation that the man who has the record of dealing firmly with the trade union movement is none other than the Leader of the Opposition, John Howard. It was John Howard who, as Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs in 1977, introduced the section 45d and 45e provisions of the Trade Practices Act-those provisions which have been so important in reducing secondary boycotts, which allowed the NFF to be successful in the Mudginberri dispute, which allowed us to take on the trade union movement in the Dollar Sweets Co Pty Ltd dispute, and which allowed Sir Joh Bjelke-Petersen to take on the Queensland electricity workers. It was the then Australian Council of Trade Unions President, Bob Hawke, who said, and it is on the record: There will be blood on the streets. In the face of that threat, John Howard introduced the section 45d and e provisions that this Government threatened to remove. He has the sort of courage that is necessary to address successive trade union demands in the country. Mr LINDSAY(Herbert)(1.15) —The Burdekin Dam in north Queensland deserves its place in Australian history. There has probably been no other project which has stretched out over the century and which has been so littered with broken promises and political betrayal. But now the Burdekin Dam is a reality. Construction is almost complete and the dam is about half full of water. Its construction is testament to the vision and leadership of the Hawke Government, an authentic Australian government. Its construction is an enduring affirmation of faith by the Hawke Government in the future of north Queensland. It is almost 100 years since men first documented their dreams of damming the waters of the Burdekin River. Ludwig Leichhardt discovered the river in 1846 and named it after one of his benefactors, a Mrs Burdekin of Sydney. The first dam was proposed 43 years later in 1889 in a report prepared by the renowned engineer, Mr W. H. Mackinnon, who proposed a large dam on the Burdekin river for irrigation purposes. This report heralded a campaign to bring the project to reality which has lasted almost 100 years. The designer of the Sydney harbour Bridge, Dr. J. J. Bradfield, included the Burdekin Dam in his 1945 inland construction scheme, which was a plan to channel the coastal rivers of Australia into the inland. But it was a Labor government that in 1945 set up a joint Commonwealth-State ministerial committee to investigate northern development, and which in turn selected, for further evaluation, a development proposal based on a dam at the Burdekin Falls site. And it was a Labor government in 1974 that made the first Commonwealth funds available for water resources development in the Burdekin region-namely, a grant of $3m towards the cost of construction of the Clare Weir, which was regarded as a pilot scheme for any future large scale development. At the same time, that Labor Government initiated a Federal-State investigation costing $1m into the potential of the Burdekin basin. Then, in 1983, it was the Hawke Government which honoured a commitment to fully fund the construction of the Burdekin Falls Dam. In September 1983, tenders for construction of the Burdekin Dam were called. Leighton Contractors won the contract and poured the first concrete a year later. Construction of the dam wall was completed on 13 March 1987-a year ahead of schedule. Construction was uninterrupted, as there was no real wet season for years and there were few industrial disputes. The dam is a mass concrete structure, 876 metres long, including a spillway length of 504 metres, rising some 37 metres above the river bed. The designed storage is 1,850,000 megalitres, inundating over 22,000 hectares of land. The Burdekin Dam will be the largest water storage constructed to date in Queensland. The Burdekin Dam could, in the near future, be enlarged to a capacity of 8,500,000 megalitres, making it the largest water storage on the Australian continent, with potential to support a 500 megawatt hydro-electric power station at the site. The catchment area is 114,220 square kilometres, or about half the size of Victoria, with the irrigation yield of water projected at 850,000 megalitres. Saddle dams and ancillary works will be completed later this year. The total cost of the work is estimated at approximately $129m. The cost is fully funded by the Hawke Government by way of grant. The Commonwealth's financial commitment to the Burdekin Dam project currently represents over half of the funds allocated to the States for water resource development and management under the Federal water resources assistance program. This commitment demonstrates the priority which the Hawke Government accords to the Townsville-Thuringowa region and to north Queensland. The completion of this dam represents not only the culmination of one of the greatest engineering projects in Australia but also the fulfilment of the legitimate aspirations of the people of north Queensland. Above all, it will provide wealth and stimulus to the growth of the cities of Townsville and Thuringowa. Future development of the cities of Townsville and Thuringowa will be unlimited. I am certain that water from the Burdekin Dam will give life and sustenance to an eventual population of more than one million people living in the Townsville-Thuringowa region. At present the Townsville-Thuringowa Water Supply Board supplies water to the urban population of 110,000 people in the Townsville and Thuringowa local authorities. For the last five years the people of this region have endured an unprecedented drought. Available water storage levels are very low, and demand is severely restricted. A further wet season failure will be disastrous, adversely affecting the burgeoning tourism industry and other industrial development. The Townsville-Thuringowa Water Supply Board has sought the Queensland Water Resources Commission's recognition of the drastic curtailment of water supply to Townsville and Thuringowa cities, as necessary and sufficient to achieve both Federal and State grant funding of a supply pipeline to carry Burdekin water to the Ross River Dam, the principal water storage system in the Townsville region. It is essential that funding arrangements should allow the earliest possible completion of pipeline construction and commencement of supply. The situation is urgent. Water storage in the Townsville-Thuringowa region is disastrously low. A failed wet season in 1987-88 would demand natural disaster level measures for the supply of water to the Townsville-Thuringowa region. Honourable members who have supported the development of one of the greatest construction projects of Australia's history will be astounded to learn that the Queensland Government has callously and brutally rejected the claim for financial assistance by the Townsville-Thuringowa Water Supply Board. The Queensland Government has decided to demand that the hard pressed water consumers and ratepayers of the cities of Townsville and Thuringowa pay a standing charge of an extra $35 a megalitre for any water that the cities take from the Burdekin scheme. This charge is in addition to an operating or a delivery charge which is estimated at about $28 for each megalitre delivered. It should be recorded that the Queensland Department of Local Government rating level survey shows Townsville city rating to be amongst the highest in Queensland. The capacity to pay further debt limitation costs by Townsville ratepayers has reached its limit. It has been calculated that if the Queensland Government gets its way, it would add more than $200 to the bill of every ratepayer in Townsville and Thuringowa. The Federal Government has indicated that it is prepared to provide its share of funding for the scheme. The spanner in the works is the National Party State Government. It is the State Government's responsibility to provide water from the Burdekin Dam for the Townsville-Thuringowa Water Supply Board. It is then the responsibility of the Board to carry out the necessary water reticulation works. The Queensland National Party has no problem funding $10m to prop up a Gold Coast real estate developer and another $7.5m to help finance a film studio for a Hollywood movie mogul. Yet it has turned its back on the people of Townsville and Thuringowa who are seeking nothing more than a reasonable and reliable supply of water. The Premier's son certainly has no problems with water supply to his central Queensland property, but the 110,000 people of Townsville and Thuringowa have been left in the lurch. An excellent editorial in the Townsville Bulletin of 27 May 1987 said: The State Government is without principle in its determination to charge Townsville residents for the cost of building the Burdekin Dam. There is no moral basis for the stand, nor logic to support it. The Federal Government paid the full cost of the dam with a $129 million non-repayable grant. Now the State Government wants to recoup the amount ``for the taxpayers of Australia'', says Water Resources Minister Martin Tenni, by slugging Townsville and Thuringowa residents an extra $35 a megalitre for any water the cities take from the Burdekin, if and when a pipeline is built. The charge would be hard enough to justify if the money was to go to the Federal Government and the charge was to remain only until the original establishment costs were paid for. But this is not what Mr Tenni plans. The $35 a megalitre will go into the State coffers and will remain in force permanently. The demand is outrageous and deserves a very clear rejection from the community. In addition to the $35, Townsville and Thuringowa residents are being asked by the State to pay $28 a megalitre to contribute to the cost of operating an maintaining the down-river water distribution system and the cost of piping water from the system via a pipeline to the Ross River dam. Under the State Government proposal the final cost of Burdekin water to Townsville and Thuringowa residents could be as high as $100 a megalitre compared with $18 a megalitre for current supplies from other sources. The Minister has offered to phase in the changes to ease the pain. Inequity phased in is still inequity. Mr Tenni should explain why the State is charging Townsville the cost of dam which has already been paid for by the Federal Government. And why is the money going to State and not Federal coffers? He should also explain why the Burdekin farmers will not face such a charge. To say that Townsville will benefit from new farms in the Burdekin and therefore should foot the bill is fallacious. Figures supplied by the Townsville local authority representatives suggest that the State has already made significant savings on the construction of channel works in the lower Burdekin but there is no sign that these savings are being passed on. Townsville and Thuringowa residents are being held at ransom by their State Government over an essential commodity: water. The State Government was elected to help Queenslanders, not rip them off. Mr SLIPPER(Fisher)(1.25) —I wish to comment on a few matters relating to the termination of the tenure of this Government-a government in tatters whose leader crept into the chamber yesterday and, in a cynical exercise at 5.13 p.m., announced that Australia was going to have yet another early election. This was another broken promise which the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) can add to his litany of many broken promises over those four fateful years of Labor control of this nation. The people of Australia now know that they cannot accept at face value any promise made by the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister has a sorry record. Recall what he said on 13 November 1984, when he referred to home ownership. He said: We pledge ourselves to bring home ownership once again within the reach of ordinary Australian families. What has happened? Savings bank home loan interest rates have risen from 11.5 per cent in December 1984 to a record 15.5 per cent currently, and indeed, at least one bank has increased the rate even further. Monthly repayments on a typical $50,000 25-year loan have risen by $172 a month. Average loan repayments as a percentage of median family incomes have increased from 19.2 per cent in March 1983, when Labor came to office, to a record 26.7 per cent in September 1986. Of course, in addition, a record number of people are on public housing waiting lists. The people of Fisher, like the people in other parts of Australia, will, on 11 July, call this Government to account for its cynicism, broken promises and lack of reliability. Interest rates are forcing many, many people out of their homes. The number of repossessions has never been higher. Yet let us look at what the Prime Minister said on 20 November 1984. He said: At present, the outlook for interest rates is as bright as it has been for more than a decade. Australia and Australians will during 1985 reap the interest rate rewards that are flowing from successful policies of the past 20 months. He also said-and this is a classic: We've ploughed the fields and sown the seeds. In the near future we will harvest the crop. On 11 July this year, the Prime Minister and the Hawke socialist Government will indeed harvest the crop because they will be swept from office and, in fact, after that date, they will simply be a bad memory for the people of Australia. Other broken promises relate to inflation. In 1984 the Prime Minister also said: We expect inflation will be less than 5 per cent in the year ahead and we are determined to keep it below 5 per cent. What a sick joke! The interest rates in this country are infinitely higher than those of our major trading partners. The interest rates in this country are forcing people out of their homes, off their farms and out of their businesses, yet this cynical Prime Minister came in here yesterday and tried to suggest that the people of Australia would give him another mandate on 11 July. I think that he lives in fairytale land. I think he has a dreamtime mentality because with his record there is no way that the Hawke Labor Government will be returned in July. I turn to oil prices. The Government promised to reduce fuel taxes by 3c a litre. What has happened? Despite the decrease in international oil prices, in this country oil prices have continued to rise. The Treasurer (Mr Keating) has turned every petrol station in this country into a branch office of the Australian Taxation Office. He has made every person selling fuel a collector of taxes. He continues to rip off the people of Australia and those in my electorate of Fisher, and I believe that they have simply had enough. While we realise that Australia is a country in real trouble, a country in dire straits, it is also appropriate to recognise that it is this Government which has put it there. This Government's failed policies have forced Australia into the situation of being virtually a Third World country with a First World standard of living. Then there were other promises, too-other promises relating to the trilogy and the promise not to bring in a capital gains tax. We remember the Prime Minister's comments. He said: And here let me make one point so that even our opponents can understand it; and let me make it beyond all their powers of misrepresentation and distortion. There will be no new capital gains tax. Well, what do we see in this country? Another broken promise. We find that there is a capital gains tax. When the Prime Minister delivers his policy speech in the runup to this election, he will make a wide range of promises-promises which the people of Fisher and of Australia will not be able to accept. As I believe one of the honourable members on this side of the House said, `Mr Hawke is the Prime Minister whose promises have a use-by date.' They are promises which are made, promises which are not implemented, promises made for convenience, promises made to attract the votes of people and then cynically cast aside when elections are over. This Government is a government on the way out. It is a government of factions which have been hastily papered over the purposes of this election campaign. It is a government which is finding difficulty in coming forward with decisive economic policies for Australia's future. It is a government which is afraid to bring forward a Budget for this year. That is why it is scuttling to the people on 11 July. After the failure of its mini-Budget and the cynicism that that contained, this Government is not prepared to tell the people of Australia what is in the Budget due in August. What does it have to hide? That is what Australians are asking. Why has this Government not brought down its Budget? Why is it hiding behind yet another early election? The answers have simply not been forthcoming. They are answers which the people of Australia-and the people of Fisher-demand. The Government has simply failed to come up with suitable explanations and this will cost it dearly at the next election. People are aware that we are now in a very difficult economic situation. Our international competitiveness has collapsed. Our international debt is now more than $101 billion or more than $6,000 for every man, woman and child in the whole of Australia. The national debt is increasing at the rate of $1,300 per second; at a rate in excess of $4.5m an hour. Every 10 days, Australia's national debt increases by an amount in excess of the cost of the new Taj Mahal up on the hill, Australia's new Parliament House-and we all know how costs for that building have blown out. Thus the Government goes to the people in a time of crisis. The Government goes to the people with a tattered and patchy record. The Government goes to the people with a litany of broken promises. In this country we have a Federal government of the unions, for the unions and controlled by the unions. One only has to remember that within this Government we have 68 memberships of trade unions or thereabouts. Fourteen spouses of Australian Labor Party members are in trade unions and some of those members have also signed their children up in trade unions. This information comes from Year Book and also from the pecuniary interest returns. We find many unions represented and despite the claim by the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations (Mr Willis) that the Government, when bringing in the Industrial Relations Bill, represented community views, it is obvious that this is a government controlled by the unions. So, on 11 July, the people of Australia and the people of Fisher will have the opportunity to reject the Hawke Labor Government. When the people look at their tattered, patchy and disastrous record and at the fact that Australia is a country going down the economic gurgler, I am confident that they will sweep the Hawke Government from office in a landslide which will be reminiscent of the result on 11 November 1975 when the people of Australia at that time resolutely rejected the policies of Whitlam. Hawke is finished. This Government is finished. It will be thrown from office. This Government will be only a sick and sorry memory in the minds of the people of Australia after 11 July this year. Mr BALDWIN(Sydney)(1.35) —The honourable member for Fisher (Mr Slipper) is a hard act to follow but I intend to talk about something a little more specific. Recently I received-and I assume all other honourable members did too-a letter from an organisation called the Australian Jaycees. The letter accompanied a brochure advertising the Australian Jaycees five outstanding young Australian awards, 1987. It sought a nomination from me as a Federal member and, I assume, from all other members. Normally one would not have any problem with that sort of exercise. However, I was rather struck by the appearance of a logo of the Australian Jaycees' national sponsor, Amatil Ltd, on the front cover of the brochure. I am sure members are aware that Amatil is a corporation which is heavily involved in the production and marketing of tobacco products. I specifically mention W. D. & H. O. Wills Ltd and the Benson & Hedges Co. Ltd, two of Australia's major tobacco producers. I find something terribly incongruous about an organisation which, according to its published material, is concerned with `problems of universal significance' and `service to humanity' allowing itself to be associated with the tobacco industry. I remind honourable members of a number of features of the tobacco industry. The World Health Organisation has designated that smoking control: . . . could do more to improve health and prolong life . . . than any other action in the whole field of preventive medicine. In the context of the current drug offensive I also refer to the magnitude of smoking-related illnesses as part of the overall drug problem. According to statistics released by the Federal Department of Health in the year 1984, tobacco smoking was responsible for 16,350 deaths in that year. Compared with that, there were 230 deaths from all forms of opiates, including heroin, opium and morphine. The so-called hard drug problem is rightly a major priority, but it is massively overwhelmed by the magnitude of the health and social problems constituted by tobacco and tobacco-related illnesses. To look at it another way, roughly 80 per cent of all drug deaths were due to smoking-related illness. About 18 per cent were due to alcohol and alcohol-related illness and 2 per cent accounted for all the other drugs. That includes the opiates, but it also includes barbiturates and anything else that one cares to name. So we are really looking at a health problem and a drug problem of colossal significance. I think it is terribly ironical and most unfortunate that an organisation which apparently does quite a bit of good work in the community should allow itself to be associated with one of the major culprits in the promotion and selling of these particular products. I make specific reference to the problem of smoking by the young. We have some statistics on that now which have emanated from a variety of sources, including the recent release of a survey by the New South Wales Drug and Alcohol Authority. In a recent article in the Medical Journal of Australia there are figures that indicate that something like one in three children become regular smokers by the age of 15, and about one in four smokers eventually die of smoking-related disease. That indicates the extent of the problem that we have with young smokers, and I might also add that there is a very serious problem with young women taking up smoking. In most teenage categories more young women than young men are smokers; more girls than boys. I suppose it is fair to note at this point that Amatil is not the worst offender in this area. There are considerably worse offenders, particularly those companies that make the Peter Jackson and Alpine brands of cigarettes. There is no doubt that much of their advertising is very specifically targeted at the young through the association with rock groups and so forth. Those two companies have captured a very high market share of the under-20 smokers and they stand condemned, in my opinion, for directing their advertising in that way. However, while Amatil is not among the worst offenders, it is still pretty well up there. Its Benson and Hedges brand has about 10 per cent of the market share for young boys. While Amatil might not be the worst, it certainly makes a major contribution, and its contribution probably exceeds that of various other kinds of hard drug problems which have attracted so much publicity. The tobacco industry, of course, argues rather spuriously that it is not concerned to cause people to take up smoking in the first instance. What it is interested in persuading people to alter their brand preference. I have always found that argument terribly implausible. If association with glamorous lifestyles, for example, is a form of advertising which effectively causes people to switch from one brand of cigarettes to another, I see no reason why association with glamorous lifestyles would not cause some people who currently do not smoke to take up the habit. There is a fundamental illogicality in that, in my opinion. I also think the distinction that some advertisers make between advertising directed at children and that directed at others has a certain degree of dubiousness. While there are some cases-earlier I mentioned Peter Jackson-where there is a very clear and very emphatic attempt to target young people, how in the world does one make a distinction between that and the use of sponsorship of sport, which is obviously followed by children as well as adults, and presumably it is done for some purpose by the cigarette companies? I fail to see how one can make a hard distinction between advertising targeted at children and that targeted at adults. In support of what I am saying, I would like to quote from a recent supplement to an article in a journal called Community Health Studies. It is volume 11, No. 1 of 1987, and it is based on Australian statistical data. According to it: The major finding of this study is that tobacco is reaching and presumably influencing very young children, contrary to the tobacco, industry's voluntary code of advertising. If one excludes the self-serving material emanating from the tobacco and advertising industries, the evidence is fairly strong that that type of advertising does induce young people to take up smoking, to take up that terribly harmful and dangerous habit that, in one out of four cases, will kill them; that it is in fact effective in bringing more people into the cigarette market. I might note that the Mulroney Government in Canada, which is not normally regarded as being hostile to corporate interests, has recently decided to ban virtually all tobacco advertising over the next 18 months. The difficulty we have, of course, with this type of issue is that there is a colossal vested interest involved. In 1982, some $60m was spent on tobacco produces advertising in Australia. That was five years ago so presumably the figures is substantially higher now. Obviously, where one has that sort of interest one finds an army of highly articulate, presumably well paid spivs arguing that tobacco is not really harmful to health and trying to create a cloud of confusion over an issue which is very clear so far as virtually all reputable health bodies in the world are concerned. If one tries to make a distinction between the morality of that sort of activity and outright drug trafficking, one is on pretty tenuous ground. I conclude by noting that the sort of sponsorship we see with Amatil and this Jaycees' award is highly insidious. Obviously, it will not immediately increase the preferences for Amatil's brands of cigarettes, but it will have a retarding effect on an organisation such as Australian Jaycees which professes concern with improvements in our community. How free will it be to adequately and progressively pursue the task of tackling the major drug problem in this country at the moment-that is, tobacco smoking? I am really very sceptical on that score and, as a consequence, I certainly will not lend any support to this competition. I urge other members to do likewise. Mr TUCKEY(O'Connor)(1.45) —No doubt there is considerable cause to express a grievance on behalf of the Australian people today because the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) has again created a situation where Australians are called to the polls at least six months ahead of the time that they might otherwise have been. It is typical of the Prime Minister that he consistently chooses to break his promises. It was I who coined the phrase in this Parliament that someone should put a use-by date on his promises. Consequently I have taken a close look at these and I have found that they all last less than three months. Of course the promise best remembered by most Australians is that there would be no capital gains tax. It is time that this Prime Minister and his Government attempted to establish some credibility amongst the Australian people. It is not all that long ago that many Australians in business and in private activity with home loans and so on, took decisions to incur considerable debt because the Prime Minister and the Treasurer (Mr Keating) had promised that interest rates, which were then at about 14 per cent, were on the way down. Interest rates were falling, we were told. In my responsibilities as shadow spokesman for small business, I have encountered tragedies of people who believed our Prime Minister and our Treasurer, and contracted debt which they could properly service-either from their wages and salaries, or from the proposed business income-but whose calculations were blown out of the water by the massive increase in interest charges that have occurred since. These increases are hurting small business and are driving families to desperation. People have had to change all their spending plans. On a plane just recently I spoke to a public servant from Canberra, who told me that he and his wife were both working and that he could not define himself as `poor'. Yet he and his wife were now struggling to make ends meet because of the cost of living and the falling living standards created by this Government. The Prime Minister tells us we must re-elect him because somebody must give us the medicine of hard times. I agree that Australia must have some medicine of hard times, but it is time Australia understood who gave us the sickness. This Government did have an inheritance. In its initial two years of administering this country it had extremely favourable economic circumstances and the breaking of the worst drought in history. I might add that the Prime Minister keeps telling us that our current situation is all the fault of those foreigners who have forced down the commodities; it is never his fault. Of course nothing is the Prime Minister's fault and nothing is the Treasurer's fault. One could go back as far as Bob Menzies-one could blame him. Currently the Prime Minister and the Treasurer are blaming the foreigners and they tell us that all the problems are caused by the foreigners. They never remember that Malcolm Fraser and other Prime Ministers had to battle with these sorts of problems; that Australia has had difficulties with its overseas trade on other occasions. There was a time when we were so desparately seeking markets for our wheat that we had to impose wheat quotas. We survived those times. The living standards of ordinary Australians did not fall. Pressure was placed on our farmers but ordinary Australians were looked after by the government of the day. Now we are being told it is all somebody else's fault. The reality is simply that when the Government came to office it did not know how to govern. In common with the government of its predecessor, Mr Gough Whitlam, it thought that the right to govern was a right to distribute largesse. It did that by first confusing the Australian people claiming that it had to borrow money because it had inherited a deficit. For the information of those who are listening I emphasise it is time that everyone understood this-that a deficit is just money that governments spend in excess of the revenue that they gather. The incurring of a deficit by a government is very much like an ordinary person borrowing $100,000 and spending it. He has a lot of fun and looks pretty wealthy while he is spending but the fateful day comes when the finance company or the bank demands interest payments and repayment of the capital. We have seen people get themselves into those circumstances. That is what this incompetent Government did. It went out in its first two years of office and borrowed $17,000m. It then said to the Australian people: `Look how prosperous we have made you'. It gave us a debt-led recovery. All of those wonderful economic figures that our Treasurer boasted about-and he is a master at manipulating figures to make them mean whatever he chooses in order to support his argument-were based on borrowed money. Now, of course, the bank is calling up the loans. The problem has not resulted from difficulties with our trade balance. That is a contributing factor but one that must always be anticipated. When we consider the cyclical nature of the world economic structure the clear message given to government is, when times are good start preparing, as does nature, for the hard times. We can go back in history as far as records have been kept and find that situation occurring-we get growth and then we get decline. The Government was experiencing magnificent growth, for which it took all the credit, but that growth was caused mainly by, of course, the breaking of the drought and the effects of President Reagan's economic policies in the United States of America. They were the things that were pushing the economy along in Australia but our government tried to add to its quota by injecting a big heap of borrowed money. It was very inadequate in its understanding of the operations of business. That is not surprising when we think of the credentials of the two gentlemen concerned. The Prime Minister could be considered the managing director of Australia and, I guess, the Treasurer could be considered to be our chief accountant. If we were to look at their credentials, under that business approach, we would be quite surprised. We would find that the Prime Minister's references would indicate that he has had managerial experience-he was at one time the manager of Bourke's store when it went broke-and he was, of course, the man who initiated and saw the failure of ACTU Solo and ACTU Travel. The Prime Minister went to the Australian people this morning on television and said: `Trust Australia Incorporated to me because I will not let you down'. The reality, Madam Speaker, is that he has let us down already and that I do not trust him as the receiver and manager. We now need good policies that will give Australians an incentive to go back to work, not borrow money. Borrowed money is all that this government has delivered us. As it fed $24,000m worth of borrowed money into our economy Australians took the money and spent it, but the Keynesian theories that these gentlemen were applying were applied in the 1930s. These theories did not allow for the fact that one could bring goods from half way around the world on a jumbo jet in 36 hours or pay one's debts by pressing a computer button. Australians had money to spend and they spent it on imported goods because Australian industry was not ready for the sort of injection of capital that the Government gave us, and the money drifted off-shore. Mr Cunningham —What about the international debt that the Government inherited? Mr TUCKEY —If the interjector wants to suggest the money did not drift off shore, I remind him to look at the growth of Australia's international indebtedness. Let us talk about inheritance for a moment. The Government's international debt inheritance totalled $35,000m. The figure has now grown to $105,000m, an additional $70,000m. I heard the honourable member for Canning (Mr Gear) tell the House the other day that we had just had our first fall in international indebtedness-from $105,000m to $104,000m! We have a brand new situation in Australia. If our trade deficit drops below $1,000m a month it is a cause for celebration! The Treasurer gets up and says that he is very satisfied-we have only borrowed another $700m-$800m from the world. That is a disaster in anybody's language, but of course it is not as a big a disaster as is the $40,000 a minute we borrowed in one month in particular. We borrowed from the rest of the world each minute a sum equivalent to the value of one modest family home. This occurred under the administration of a Prime Minister who now goes before the people and says, in effect: `Elect me quickly because I know that things are getting worse'. Yesterday we had the Treasurer reading us the national accounts. They were not those for the last three months. We had heard all of the earlier detail before but this great manipulator wanted to extend the figures over a period that would make them look good. The reality is that the last three months have been a disaster for the Government. None of the Treasurer's predictions have been come to pass and, of course, his mini-Budget will not change anything either. The Prime Minister has promised us no new taxes. He has just put $500m worth of taxes in-- Mr Cunningham —You won't be here. Mr TUCKEY —I will be here unless Labor does a deal with Joh. I will still win. Labor will give in to Joh. I am not worried. Government supporters can count their fingers after the handshake. I will still be here. The Government can do any deals it likes. It has let Australia down. It has put us into massive debt and has created a situation in which, for ordinary Australian families, what one earns is no longer enough to survive on in the manner to which Australians had become accustomed under Liberal management year after year after year. Madam SPEAKER —Order! The honourable members time has expired. Ms MAYER(Chisholm)(1.55) —I wish to raise in this grievance debate my very real concern about Opposition attitudes-I can only say attitudes, as there is apparently no policy-about women. The conservative parties, it seems to me, see women, only as part of a traditional family, the least important part, and have failed miserably to develop forward thinking and positive policies for women. When it comes to looking at the difference between the offerings that are being made to electors let us look at the deeds, not the words. The deeds in this case are very clear. Let us look at the differences between what this Government has done for and about women while in office and what its predecessors did while in office-nothing. Against that desert of inaction for women we can put up these very proud pieces of legislation: The sex discrimination Bill, which banned discrimination against women in the provision of goods and services and in work; the Affirmative Action (Equal Employment Opportunity for Women) Bill for the Public Service; the Equal Employment Opportunity (Commonwealth Authorities) Bill, which was disgracefully opposed by the Opposition; and the affirmative action legislation, which will give women the opportunities for employment and promotion that men have always had. With every Budget we have presented a women's program, to allow Australian women to know what government departments are doing for them. We have increased child care places, by many thousands, to 20,000. We are looking at providing child care places in Technical and Further Education colleges to enable single mothers to increase their educational opportunities and therefore their employment opportunities. We have published studies of women in sport and women in the media. We are about to publish a survey of rural women's needs, something that the National Farmers' Federation has not thought about. We have made a survey of unpaid work at home, something that has been kept very much under the carpet for many, many years. We have established a National Women's Consultative Council that does consult and, in regard to our national agenda for women, have asked every woman in Australia for her opinion. We have given women a say, a choice, a fair go and will continue to do so. The results of the national women's survey will be launched quite soon. What the Opposition has to say about the work that we have done is typified by the remarks of the honourable member for Parkes (Mr Cobb), who said of the Equal Employment Opportunity (Commonwealth Authorities) Bill: Next thing we will be having to employ homosexuals, Indians from outer Mongolia or, if you like, one-legged, left-handed lesbians. All I can say about that is that the people of Australia will understand very clearly the difference between a government that knows about and acts for women and those people on the other side of the chamber who have had nothing but contempt for women all of their lives. Madam SPEAKER —Order! It being 2 p.m., in accordance with standing order 106, as amended for this session, the debate is interrupted and I put the question: That grievances be noted. Question resolved in the affirmative. Mr HAWKE(Wills-Prime Minister) —As a courtesy, I inform the House that the Leader of the House and Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (Mr Young) will be absent from Question Time today. Mr Tuckey —Campaigning, is he? Mr HAWKE —I am not quite sure what he is doing, but he will not be here. Any questions normally directed to him in relation to his portfolio, or as Minister representing the Special Minister of State in this chamber, should be addressed to the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs (Mr Holding). Questions that would be addressed to the Leader of the House should be addressed to the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr Lionel Bowen). Mr HOWARD —My question is addressed to the Prime Minister. I refer the Prime Minister to the significant fall in the living standards of Australian families under the policies of his Government. Is he aware that a single-income family on average weekly earnings and with two children was $31 worse off at Christmas last year compared with at March 1983 when the Hawke-Keating Government was elected? Is he also aware that this figure has increased to almost $41 a week since last Christmas? Is it not a fact that one of the real reasons for his calling an early election and breaking yet another election promise is that, under his policies, the living standards of Australian families will continue to fall further through 1987? Mr HAWKE —The Leader of the Opposition has been peddling this untruth for a very long period. As anyone who has studied it understands, it is based upon a series of assumptions that are completely untenable. Rejecting as I do the figures used by the Leader of the Opposition, I make this point: When we came to office, as is well known, there was in this country the worst economic recession for 50 years. The great damage that the Leader of the Opposition as Treasurer had inflicted on Australian families was best exemplified by the fact that in his last 12 months in office an additional quarter of a million Australians were thrown on the unemployment scrap-heap. That was the damage inflicted on this country, on the living standards of Australians, by the current Leader of the Opposition. In the task that we faced, and that we cheerfully took up, of rescuing this country from its worst economic recession in 50 years, the Government, and I guess the trade union movement in this country, had two alternatives. We could have embraced the unemployment ideology of the Opposition and said: `We do not care how many more people go out of work. We will ensure that those who stay in work get the benefits of economic growth'. Fortunately for the people of this country both this Government, and, to its eternal credit, the trade union movement made the clear decision that it was both economically more sensible and morally more appropriate that the economic growth which was to occur under the policies of this Government should be distributed by way of increased employment rather than by growing real wages. In that context the very significant economic growth that this Government effected resulted in record employment growth. That was the way in which substantial economic growth was distributed. This has resulted over the four years of this Government in the record 800,000 new jobs. Alternatively, we could have taken the Thatcher-type approach, if one likes to call it that: Let there be over three million employed; let unemployment go up to 13 per cent and let those in employment increase their standards. A clear and deliberate decision was made by the Government, and shared by the trade union movement, that the sensible, moral way of sharing the fruits of economic growth was by significant employment growth. The trade union movement acquiesced in that process and real wages declined over this period by some 6 per cent. In other words, this was no accident; it was the result of the deliberate policy of this Government, with the co-operation of the trade union movement and the Australian business community, that growth should be shared by a growing number of jobs. I will not take up the time of the House by explaining to the Leader of the Opposition and the various Opposition groups, who cannot agree with one another, the effects of their policies. At this point, Madam Speaker, I will just interpolate this little bit of news from Sir Joh in America because this gives an indication of the sort of co-operation that will characterise the other side in the election. Opposition members-Hee, hee hee! Mr HAWKE —Laugh, laugh, laugh! They will not be laughing for too long. A question was put to one of the Opposition leaders, the one who is in America. I will share his response with honourable members. He said: No, I won't be campaigning with John Howard or Ian Sinclair at all. You can send that back home if you like. I have told them and I have made it quite clear that I won't support their policy . . . they can support my policy if they like, and I'll talk to you about that at another time. I will not take up the time of the House today in telling the House and the people about the disastrous impact there would be upon living standards in Australia if by some inconceivable chance this motley collection were ever to get into government. I assure honourable members and the people of Australia that in the days and the weeks between now and 11 July the Australian people will know in detail the disastrous impact there would be upon the living standards of Australian families if the policy of the conservatives were to be brought into effect-that is, the ideologically unacceptable policy of giving money back to the rich at the expense of the poor. Mr CLEELAND —My question is directed to the Prime Minister. Opposition members interjecting- Mr CLEELAND —I will wait until they are quiet, Madam Speaker. Madam SPEAKER —I think you have achieved that. Mr CLEELAND —Can the Prime Minister inform the House of the benefits of the stable economic management provided by the Government's programs? Mr HAWKE —Yes, I can. I thank the honourable-and long to be present-member for McEwen. As I said in my answer to the previous question, the stable economic management of this Government has allowed businesses to invest with confidence in this country, and in so doing to create jobs. As I pointed out, under that responsible economic management we have had the record creation of just about 800,000 new jobs. In other words, stable economic management is essential for investment confidence. Of course, that view is shared by financial markets. I know that you, Madam Speaker, will be very interested to hear today the view that has been expressed by those markets about the prospects for future confidence in this country and what would be the reaction to alternative outcomes from the forthcoming election. Just today, the chief currency trader for the Westpac Banking Corporation on the New York markets, Mr Gerry Egan, was asked what the markets would be thinking and what their attitude would be to the election? I will quote Mr Gerry Egan from New York. The chief currency trader for Westpac was asked the question: `What would the market like to see?' The answer was brief and unequivocal. It was in these terms: I think they'd very much like to see the current administration in office for a longer amount of time. A very sensible judgment! But it is interesting to note that he was then asked another question. He was asked: What would happen to the Australian dollar in the view of the market if either Mr Howard or Sir Joh Bjelke-Petersen were to win? This is the answer, which should be clearly understood. He said: I would have to say it would probably be a disaster and I would think you'd see a big sell-off on the Australian dollar. So much for the confidence of the business community and the markets in prospect of a government formed by honourable members opposite. Mr SINCLAIR —I ask a question of the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations. In light of the withdrawal from the Government's legislative program of the Industrial Relations Bill at the beginning of this week, will the Minister advise the House whether he is opposed to industrial action by Queensland unions against that State's industrial legislation? Will he also explain how he intends to implement his firm undertaking to the Australian Council of Trade Unions that that package would be passed by the Parliament before the 1987-88 Budget? Mr WILLIS —The Government opposes the proposed industrial action by Queensland coal mining unions, or any other coal mining unions for that matter. It is clearly our view, and it has been expressed to that union and to the ACTU, that there should not be any industrial action in protest against Queensland Government legislation, no matter how draconian or intimidatory that legislation is. It is our intention that the Industrial Relations Bill make it quite clear that Commonwealth law would prevail and that State law would be excluded from having an application in addition to the Commonwealth law, as of course should be the case because there is absolutely no reason for saying that people undertaking any action should be subject to proceedings in more than one court for the same action. That is what was proposed in relation to the Queensland industrial law because it would provide penalties to federally registered unions engaged in disputes which were subject to Federal law and make them subject also to Queensland law. The position of the Government is quite clear on this matter. The unions have been advised now that the legislation is not going to be passed this session. In deferring the legislation until the next session I made it quite clear that that aspect of the legislation related to an exclusive code which would ensure that the Queensland legislation was overriden would still remain part of that legislation. Quite clearly, that remains our position. Our advice to the Queensland unions has been simply to continue with their work and not engage in stupid industrial action which would simply play into the hands of the politics of the Queensland Premier-which of course he wants them to do-and to be cool. I will be seeing the Queensland unions tomorrow. I hope that we can prevent any industrial action taking place. Mr RONALD EDWARDS —I direct a question to the Treasurer-I might add, the Treasurer in the best Government that this country has ever seen, and will continue to see. Will the Treasurer advise the House as to the impact on the revenue of a cut in the company tax rate to 25 per cent? Mr KEATING —A cut in the company rate from 49 per cent to 25 per cent would cost the revenue $3.8 billion and has, this day, been promised by the Queensland Premier as a Federal policy. I would like to know from the Leader of the Opposition whether he repudiated that commitment. He might tell us now whether he repudiates the $3.8 billion. This was promised by the leader of the other Party with whom he would sit in the chamber. Does he support the $3.8 billion commitment? Mr Hawke —He can't hear. Mr KEATING —I know. But he got his lugs fixed. Madam SPEAKER —Order! The Treasurer will continue with the answer. Mr KEATING —We have the leader of the agrarian half of the conservative parties in this country; that is, the Queensland Premier-- Mr Nehl —A great leader too. Mr KEATING —`A great leader too', says our National Party colleague, who has declared that he will stand for a House of Representatives seat-he has the loyalty of the majority of the National Party members in the House-and who has said, as an unequivocal commitment, that he will reduce the company rate to 25 per cent, costing $3.8 billion to the revenue. The Leader of the Opposition should say whether he repudiates that commitment. Well, does he? Madam SPEAKER —Interjections are out of order. The Treasurer will continue. Mr KEATING —Madam Speaker, he cannot. The truth is that he cannot; either he is consenting or he cannot. The fact of the matter is that under any circumstances he cannot speak for any group that is likely to form a majority in the House of Representatives. Either he says: `No, the $3.8 billion is not on', or he cannot say that it is not on on his own behalf or on behalf of the Queensland Premier. This is the State of the coalition parties. They have made off the top of the head commitments to buy votes, and have promised a 25 per cent company tax rate costing $3.8 billion. The Leader of the Opposition sits mute and will not say yea or nay to a commitment which would dramatically change fiscal policy in this country uttered by a person who will lead one of the coalition parties under some circumstances in this Parliament after the next election. Mr PORTER —My question is to the Prime Minister. In the light of the Prime Minister's answer to the Leader of the Opposition's question in which he blamed the Opposition's last period of government, I ask the Prime Minister: Is it not a fact that at the time of the last election Bankcard interest rates were 18 per cent and are now a record 23 per cent; home loan interest rates were 11.5 per cent and are currently at their highest ever level of 15.5 per cent; and small overdraft rates for small business are also now a record 21 per cent compared to 14.5 per cent at the time of the last election? after more than four years of government, what possible excuse can he put to the Australian people for this disastrous record? Mr HAWKE —I remind the House of the fact that under the present Leader of the Opposition's policies interest rates reached a record level. At no point under this Government did we reach the interest rate levels of the stewardship of the present Leader of the Opposition. I remind the House that, under his time as Treasurer in April 1982, 90-day bank bills reached 22 per cent, which is 2 per cent higher than at any time under this Government. That is a fact. I recall also that in June 1982 the 10-year long term Commonwealth bond rate hit 16.4 per cent, which is more than one percentage point higher than at any time during my Government. As to housing rates the position of the Leader of the Opposition is that they should be completely deregulated. If that policy of the Leader of the Opposition, the complete deregulation of housing interest rates-- Mr Carlton —That is totally untrue. Mr HAWKE —I see. We now have the position, as of today, 28 May-- Mr Carlton —Well, you are telling lies, Robert. Madam SPEAKER —The honourable member for Mackellar will withdraw that comment. Mr Beale —Get the Prime Minister to withdraw! Madam SPEAKER —I do not need the help of the honourable member for Deakin. The honourable member for Mackellar will withdraw. Mr Carlton —I withdraw. Mr HAWKE —Under the policy of honourable members opposite, housing interest rates would have gone through the roof. Let me come to what would be the position-and of course we are speaking totally hypothetically-if honourable members opposite were to be in government. They have a $16 billion credibility gap. Mr Spender —Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The Prime Minister has been asked a specific question about certain rates. He has just said that he will enter into a hypothetical consideration of what would be the case-- Madam SPEAKER —Order! It is my understanding that when the question was asked there was a comparison of rates under this Government and rates under the last government. Mr Spender —If I may be permitted to put the point-- Madam SPEAKER —The honourable member for North Sydney is now out of order. The Chair rules that the Prime Minister is in order. Mr Spender —Madam Speaker, the comparison-- Madam SPEAKER —The honourable member for North Sydney will not stand at the box arguing with the Chair. If he has another point of order, he should state it. Mr Spender —Madam Speaker, I raise a further point of order. The comparison related to the time of the last election. At the time of the last election, this Government was in power. That is the point. Madam SPEAKER —The honourable member for North Sydney cannot apply these inflexible rules to answers. The Prime Minister is in order and will answer the question. Mr HAWKE —Thank you, Madam Speaker. I point out that that $16 billion is simply an addition of stated, public, quoted commitments of the Leader of the Opposition. That adds up to a $16 billion credibility gap. I remind the House of what the Leader of the Opposition has said must be done in relation to the gentlemen from Queensland, in relation to Sir Joh Bjelke-Petersen. He said of Sir Joh: `Until he nominates where he will cut spending, he is really having no credibility on the issue at all'. The Leader, on 17 February, said of Sir Joh: `I am not prepared to put my name to any tax policy that does not add up. I am not prepared, nor will my Party be prepared, to suspend the laws of arithmetic in taxation policy, or, indeed, any other areas'. What I am saying in answer to this question about interest rates is that, when we apply the inexorable logic of economics to the policies of the Leader of the Opposition, we see that the application of his policies must mean that interest rates in this country would go through the roof. We would not be able to track interest rates; they would increase to 25 to 30 per cent to fund a deficit of something like $12 billion that is necessarily implicit in the policies of the Leader of the Opposition. The necessarily firm monetary policies of this Government, which have been in place to deal with the economic circumstances imposed upon this country, are not matters for which we apologise. They have been a necessary part of responsible economic management. In contrast, the 25 per cent to 30 per cent interest rate policy that would flow from the policies of the Leader of the Opposition simply reflects the unyielding commitment of the Leader of the Opposition to distort responsible economic management, to restore privileges and payments to those who are not in need and to impose an unsupportable and unsustainable interest rate burden upon the great majority of Australian people. Mr BALDWIN —I direct a question to the Minister for Social Security. Has the Minister's attention been drawn to recent media reports regarding the Jobsearch allowance? I refer in particular to an item on the Australian Broadcasting Corporation's 7.30 Report the night before last on which homeless teenagers said that their payment would be cut to $25 a fortnight. Will the Minister inform the House of the facts in relation to the proposed Jobsearch payment? Mr HOWE —I think it is important and something of a duty for the media to ensure that information which is clearly wrong is not allowed to go to air without the facts being made clear. A lot of young people have been panicked by rumours and misinformation about the change from unemployment benefit to Jobsearch. On the 7.30 Report on Tuesday night the country heard unemployed, homeless teenagers say that they would have to survive on $25 a fortnight. That is wrong. I do not expect the young people themselves necessarily to have read the economic statement, but it is important when the media are conducting a program such as that conducted the other night, when facts are not presented correctly, for those matters to be corrected. The Jobsearch allowance will be paid up to the same rate as unemployment benefit for 16 and 17-year-olds, or $50 a week, but $25 will be subject to a parental income test. I do not need to remind the House that the eligibility test for the homeless allowance is very strict, but young people who are genuinely homeless are eligible for a young homeless allowance. They will receiver the full $50 and an extra $26, or a total of $76 a week. The Government has introduced a young homeless allowance for young people in refuges and who are quite genuinely homeless. Indeed an increase was announced for those young people in the May statement. It is also important to make clear that with respect to the Jobsearch allowance the Government is indicating to young people across Australia, I think very clearly, that it hopes and expects that young people will not spend lengthy periods of time on unemployment benefit but will get into training, remain in an education program or get some combination of education, training and work. I believe that the unemployment benefit for 16 and 17-year-olds was a payment that in many respects had sent the wrong signals. The Jobsearch allowances clearly described the Government's commitment to providing income support for young people from low income backgrounds while they are seeking a job at a rate that is of considerable assistance to their families and, indeed, complements the very substantial reforms that this Government has introduced in relation to income support for young people from low income families and with little education. No government has ever provided the commitment that this Government has provided to education, to training and to producing a more skilled youth. In the circumstances of the massive structural change that this country has been undergoing, those measures are necessary. I believe that they are very broadly accepted within the community, and they represent a purposeful commitment to income support which integrates very effectively with the Government's overall economic policies. Mr TUCKEY —In the light of the Prime Minister's last reply, citing the Opposition's last period of government, I ask him: Is it not a fact that his Government has now been in office for 4 years, 2 months and 23 days? Is it not a fact that the number of bankruptcies was 6,035 in 1982-83, rose to a record 6,408 in 1985-86 and is running at an annualised rate of over 8,000 this financial year? Further, is it not a fact that in the nine months to March 1987, compared with the same period a year ago, the number of bankruptcies has increased in each Australian State, with a 62 per cent increase in South Australia, a 48 per cent increase in Victoria, a 42 per cent increase in Queensland-- Mr Scholes —Madam Speaker, I raise a point of order. If a member asking a question provides reams of information, I suggest it is not a complaint available to the Opposition that the answer takes 10 minutes. Madam SPEAKER —That is not really a point of order. I call the honourable member for O'Connor. Mr TUCKEY —Thank you, Madam Speaker. I was referring to a 42 per cent increase in Queensland, a 39 per cent increase in Western Australia, a 26 per cent increase in New South Wales and a 10 per cent increase in Tasmania. Is he further aware that all of these bankruptcies are occurring amongst small businesses and wage earners? After more than four years of government, what possible excuse can he put to the Australian people for this disastrous record? Mr HAWKE —The only base date in the statistics put by the honourable member which is accurate and which I accept is the starting point for this Government. On that basis I am prepared to accept his statistics that we have been in office for 4 years, 2 months and 23 days. I think that is indisputable. Mr Barry Jones —He's even got that one wrong. Mr HAWKE —I simply add that this is just about the last opportunity that the honourable member will have to ask me-- Mr Tuckey —Madam Speaker, I raise a point of order. By imputation the Prime Minister has called me a liar. He is the only person in this place to get away with it. Madam SPEAKER —Order! Mr Tuckey —The figures are accurate and he knows it. Madam SPEAKER —Order! Sit down. The Prime Minister did no such thing. I call the Prime Minister. Mr HAWKE —My inimitable Minister for Science informs me that the honourable member even has that figure wrong. The fact is that we have been in government for four years, two months and 17 days. No wonder those price fixers are terrified of him! It is a machiavellian question, because the honourable member who asked it knows that in the upcoming election he will be under serious attack from Sir Joh Bjelke-Petersen. There are quite a few certainties about the outcome of this election, and one thing that is certain is that the honourable member will lose his seat as a result of the attack by the Queensland Premier. He has asked a question which enables me to make the point that if we take the appropriate perspective, the State which has had the greatest level of bankruptcies is Queensland. I do not know why the honourable member is so anti-Queensland and anti-Joh, other than the fact that he will destroy the honourable member and put him out of this House, which conceivably-- Mr Spender —Madam Speaker, on a point of order: The Prime Minister has been asked a question about levels of bankruptcies since the last election. He is now directing his answer, apparently, to the Queensland Premier. Under no meaning of the word `relevance'-and you made some rulings on the subject-can his references-- Madam SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member cannot raise a point of order and then rule on his own point of order. That is up to the Chair. Mr Spender —I am putting a point of order, Madam Speaker. Madam SPEAKER —I suggest that the honourable member has raised his point of order and I will rule on it; he does not. Mr Spender —Having raised the point of order, what I am saying in support of that point of order is that under no meaning of-- Madam SPEAKER —No. The honourable member-- Mr Tuckey —The word `relevance' can be permitted. Madam SPEAKER —The honourable member is attempting now to tell the Chair how to rule. The Prime Minister is answering the question in his own way-- Mr Spender —I submit to you, Madam Speaker, that he is quite irrelevant and should be asked to be relevant. Madam SPEAKER —The honourable member must not keep speaking while the Chair is speaking. I meant to tell the House also that honourable members have developed a habit of wandering around the chamber while Ministers are answering questions. I suggest that it is only the Whips who should be doing this. The honourable member for North Sydney will resume his seat. I call the Prime Minister. Mr Spender —I wonder whether you have ruled on my point of order. Madam SPEAKER —Yes, I did. The Prime Minister is answering the question in his own way. I call the Prime Minister. Mr Goodluck —I am sorry, Madam Speaker, I've got a headache. Mr HAWKE —What defiance! Madam SPEAKER —I will excuse the honourable member on this occasion. Mr HAWKE —It is understandable that he, like most members on the other side, has a very bad headache; so we will excuse him. I simply say, with reference to Sir Joh Bjelke-Petersen, that I thought I would find it difficult ever to find some political plus in favour of the Queensland Premier. But I think that most members would agree with me that he would have to say-- Mr Tuckey —A point of order, Madam Speaker. On the point of relevance, I raised a question relating to the disaster of 8,000 Australians being declared bankrupt under the program of this Prime Minister. He is making a joke of their tragedy. Madam SPEAKER —The honourable member is raising the same point of order as the honourable member for North Sydney. The Prime Minister will answer the question. Mr HAWKE —I simply say that the only political plus that one can find in the Queensland Premier is that he will be responsible for removing this gentleman from this House. Of course, there has been an increase in bankruptcies in a situation-- Mr Carlton —Of course. Mr HAWKE —Of course there has. If honourable members opposite continue, as they appear determined to continue, to insult the intelligence of the Australian electorate and say-- Opposition members interjecting- Mr HAWKE —If honourable members opposite think that the country can have $9 billion ripped off its national economic capacity and that that will not produce an increase in bankruptcies, they should go to the people and say: `It is our belief that with a loss of $9 billion there will not be an increase in bankruptcies'. It should say that to the people. They will simply put another nail in the coffin which is shaping up for all of them. Mr LINDSAY —Can the Minister for Defence inform the House of the current position regarding the strength of the Army Reserve? Is the Government planning to cut training days for the Army Reserve next year? Mr BEAZLEY —I thank the honourable gentleman for his question. I did have an answer to a question like that, but I think my answer is probably likely to mislead the House, because I think we have discovered an unaccounted for section of the Army Reserves. We have had the Liberal and National parties citizens militia parading their nervousness during Question Time. To amplify the bunker mentality that exists among front bench members opposite, most of the rest of them are too frightened to stick their heads up. Notable among them has been the honourable member for Mitchell, who has been completely incapable of keeping his seat during Question Time-a condition which will persist up to and including 11 July. I am not surprised that the honourable gentleman raised this question because he, of course, is an Army Reserve officer. A number of months ago he introduced me to that very excellent 11th Field Force Group under Colonel Mansford. He always has the condition of the Army Reserve close to his heart. The strength of the Reserve at 30 April this year was 24,899. That is 399 above the 24,500 target strength for 1986-87. With a lower than forecast discharge rate and approximately 1,000 enlistees anticipated in May and June, the strength is expected to rise at 30 June 1987 to be close to the target of 26,000 which we expected to reach in June 1988. Planning for training days for 1987-88 is 975,000-33,000 more than 1986-87. The number then was 942,000. The simple fact is that Opposition claims in recent days about attitudes towards the Army Reserve and the success of the Government's campaign to enlist members of the Army Reserve are, of course, completely wrong. We have taken initiatives to give the Army Reserve a real role by providing it with the limited call-out legislation that it needs, commensurate with the service that its members are prepared to give this country. The decisions that we have taken to integrate and affiliate regular and Army Reserve units and the decisions that we have taken to ensure that individual Reserve units are allocated specific towns and installations in the north to which they would be deployed in an emergency mean, of course, that the reserves have to have a higher priority than they have had in the past and they understand the respect in which this Government holds them. Recently we were able to announce an intention to place heavier capabilities, such as tanks and artillery, into the expansion base provided by the Reserves. The first armoured regiment is to become an integrated regular and Reserve unit. To back up its role in artillery we have decided that it should have approved 46 new field guns. So the recent claims that have been made about the Army Reserve by members of the Opposition are completely erroneous, as they are on the question of economic security. This is the one party in this chamber which is prepared to provide for national security. Mr SHARP —Does the Minister for Communications support the comments by the Chairman of Telecom Australia, made shortly after Telecom had been lumbered with an extra $500m bill from the Government's mini-Budget, that Telecom is also examining the connection fees associated with high cost services which are currently provided at subsidised rates because Telecom can no longer afford to carry the extent of the subsidy it has in the past. Is it the intention of the Government to hit regional Australians with the full cost of telephone installations, which run to $20,000 or more per installation? Does the Government support increasing the cost of a local call in regional areas by anything up to double the present rate because the subsidies are cut? If the Minister does not, how can he set that against the comments of Telecom's Chairman and the obvious need that Telecom has to raise an extra $500m to meet the slug that this Government has imposed on it? Mr DUFFY —I thank the honourable member for his question. As honourable members will be aware, the May statement included measures which removed the exemption from customs duty and sales tax formerly enjoyed by Telecom and Australia Post. The initial cost estimate of that to which the honourable member referred was in the statement of the Chairman of Telecom, Mr Robert Brack. After long discussions between this Government and Telecom the proposed increases have altered quite considerably from the original statement referred to by Mr Brack. It has also been announced that Australia Post will be seeking a one cent increase. Changes in basic telephone charges and postage rates are required to be approved by this Government and are also subject to the oversight of the Prices Surveillance Authority. As we have considered very carefully the proposals put forward by Telecom, I think it should be added that the Government, of course, regretted that it was necessary to take the decision that it took. We hear so often from the Opposition parties how deficits will be reduced, but we never hear anything as to how that will be done. This was not a step which the Government took without a lot of consideration and concern. The honourable member raised the proposal for the subsidy to be reduced in country areas, and made the point particularly about the cost of a telephone connection running to a figure of, say, $20,000. In remote areas, for example around Rolleston in Queensland, the cost of a telephone installation can reach $1.4m for very few subscribers. No proposal has been put by Telecom to this Government in relation to cutting out that cross-subsidy, which is, in fact, currently running at half a billion dollars on the best estimate. However, I suggest to the honourable member that it may not be a bad idea if the National Party of Australia were to spell out to people in rural areas-I refer here to local governments as well-who from time to time write and complain about the removal of a public telephone box even though it is running at an enormous loss, the subsidy those people are getting from Telecom. One wonders whether the half a billion dollars which is provided through the cross-subsidy is appreciated in rural areas. Obviously, there will be pressures from time to time to reduce the subsidy. But this Government has no intention to sell out rural Australia, whether it be in the area of telephones or-I indicate to the honourable member that he should think about this matter over the next couple of hours-in the area of rural television, which, of course, is a matter that National Party members have grave difficulty in making their minds up about. I understand the concern that the honourable member has expressed in relation to telephone charges in rural areas. There will have to be adjustments to charges from time to time. But in relation to the basic cross-subsidy position I close by reminding the honourable member that this Government is the first government to have formally, by a Cabinet decision, endorsed the cross-subsidy to rural Australia. It was not done during the term of the Fraser Government or, to my knowledge, during the term of any previous government. It has been done by this Government. Mr LAMB —Can the Minister for Science inform the House of any assistance that the National Bushfire Research Unit of the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation can offer to the Chinese Government in fighting the huge bushfire near the Sino-Soviet border? What can the National Bushfire Research Unit learn from the fire itself and fire fighting techniques employed by the Chinese? Mr BARRY JONES —I thank the honourable member for Streeton for his question. All honourable members will have been horrified by the reports of the fires raging for three weeks in Inner Mongolia and in the province of Heilungkaing in the People's Republic of China, with the very large loss of life. There are also very big fires on the other side of the Amur River and near Lake Baikal in the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. I have discussed the matter with the Chief Executive of the CSIRO, Dr Keith Boardman, and the Chief of the Division of Forest Research in CSIRO, Dr Joe Landsberg, to see what technical assistance could be provided. At this stage it is not clear what we can do in the short term. The conditions of the Inner Mongolian fire are quite unlike our own. The area has a very high latitude, between 50 degrees and 54 degrees north; that is about as far north as Macquarie Island is south. The forests and climate in that area are more analagous to Canada. There is a montane type of forest, a mixture of fir and birch, and close to the tundra. Canadian fire fighting experts were already in Inner Mongolia on exchange programs. But it is not clear whether the Canadians have been involved in containing the conflagration. Again, unlike the Australian situation, there is a striking uniformity in temperature between night and day, with no rise in the moisture content at night. That is quite different from the Australian experience. CSIRO wishes to offer its assistance, together with other interested countries, to help the People's Republic in planning long term advice about forest fire fighting methods and assisting in areas where there are universal factors, such as the examination of dryness and combustibility, and this offer will be conveyed to the Chinese Ambassador. Mr LIONEL BOWEN(Kingsford-Smith-Attorney-General) —Madam Speaker, I seek your indulgence to inform the House that the honourable member for Reid, Mr Tom Uren, who is the father of the House, is having his birthday today. On behalf of the House I extend our best wishes to him and wish him many happy returns. Mr HAWKE(Wills-Prime Minister) —For the information of honourable members I table the exchange of correspondence between myself and His Excellency the Governor-General dated 27 May 1987 relating to the dissolution of both Houses of Parliament on 5 June 1987 and the election scheduled for 11 July 1987. Motion (by Mr Beazley) proposed: That the House take note of the papers. Debate (on motion by Mr N.A. Brown) adjourned. Mr HOLDING(Melbourne Ports-Minister for Aboriginal Affairs) —Pursuant to section 61 of the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act 1976, I present the annual report of the Aboriginal Land Commissioner for 1985-86. Mr COHEN(Robertson-Minister for Arts, Heritage and Environment) —For the information of honourable members, I present the Government's response to the report of the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Expenditure entitled `Patronage, Power and the Muse', better known as the McLeay report, an inquiry into Commonwealth assistance to the Arts. I seek leave to have the Government's response incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. The response read as follows- 1. The last 18 months have seen a considerable examination of Government support for the arts. A major element in that process has been the review conducted by the House of Representatives Expenditure Committee chaired by the honourable member for Grayndler (Mr Leo McLeay). At the same time that this committee was at work, the Australia Council, at my request, was examining its own structure and processes. Additionally, the Cultural Ministers Council representing the Commonwealth, State and Territory Ministers for Arts and Cultural Matters has been involved in a series of studies of important arts support issues. 2. All of these processes have been informed by the views of groups and individuals in the community. Representations to the McLeay committee, to State and Territory Ministers and to the Commonwealth Government have pressed a variety of views on almost very issue. 3. This divergence of views is not new. The arts are about the individual pursuit of excellence and the individual attempt to break new ground, extend boundaries and challenge ideas. The arts are about imagination and innovation. 4. There are nevertheless three common threads which run through all the discussion of the last 18 months. First, a recognition that there is an important role for Government in support of the arts. Secondly, that over the last ten years or so there has been substantial growth in the arts industry and a massive increase in State and local government arts support. Thirdly, our present mechanisms for support must adapt to these changes. 5. In a ministerial statement to the House of Representatives on arts policy on 17 October 1985, I pointed with some pride to the level of support for the arts provided by this Government since it came to office. I make no apology for repeating some of those points today. This Government has increased funding to the Australia Council for arts support by nearly 51 per cent since it came to office. At the same time, through the community employment program and the bicentennial program, in excess of $46m has been allocated to the arts and related activities. Here I am talking only of the arts in a narrow way. Support for film, especially through the taxation system, has reached its highest levels. New buildings are under way for the National Institute of Dramatic Art and the Australian Film, Television and Radio School. Major expenditures have been provided for the various Commonwealth cultural authorities, notably the Australian National Gallery, the National Film and Sound Archive, the National Library of Australia and the National Maritime Museum. 6. The McLeay committee's report provides a most comprehensive and objective analysis. It provides a valuable framework for decision-making on the arts now and in the future. It has carefully reviewed the role of the Australia Council and its relationship to government and offers some creative and innovative ideas for assistance to the arts and individual artists. The Government is most grateful for the committee's thoughtful contribution. 7. Many of the committee's views are shared by the Australia Council whose comments on the committee's report and proposals for change are included in the document I have just tabled. There are some differences in emphasis and on the means of implementing change, reflecting the differing perspectives. By and large the Government agrees with most of the recommendations of both the committee and council although we have taken a further position on some issues. There is complete agreement on future directions. 8. Government support for the arts is based on a recognition that artistic expression is an integral part of society. Programs of arts support have been aimed at the development of excellence in a diverse range of arts practices and experience, and at fostering wide access to, and participation in, arts activities. The Government agrees with the committee and council that arts support should continue to head in these directions. 9. The Government also believes that an arts support body established by statute is an integral part of this process. The Australia Council whose considerable achievements are well recognised and whose initiatives have caused so much to prosper in the arts will continue to play a key role in their future development. 10. Both council and the committee recognise however that some changes are necessary to clarify council's relationship to government and to other players in the game. 11. There is now general acceptance in the community that a statutory body such as the Australia Council must have regard to relevant government policies and priorities and to the roles and activities of other Commonwealth, State and local agencies. Consistent with the Government's approach to statutory authorities a power of general ministerial direction will be included in the legislation. However, this power of direction will not apply to decisions on grants and will be subject to tabling in the parliament and comment in the council's annual report. This represents a reaffirmation in statutory form of the Government's belief in the arrangement whereby decisions on arts grants are made at `arms length' from government. 12. The committee recommended also that policy control by the Government be ensured by ministerial approval of estimates under each program of the council itself and its boards. I believe this goes too far. The Government has agreed that in the future the estimates of the council will be approved on a three line basis (direct assistance, other services to the arts and administration) supplemented by a report from the council relating its proposed allocation of resources to government policies and priorities. 13. These changes will provide a solid basis for the council's relationship with government and ensure that the `arms length' and `peer review' processes are maintained. They will also facilitate implementation of agreements with the states and territories and through the cultural ministers council. Implementation of the decisions of the cultural ministers council calls for agreement by government rather than its instrumentalities. 14. The Government also had before it recommendations from both the committee and the council relating to the council's structure and its grant administration process. The Government has accepted the view that changes are needed and that there should be a streamlining of the structure and administration of the council. 15. I issued press releases on 16 and 19 December last year, inviting public comment over a three month period on the Government's plans to revitalise arts support mechanisms and policies for the next decade. 16. I have now received advice from the council and comments from interested persons in the community on restructuring the council. The variety of views expressed have been carefully analysed and considered in the formulation of the new structure. Council's advice follows a long period of consultation with the arts community and its response is a matter of public knowledge. 17. The new structure will comprise: A fifteen member council made up of a chairman, all board chairmen, arts practitioners and broad public interest representatives. Government representatives will no longer be on council. Members of the council and boards will continue to be appointed by the Governor-General and minister respectively and boards will be directly accountable to council. Like the council, board representation will reflect artistic and broad public interests. Board membership numbers will be altered to provide for a minimum of five up to a maximum of nine members on the boards. The number of boards will be reduced from eight to five: a five member literary arts board; a five member design board; a nine member performing arts board integrating the present theatre and music boards; a nine member visual arts/craft board integrating the present crafts and visual arts boards; and a nine member aboriginal arts board. Council will advise the Minister on board appointments and have ultimate responsibility for community arts development. 18. To this end a new community cultural development unit will be created which will comprise the chairman of council, all board chairmen and six other members appointed by the Minister in consultation with the council. The membership of this unit will be carefully chosen to ensure wide representation of community arts activities in the states and territories and the broad public interest. 19. This new structure will elevate council's community arts focus and provide for integration with the activities of the artform boards. The functions and funding role of the community arts board would transfer to the new unit which will have a broader brief to foster community cultural development. 20. In my press releases I outlined a major organisations unit to be set up by council as an administrative unit to monitor the financial and artistic performance of major arts organisations. This proposal was a recommendation of council and the McLeay Report. Council has now given further thought to how such a unit would work and has proposed an alternative which the government endorses. 21. At present the council receives approximately 10,000 applications for grants each year. Many of these are from organisations which it has supported for a number of years in the past and which in all probability, if funds are available, it will continue to support in the future. It is apparent therefore that not all organisations need to be assessed every year, nor should they need to make application every year. Therefore, council will adopt a biennial or triennial assessment process for certain organisations. Such organisations will have their financial affairs monitored by council's financial advisory unit in association with the relevant artform board. This assessment system will facilitate the organisations' ability to plan ahead and should contribute to financial stability. Council will consider the eligibility of organisations across all artforms for this system. Precise funding levels will, of course, continue to be determined by council in the annual budget context. 22. Generally, I was pleased with the public responses to the Government's proposals. They exhibited a caring and responsible attitude to the development of the arts in Australia. Many questions were asked, some of them detailed and specific, others of a general nature. In this context I must point out that whilst the government sets the broad structural framework for its arts funding body and determines the overall funding allocation, the Australia Council is responsible for putting that structure into operation. 23. Concern has been expressed on the part of certain sectors of the arts community that one or other particular artform might be disadvantaged by any change of structure. Let me assure you that the new structure will have quite the opposite effect. For example, the new community cultural development unit will bring community arts into prominence in the council structure. By the very nature of its membership it will provide for interaction of all council activities. It will support activities that assist the cultural development of communities but are not necessarily the ``arts'' in the narrowest sense of the term. Community arts can only benefit from such a structure and I am confident that both the arts and the general community will reap rich rewards. Community arts remains a cornerstone of the government's arts policy and represents an essential element in facilitating greater access to the arts. 24. The new performing arts board which will embrace theatre and music and the new visual arts/craft board, combining both crafts and visual arts activities, have been designed to link related, but distinct, artforms. 25. The performing arts board will facilitate consideration of issues common to the performing arts such as training, performance venues and administration. The board members will have a broad range of expertise and, where appropriate, they will be assisted by specialist art form committees especially for peer assessment of grant applications. Committees may also be convened, as necessary, to examine and advise on particular arts support issues. 26. I have consulted with the Chairman of the Council, professor Donald Horne, about implementation of these changes. To achieve some changes it will be necessary to amend the Australia Council Act, for example, to alter membership of boards and to create the new Community Cultural Development Unit. 27. However, there are changes which can be made prior to amendment of the Act. I propose to appoint the new performing arts and visual arts/craft boards to be operational from 1 July 1987. Under the present Act the maximum number of board members is eight. When the Act is amended to allow for a maximum of nine members, I will appoint a further member to each of these boards. 28. I shall Gazette the name change of the literature board to the literary arts board also as of 1 July. Pending changes in the Legislation, the Aboriginal Arts, Design and Literary Arts Boards will operate as at present. If necessary, I will fill vacancies on these boards for a twelve months period, which is the minimum permissible under the Act. Once the Act is amended the Membership of these Boards will be brought into line with the revised provisions. 29. Pending amendment of the Act to enable the creation of the New Community Cultural Development unit the Community Arts Board will be replaced by an interim structure. I have asked the council to set up a Committee to look at facilitating the change over, consider the functions and scope of the new unit, and administer the existing Community Arts Functions, including grant-making. Membership of this Committee should reflect the membership composition of the new unit. 30. I believe that the Australia Council must be in a position to review its priorities in response to changing circumstances. This is a continuing situation and demands a greater degree of cohesion between council and boards. I am confident that the new structure will provide the flexibility and interaction necessary to facilitate a successful development process and will be a more cost-effective arts support delivery mechanism. I have asked the council to examine its administration and to achieve whatever cost savings are possible over a period of one to two years. 31. Streamlining the operations of the Australia Council will call for changes not only in structure but in methods of operation. Consistent with the Government's overall approach to administration, we are determined to ensure that funds appropriated for a particular purpose, in this case support for the arts, are spent primarily on that purpose and not on administrative overheads. The arts should be administratively efficient and should serve the needs of all Australians. 32. Consistent with this approach the Government is encouraging the Australia Council and the States and Territories to accelerate their examination of those activities which might be devolved to the States or other appropriate agencies and authorities. The Government intends to pursue this matter with the Australia Council and through the Cultural Ministers Council. Whilst some States have questioned the value of devolution, others are willing to investigate the possibilities. The Government considers that such moves will not only produce a more efficient administration of arts support but will provide a greater equity and responsiveness to local needs. 33. The McLeay committee's report raises a number of particular issues concerning the development of the arts. These include the development of contemporary music, the introduction of royalty schemes, the operation of artbank and a number of taxation issues. Some of these issues require considerable examination and consultation. This is being undertaken. For instance, the National Arts Industry Training Committee, supported by the Department of Employment and Industrial Relations, is identifying and advising the Government on training needs in the arts industry. The Government is pursuing recommendations of a study carried out by the Australian trade commission on export opportunities for Australian contemporary music, and the Attorney- General's Department is consulting with interest groups and relevant departments on the feasibility of introducing a blank tape levy. 34. There remains the issue of co-ordinating the activities of the Australia Council with other Commonwealth agencies and the States and the proposal by the committee that the Government in conjunction with the States develop a national cultural strategy. The Government agrees on the need for greater co-ordination of Commonwealth policies and support for cultural development. To give effect to this and other related recommendations of the committee and provide enhanced support for the work of the Cultural Ministers Council, the co-ordination activities of the Department of Arts, Heritage and Environment will be upgraded. 35. The feasibility of developing a national cultural strategy was discussed by the Cultural Ministers Council when it met on 22 May 1987. The articulation of broad national goals and strategies, including inter-relationships of Commonwealth, State and non-government agencies could provide a useful framework for the allocation of resources and development of complementary strategies at agency level. 36. I repeat that this Government believes that the development of Australian artistic talents is an integral part of the development of our society. It also believes that everyone in the community should have opportunities for artistic and creative expression. Governments have a responsibility to provide these opportunities and I strongly reject any threat to this fundamental principle. We have recently seen the Opposition's waste watch committee provide us with a frightening indication of what the Opposition's Arts policy might be. Indeed, the new opposition Arts spokesman is advocating Italian opera for schools while he would have funding for all art forms reduced in all probability to one or two major national companies. The Opposition entirely rejects the notion of cultural equity and has attacked programs, such as the Australia Council's Art and Working Life program, which provide access to the Arts for the ordinary men and women of Australia. We are proud of the Art and Working Life program under which, contrary to the assertions of the Opposition, funds do not go to trade unionists but go to artists. The artistic products are made with both financial input from trade unions and material assistance from those bodies. We do not intend to cut off this form of access to relevant art, which has the potential to reach three and a half million people, as the waste watch committee would have us do. This Government is committed to developing creative resources to afford all Australians the opportunities they deserve. 37. I believe our response to the recommendations of the committee report and the Australia Council is positive and will have a lasting impact on future Arts development for all Australians. SCHEDULE OF THE GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES STANDING COMMITTEE ON EXPENDITURE 1986 REPORT INQUIRY INTO COMMONWEALTH ASSISTANCE TO THE ARTS (``PATRONAGE, POWER AND THE MUSE'') McLeay Committee recommendations Australia Council views Government response Recommendation 1: Commonwealth arts support policy should aim to democratise culture by ensuring wide and ready community access to a diversity of cultural experiences. Recommendation 2: The Australia Council Act should be amended to provide that: (a) the Council's role is to act in conjunction with other support agencies to preserve artistic heritage, promote innovation in the arts and promote general access to a diversity of art-forms; (b) the Council's function of promoting excellence applies to all art-forms with which it is involved. Council supports the recommendation. Council's own policies and priorities seek to ensure wide access to, and opportunity to participate in, a diversity of artistic activities. Council supports in principle but believes its role should also extend to `artists welfare'. Council has also suggested expansion of its functions in section 5 of the Act to include `means' (McLeay specifically rejected both propositions). To deal with State/Commonwealth boundary problems Council has stated its objectives in terms of national leadership and national programs but argues that it needs to have a charter as broad as the existing section 5 to inform policy development and priorities of governments and their agencies at all levels. The Government supports these recommendations. Artistic expression is an integral part of society. Development of excellence in a diverse range of arts practice and wide public access to and participation in arts activities is a fundamental objective of Government support. The existing functions of the Australia Council are consistent with the objective. To clarify Council's role amendment of the legislation is proposed requiring Council to have regard to Government policies and priorities and to the responsibilities and activities of other support agencies in the development of national policies and programs. Recommendation 3: (Recommendation 4 on Ministerial directions is related). Government control of arts support policy should be ensured by: (a) the Council submitting to the Minister each year, estimates of expenditure under each Board or Council program; (b) Ministerial approval of the estimates when he or she is satisfied that the proposed allocation between programs is in accord with Government priorities. Council proposes approval of its estimates on a 3 line basis (direct support, other services, administration) supported by supplementary information on break-down of the estimates to Board level including rationale-but not for the purpose of `government control of arts support', a concept rejected by Council. The Government supports the objective of this recommendation, but considers that detailed control of Council estimates is inappropriate. Approval of estimates on a three line basis is proposed (direct support, other services, administration) supplemented by a report from Council relating its proposed allocation of resources to government policies and priorities. This, together with the introduction of program budgeting-which requires ministerial approval of objectives and performance indicators-will provide sufficient and effective government oversight. Recommendation 4: The Australia Council Act should be amended to provide for the issue of ministerial directions to the Council. This power should not extend to directions on particular grants. The amendments should ensure consultation between the Minister and the Council prior to issue of any direction, appropriate publicity for any direction within 21 days after it is issued, and freedom for the Council to comment on any ministerial direction in its annual report. Qualified support by Council. Council rejected the Australian Film Commission model which it sees reflected in this Recommendation and proposes a new S.5 (2) to its Act which requires the Council to `consider the contents of any Ministerial request' and respond to the Minister as soon as practicable, subject to direct notification by the Minister to interested parties, general notification in the press and reference in Council's annual report. The Government proposes to amend the legislation as recommended by the Committee to provide for the issue of Ministerial directions. The proposed power of Ministerial direction will exclude direction on individual grants and will be subject to tabling in the Parliament and comment in Council's annual report. Recommendation 5: (Recommendation's 11 and 12 on board structure and staffing are related) In proposing appointments to the Australia Council and its Boards, the Minister should: (a) ensure adequate representation of members with skills in public administration or who are likely to represent the broad public interest; (b) ensure that members drawn from the arts community represent a diversity of artistic view points and interests. Council proposes a maximum of 13 Council members (with power to co-opt as necessary) that all Board Chairpersons be on Council that there be no government representatives and that representatives on Council include: - at least one aboriginal person - adequate representation by persons with combined arts/administrative experience - adequate representation by persons with broad intellectual and artistic experience - a suitable balance should include at least two representatives each from the literary arts, performing arts, visual arts and at least one from aboriginal arts. Further, Council proposes that it have the power to appoint Board members. The Government supports this recommendation consistent with the objective of Commonwealth support for the arts. Amendment to the legislation is proposed to broaden the representation of interests on Council and its Boards, remove the requirement for appointment of `government' representatives on Council, require Chairpersons of Boards to be members of Council and provide for Ministerial consideration of Council advice on Board appointments. Council membership will remain at minimum 10, maximum 14, plus the General Manager as ex-officio member. Recommendation 6: The Australia Council should, within eighteen months of the release of this report, have delegated authority for deciding between applicants for small grants in ongoing programs to appropriate agencies and authorities closer to the field. Council supports and has proposals for devolution which go substantially further than McLeay including the following target areas - all general grant companies - community arts project grants - contemporary art spaces - National Exhibition Touring Structure - interstate touring - suitable elements of craft grants - artist-in-residence schemes (but not grants to individual artists) - literary festivals/readings/workshops. Council's prerequisites for devolution and peer group assessment and peer group decision-making; Negotiations with States have commenced. Council believes certain activities should not be devolved, namely- - Aboriginal arts - support for national organisations - support for individual artists - innovative and experimental projects. The Government supports this recommendation and is pursuing discussions with the States and Territories and through the Cultural Ministers Council (CMC). Scope for decentralisation of grant administration in the 1987-88 Budget has been addressed at the May 1987 meeting of CMC. Complementary negotiations have also been initiated by the Council. The Government accepts that transfer to the States of responsibility for grant administration may need to be accompanied by transfer of appropriate administrative resources. Recommendation 7: The Australia Council should revert to administering grants to major clients through a Major Companies Program under Council control but with input as necessary from the relevant Boards. Council has decided to withdraw its earlier resolution to establish a Major Organisations Unit and instead adopts the policy that certain organisations should be put on a biennial or triennial funding basis subject to conditions. Such organisations will have their financial affairs monitored by the Financial Advisory Unit, subject to the relevant Board policy which is developed within Council's guidelines. A thorough assessment of each organisation will be made by the relevant Board at the end of the biennial or triennial period. This will achieve the original objective, but with a wider ambit. The Government supports this recommendation. Council's revised proposal for the assessment of certain organisations should provide for more equitable administration and monitoring of grants for major and other organisations. Recommendation 8: (Recommendation 6 on devolution is related) The Australia Council should negotiate with appropriate organisations in the State capitals and possibly in major regional centres, to establish arrangements under which selected organisations will be appointed to provide advisory services on the Council's behalf to applicants for grants. Council supports in principle and is reviewing viable approaches. The Government supports this recommendation and notes that Council intends to negotiate appropriate arrangements with the States. Recommendation 9: The Australia Council and its Boards should regularly meet outside Sydney and should open to the public such parts of their meetings as is feasible. Council supports meetings outside Sydney and will implement as resources allow. Council is disposed to open discussion of policy issues. The Government supports this recommendation and commends Council's willingness to meet outside Sydney as funds permit. There is already extensive community liaison by Boards of the Council and open policy discussions combined with broader representation on Council and its Boards will facilitate achievement of the Government's objective (see response to Recommendations 1 and 2). Recommendation 10: Ministers should continue to have regard to the critical importance of selecting the best appointees to the Australia Council and its Boards and the Council should review its induction processes for new members to ensure that sufficient attention is given to the roles of all participants in arts support and to the history of the Council's activities. Council supports and is reviewing induction processes. The `Government is conscious of the importance of appointing suitably qualified and experienced persons to the governing boards of all statutory authorities. Proposed improvements to the method of identifying suitable appointees are mentioned in the Government's paper on ``Statutory Authorities & Government Business Enterprises''. Council is reviewing its induction processes to ensure that new members are adequately briefed including on delineation of the respective roles, functions and responsibilities of members, chairpersons and administrative staff. Recommendation 11: (Recommendation 5 is also related) The board structure of the Australia Council should be streamlined by a reduction in the number of Boards and the classifications of Board staff to reflect changes in the role of the Boards recommended in this report. Recommendation 12: Changes of responsibilities within the Council's administration in response to this report should be accompanied by reductions in the numbers and classification of the staff of Boards. Council supports and has now recommended a 4 Board structure: - Literary Arts (supported by panels for, e.g. drama, poetry, prose, etc.) - Plastic Arts (supported by panels for visual arts, crafts, etc.) - Performing Arts (supported by panels for, e.g. music, theatre and dance) - Aboriginal Arts In this option responsibility for community arts would rest with Council itself. Council supports the establishment of a Community Cultural Development Unit and a Design Unit. Council proposes to establish a Cross-Disciplinary Arts Panel. The Government strongly supports this recommendation and is to reduce the number of Boards as follows: * Literary Arts Board * Visual Arts/Craft Board * Performing Arts Board * Aboriginal Arts Board * Design Board. In future, support for development of community arts will be under the direct control of Council. A Community Cultural Development Unit will be established. The streamlining of Board activities will enhance the effectiveness of Council and provide for a more cost-effective arts support delivery mechanism. The Minister for Arts, Heritage and Environment has asked the General Manager of the Australia Council to examine the Council's administration and over a period of 1-2 years to achieve whatever cost savings possible. Recommendation 13: The Department of Arts, Heritage and Environment should undertake a reporting and co-ordinating role for the full range of Commonwealth cultural policy. The Department's policy branches should be appropriately structured to undertake this role. Council notes that the Department exercises a co-ordination role at present. Council is active in fostering co-ordination between agencies involved with tourism, education broadcasting and international relations sectors. The Government agrees on the need for greater co-ordination of Commonwealth policies and support for cultural development. To give full effect to this and other related recommendations of the Committee and provide enhanced support for the work of the Cultural Ministers Council modest additional resources will be provided for the Department of Arts, Heritage and Environment. Recommendation 14: A national cultural strategy should be developed as a matter of priority. Development should continue to be under the authority of the Cultural Ministers' Council but drafting should be undertaken by a broadly-based group under the control of the Department of Arts, Heritage and Environment. Council considers that a national cultural strategy should go no further than a broad statement, be indicative rather than prescriptive and concern itself with issues relating to support for cultural development. It should not be a blueprint giving direction for the development of Australian culture per se. The feasibility of developing a national cultural strategy was discussed by the Cultural Ministers Council at its meeting in May 1987. The articulation of broad national goals and strategies, including inter-relationships of Commonwealth, State and non-government agencies could provide a useful framework for the allocation of resources and development of complementary strategies at agency level. Recommendation 15: The Government should not generally propose nominees for membership of the boards of major arts organisations. Rather, in the event of management failure in these companies, the Government should insist that continued support be conditional on an acceptable restructuring of board and management to ensure a return to financial viability within a specified period of time. Council supports. The Government supports this recommendation in principle noting that the function of the Financial Advisory Unit of Council will be to monitor the financial performance of major arts organisations in conjunction with the relevant artform Boards. Recommendation 16: Provided that Recommendation 17 on forward commitment of funding is also implemented, aggregate, general support funding to the Australian Opera, the Australian Ballet and the Australian Elizabethan Theatre Trust should not be significantly increased in real terms above the present level for a period of three years. These organisations should be eligible to apply during that period for assistance additional to their general support funding for specific projects under other Australia Council programs. Recommendation 17: The Australia Council should introduce a system of triennial funding for its three largest clients. Council supports. Council has adopted a policy that certain organisations should be put on a biennial or triennial funding basis subject to annual budgetary outcome. (i.e. Council may be unable to honour forward commitment to funding at same level in real terms if the overall allocation it receives is reduced in real terms during triennium). Such organisations will have their financial affairs monitored by the Financial Advisory Unit of Council, subject to the relevant Board policy which is developed within Council's guidelines. A thorough assessment of each organisation would be made by the relevant Board at the end of biennial or triennial period. The Government supports this recommendation in principle and sees advantage in a case by case review of triennial funding for companies in receipt of general grants. Subject to the outcome of annual budgetary discussions the Council will give effect to this recommendation as far as practicable. Recommendation 18: Proposals for the rationalisation of State and Commonwealth resources devoted to major performing arts organisations should be developed and implemented by the Cultural Ministers' Council as a matter of high priority. In particular, those States in which a national organisation is based should make an appropriate contribution to reflect the savings accruing to them as a result of the location of the national company. Council supports this recommendation. Council has developed a ``funding formula'' whereby the subsidy costs of opera resources, including the Australian Opera, would be shared more equitably among the Federal and State governments in return for performances in all six States. The Government supports this recommendation and will pursue with the States and Territories through the Cultural Ministers Council. Recommendation 19: The Department of Arts, Heritage and Environment, in conjunction with the Australian Taxation Office, should regularly report on the level of tax expenditures on film and should take account of this form of Commonwealth assistance when establishing priorities for arts support. Council supports this recommendation. The Government supports the thrust of this recommendation and has regard to taxation expenditure in annual budgetary discussions on support for the arts. Reporting on taxation expenditures generally, including estimates of the costs to revenue of the special 120/20 income tax concessions for films is provided by the Treasury. (Ref. Tax Expenditure Statement, the Treasury, October 1986). Recommendation 20: The Department of Arts, Heritage and Environment in conjunction with the Australian Taxation Office, should identify, estimate the effect of, and regularly report on all tax expenditures on the arts. The Department should continuously consider the effect of this indirect Commonwealth subsidy on overall Commonwealth arts support policy. Council supports this recommendation. See response to Recommendations 13 and 19. While the Government supports the objective, the cost-benefit of collecting data on all tax expenditures needs to be weighed, e.g. income of non-profit art organisations, deductions for gifts to art bodies and exemption of certain works of art from wholesale sales tax. Recommendation 21: The Minister for Arts, Heritage and Environment, in consultation with the Treasurer, should develop revised procedures for approval of tax deductibility of donations to arts organisations so as to replace the present delegation of authority to the Australian Elizabethan Theatre Trust with a system of Ministerial approval. The Council supports changes to section 78 (1) (a) of the Income Tax Assessment Act to give effect to this recommendation. Ministerial approval of companies already receiving indirect support through the Australian Elizabethan Theatre Trust would simplify procedures and encourage more people to make donations to arts organisations. The Government will give further consideration to this recom- mendation. Recommendation 22: The Department of Arts, Heritage and Environment, in conjunction with the Australian Taxation Office and the Australian Customs Service should resolve the current anomalous definitions of art for the purposes of taxation and import duties. Council supports this recom- mendation. The Government supports this recommendation in principle so far as it relates to import duties and will review relevant provisions of the Customs Tariff Act 1982. Recommendation 23: (Recommendation 26 on tertiary education training is related). The Australia Council should convene a working party to develop appropriate business training arrangements for new entrants to the contemporary music industry. The working party should include representation from a broad cross-section of the industry. It should pay particular attention to the problems of delivering training to the industry. Council supports in principle although implementation subject to resource limitations. The proposal has the support of the Music Board which is considering appropriate future action. Council is providing substantial support for the National Arts Industry Training Committee. The Government supports this recommendation in principle. The National Arts Industry Training Committee, supported by the Department of Employment and Industrial Relations, was established to identify and advise the Government on training needs in the arts industry. The Government is also pursuing recommendations of a study carried out by the Australian Trade Commission on export opportunities for Australian contemporary music. These include co-operation with the industry to develop and co-ordinate export promotion activities, the production of pilot programs for placement on overseas networks and the dissemination of information/expertise on export marketing. Recommendation 24: The Government should, as a matter of priority, introduce a levy on the sale of blank audio recording tape to finance royalty payments to holders of copyright in recorded material. Council supports this recommendation. It considers that this scheme should be broadened to cover video tapes. The proposal from Council would use part of this levy, rather than returning 85% of it overseas, to establish a creative development fund which would directly support the production and marketing of recording of Australian music and musicians. Thus Council's only concern with this recommendation is its lesser reach. The Government will give further consideration to this recom- mendation. The Government notes with approval: * the Solicitor-General's advice that a scheme may be devised which is not, in law, a tax; and * the consultations currently being held by the Attorney-General's Department with interest groups and relevant departments upon the form in which a blank tape royalty scheme might be implemented and looks forward to an early submission to it with firm proposals for a royalty. Recommendation 25: The Australia Council should establish a scheme to assist talented contemporary musicians in the production of demonstration tapes, video clips and their first record. The Music Board of the Australia Council has reviewed its policies on rock music and will provide $30,000 in 1986/87 to assist young rock musicians who have not yet had a record publicly released, to make demonstration tapes (not video tapes). The limit per grant is $3,000. The Government supports this recommendation in principle and has agreed that the Department of Arts, Heritage and Environment pursue the feasibility of implementation in consultation with the Australia Council and other Commonwealth departments and agencies. Recommendation 26: The Council, together with the Technical and Further Education sector, should develop relevant training for the contemporary music industry covering: (a) business principles for aspiring contemporary musicians; (b) training in recording and production techniques. Council supports ``in principle''. See response to recommendation 23. Recommendation 27: The Australia Council should develop a scheme, similar to those it administers for visual artists and writers, under which talented contemporary musicians are assisted to train, study and perform in appropriate overseas centres. Council considers this recommendation worthy of investigation in the broader context of breaking into the international market. The Government supports this recommendation in principle and considers that representation by the contemporary music industry on the appropriate Board of the Council will facilitate implementation. Recommendation 28: The Department of Foreign Affairs should establish and maintain co-ordinating arrangements for Australian cultural activities overseas. These arrangements should aim to maximise the foreign policy and trade benefits available to Australia from Australian cultural activities and should make full use of the skills and resources of relevant artistic and cultural agencies such as the Australia Council and the International Cultural Corporation of Australia as well as the expertise of the Australian Trade Com- mission. Council supports this recommendation. Council has established an International Committee to co-ordinate arts activities with membership comprising the Departments of Arts, Heritage and Environment, Foreign Affairs, Sport, Recreation and Tourism and Trade as well as State Arts Ministries. The Government supports this recommendation and proposes to establish a standing committee chaired by the Department of Foreign Affairs to co-ordinate cultural activities overseas. Recommendation 29: Artbank should be established as a self-supporting, financially independent entity. Council supports this recom- mendation. The Government supports this recommendation and is evaluating a phased approach to the operation of Artbank on a commercially viable basis. Recommendation 30: Arrangements should be made for payments under the Public Lending Right Scheme to be increased annually in line with the rate of inflation. Council supports. The Government supports this recommendation in principle subject to annual budgetary considerations. In practice this Government has increased funding over and above the level of inflation. Motion (by Mr Beazley) proposed: That the House take note of the papers. Debate (on motion by Mr N.A. Brown) adjourned. Mr HOWARD(Bennelong-Leader of the Opposition) —Madam Speaker, I wish to make a personal explanation. Madam SPEAKER —Does the honourable member claim to have been misrepresented? Mr HOWARD —Yes. Madam SPEAKER —The honourable member may proceed. Mr HOWARD —During Question Time the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) incorrectly claimed that it is my policy and the policy of my Party to deregulate completely interest rates for all housing loans. That is completely incorrect. I will read from a policy statement which I issued on behalf of the Opposition on 3 January 1986 in which I said: The Opposition therefore believes that the Government should maintain the ceiling for existing borrowers but provide greater flexibility for banks to negotiate interest rates with new borrowers. That means that we would keep the ceiling on existing loans; we would deregulate new loans. That policy was adopted in its entirety by the Government itself three months after I made that statement. Therefore, the claim by the Prime Minister that our policy is in favour of complete deregulation of existing housing interest rates is a complete and deliberate misstatement of the position. Mr TUCKEY(O'Connor) —Madam Speaker, I wish to make a personal explanation. Madam SPEAKER —Does the honourable member claim to have been misrepresented? Mr TUCKEY —Yes, I do. Madam SPEAKER —The honourable member may proceed. Mr TUCKEY —During the attempt of the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) at Question Time to make a joke of the human tragedy of approximately 8,000 low income Australians who have gone bankrupt-- Madam SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member is out of order when he starts on that tack. The honourable member should tell me where he has been misrepresented. Mr TUCKEY —I asked a question about the 8,000 people who have gone bankrupt and the Prime Minister laughed. I draw that to your attention, Madam Speaker. Madam SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member has told us. He will tell us where he has been misrepresented. Mr TUCKEY —The Prime Minister called into doubt the figures I cited on the record level of bankruptcies now occurring under his economic management. The figures cited in my question-- Madam SPEAKER —Order! The Prime Minister did not call that into doubt. He said that he did not accept it. I think there is a difference. Mr TUCKEY —No, he did not. He said that he did not believe it. I am about to tell you, Madam Speaker, where I have been misrepresented. The figures cited in my question were supplied by the Attorney-General's Department. If they are wrong, as the Prime Minister claims, it purely substantiates his Ministers' inability to balance the books or to lodge their tax returns. 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 we consider the 2% discounting of Commonwealth Occupational Superannuation Scheme pension adjustments on 10 Oct 86 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 Oct. 86 to 1 July 87 so that pensions are restored to the 9 Oct. 86 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 Beale,Mr Cross,Mr Barry Jones,Mr Langmore,Mr Lloyd,Mr McArthur,Mr McGauran,Ms McHugh,Mr MacKellar and Mr Nehl. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens respectfully showeth that your petitioners are gravely concerned at the failure of the government to 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 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 ever pray the Government grant this request now. by Mr Beddall,Mr Fitzgibbon,Mr Free,Mr Hicks,Mr Lindsay and Mr Tickner. 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 Mr Duncan,Mr Kent,Ms McHugh,Mr Milton and Mr Saunderson. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned respectfully showeth that there is widespread concern by farmers and consumers about the proposal to irradiate food in Australia. Your petitioners most humbly pray that the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled, should: (1) Block the introduction of food irradiation into Australia. (2) Ban the import of cobalt-60 and Cesium-137 and Cesium-134 to be used to irradiate food products, (3) Ban the import of all machinery used for food irradiation. (Election Beam, X-Ray etc.) (4) Ban the importation and sale of irradiated food in Australia. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Nehl. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of certain 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 four 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 lower 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 creates the biggest number of coins in circulation at any time in Australia's history and will lead to the removal of the one cent and two cent coins; 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 and Mrs Sullivan. 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 strenuously oppose the proposed introduction of a two dollar coin to replace the Australian two dollar note. We feel that an additional coin would not only cause additional inconvenience and confusion to the public but is totally unnecessary as we have ample coinage in circulation and we ask that the Government revise its decision to implement this currency change. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Tuckey. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. This humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth that they are totally opposed to any change in the present Australian National Flag as declared in the Flags Act (1953). Your petitioners humbly pray that Parliament in its wisdom will take no action to change in any way the Australian National Flag. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Ian Cameron and Mr Tuckey. To the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives. The petition of the undersigned do respectfully showeth that pornographic material relating to children is deleterious to the health and welfare of children and society as a whole. We respectfully urge the Government to ban all child pornography from entering or from being produced in Australia. And your petitioners in duty-bound will ever pray. by Mr Blanchard. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. We, the undersigned, call upon the Government to: 1. obtain from the French Government some form of commitment, which is recognised under the international law, that they will not test nuclear devices at the Kerguelen Islands 2. bring this matter to the attention of the United Nations Assembly, if no such commitment is obtained 3. impose trade restrictions on France, including a ban on uranium sales, until a legal commitment is obtained. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Blanchard. To the Honourable Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The Petition of the undersigned shows: We are gravely concerned by the threat to social morality and the welfare of children, posed by the unrestricted importation, distribution and sale of X-rated pornography video material in and from the Australian Capital Territory. Your Petitioners request that the House of Representatives, in Parliament assembled, should recognise our concern and reverse its amendments to ACT legislation and Customs regulations which have resulted in Australia wide distribution of material restricted under State censorship laws. And your Petitioners, as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Connolly. To the Honourable Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The Petition of the undersigned shows that the closure of the Killarney Heights post office agency is opposed by local residents and businesses. Your Petitioners request that the House of Representatives, in Parliament assembled, should recognise our concern and permit the continuation of the Killarney Heights post office agency. And your Petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Connolly. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia showeth: The costs of raising children are rising and the value of government provided economic assistance to families is declining. Families raising children are providing a vital function to society and are deserving of government provided economic assistance. Your petitioners therefore urge the House of Representatives and the Government of the Commonwealth of Australia to: 1. Restore family allowance payments to their 1976 real money value. 2. Provide for the regular and automatic indexation of family allowance payments. 3. Increase the value of the Dependant Spouse Rebate to $1851 per annum, and convert it to a cash payment given directly to the non-income family spouse. 4. Amend the Family Income Supplement Scheme so that its value is increased, its eligibility provisions widened and its withdrawal provisions eased. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Everingham. 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 in the House of Representatives assembled, the undersigned citizens call upon all Members to pay due respect to pensioners and other recipients of Social Security benefits and to Commonwealth Superannuitants and to cease the constant erosion of our entitlements by the Government. We call upon the Prime Minister and his Government to take the following action when considering budgetary changes to be announced in May this year. 1. They ensure there is no further erosion of existing benefits to Pensioners and other Social Security recipients and further that they honour their promise to Pensioners made before the last election that pensions be increased to a level equal to 25% of average weekly earnings. 2. That the Government reconsider its action in reducing by two per cent the level of superannuation paid to Commonwealth Superannuitants, retired members of the Defence Services and other eligible Commonwealth Superannuitants. And your Petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Hodges. To the honourable the Speaker and the members of the House of Representatives in parliament assembled. The humble petition of citizens of Australia shows- That the people of New Zealand and the New Zealand Government have given an example to the world in their efforts to achieve a nuclear free South Pacific, and such decision being endorsed by the people at a general election. Your petitioners therefore pray that the Australian Government support the principled stand taken by the New Zealand Government and urges it to condemn any efforts by the U.S. Government to impose economic or other sanctions on New Zealand in retaliation for their stand on nuclear vessels. We further urge the Australian Government to urgently implement its policy to promote the development of zones of peace and nuclear free zones in the Indian and Pacific Oceans. by Mr Kent. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. This Petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth that- (1) A cessation of the testing of nuclear weapons would break the cycle of research, development and deployment of nuclear weapons and prevent the acquisition of new and ever more lethal weapons of mass destruction. It would thus be a major and significant step towards ending the arms race and beginning the disarmament process; and (2) The Soviet Union has extended its unilateral moratorium on nuclear weapons testing until August 6 this year and has again invited the United States to cease its nuclear testing program. Your petitioners therefore urge the Australian Government to put the strongest pressure on the United States Government to join the Soviet Union's nuclear test ban. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Kent. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. This petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth that we strongly oppose the introduction of the ``Australian Card'' or any other form of National Identification Numbering System. We believe that the introduction of a National Identification Numbering System is not only totally unnecessary but is a severe threat to our civil liberties and privacy. We condemn the Government's actions on this matter, particularly as no reasonable nor responsible justifications for the proposal have been forthcoming from the Government. We humbly pray that the House of Representatives, in Parliament assembled, should reject any proposal for a National Identification Numbering System. by Mr Kent. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia showeth: We are concerned that the decisions to be taken by Government with regard to the footwear industry in which we work may not recognise the continuation of a form and level of assistance which will maintain the security of our employment. Your petitioners therefore pray that: Every consideration and support will be given to this matter so that we are able to maintain our employment in this industry. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr McArthur. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of certain electors of Australia respectfully showeth: That the 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 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 Ruddock. To the Honourable the Speaker and members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia showeth that whereas: 1. They are completely satisfied with the design of the existing Australian National Flag. 2. They are aware it properly reflects the immutable characteristics of Australia, namely: (a) The Union Jack, itself the creation of three Christian Crosses, represents the Nation's historical origin and the source of its language and law; (b) The Southern Cross on an azure blue background signifying its geographical location on this planet Earth; (c) The large star depicting the advent of Federation in 1901. 3. They know the Flag has been a source of inspiration to generations of Australians in peace and war. 4. They recall that millions of native-born Australians and newcomers to these shores from other parts of the world have become united under its proud symbolism. 5. They are certain that any change to the Flag will produce division in the Australian community. Your petitioners therefore pray that your honourable House will: Propose and pass a motion that ``the existing Australian National Flag be changed only with the approval of the Nation as expressed in a Referendum''. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Saunderson. 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: Labor's Capital Gains Tax is standing in the way of economic development on the Far North Coast, a region with great potential for further growth and renowned for the enterprise and initiative of its local community. Your petitioners humbly pray that the House of Representatives, in Parliament assembled, urge the Government to: Repeal its anti-business anti-farming and anti-individual Capital Gains Tax. 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 Mortlake showeth concern for current and future funding for road construction in south west Victoria. Your petitioners therefore pray that- The Commonwealth Government increase the moneys allocated to the Victorian State Government for road funding, so as to allow adequate funding for the construction and maintenance of roads within south west Victoria. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Hawker. 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 threat to the living standards of all Australians, particularly families, posed by Labor's failed policies and its unwillingness to disclose the contents of the 1987 Hawke-Keating Budget. 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)(2.58) —As the next 6 1/2 weeks go by, there will be many questions asked by the Australian public, but no question will be more pressing, more persistent and harder for the Government to answer than the question which is on the lips of every Australian, particularly the head of every Australian household this morning. That question is: What on earth is the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) hiding from the Australian public? Why is it that this Government, seeking to be re-elected on the basis of its economic record, did not have the courage to go to the people after it had brought down its annual Budget? Why is it, for the first time ever, that a government within striking distance of the annual economic accounting to the people should decide to cut and run, scuttle its responsibilities and have an election virtually on the eve of bringing down a Budget? No matter what the Prime Minister says, no matter how much he bobs and weaves and seeks to shift responsibility, the truth is that he did not have the guts to bring the Budget down before he had an election. That is a fact that every Australian family will be aware of. There is another question they will ask with increasing persistence which is very basic to the well-being of every Australian family. It is: Is someone, or someone's family, or if one runs a business is one's business better off now than four years ago when Hawke was elected? The resounding answer all around Australia is that they are not better off. Over the last four years we have had a Hawke-Keating government-and it is a Hawke-Keating government. If ever a person deserved to carry the economic blame for what has happened to this country over the past four years it is the present Treasurer (Mr Keating). He is more preoccupied with the machinations of the money market than he is with the living standards of ordinary Australian families. Over the next 6 1/2 weeks he will find out that his priorities have been wrong over the last four years. Mr N.A. Brown —The Reuters screen. Mr HOWARD —Yes, he will find out that the Reuters screen means nothing to struggling families in electorates such as Barton. The Treasurer's mate, the honourable member for Barton (Mr Punch), will find out that paying the mortgage bill of the St George Building Society is far more important to the families of Barton and other swinging seats around Australia than the flicker of the Reuters screen, which the Treasurer is so very fond of talking about. Increasingly, the Australian public will be asking: `Why have you run before your Budget? What is it that you do not want to tell the Australian people? What have you got up your sleeve? What new taxes and charges and what new attacks on the living standards of Australian families do you have in mind that have deterred you from bringing down your Budget before the election?' It is not good enough for the Prime Minister to say: `We have already brought down the Budget. We had the May economic statement'. It may have escaped the Prime Minister's attention that half of a Budget is comprised of a revenue side-although in the case of this Government it comprises an increasingly large slice-and the other side is for expenditure. All the Government did in May was to make an expenditure statement. It put some taxes on Telecom Australia which will react against people living in rural Australia far more than on any other section of the Australian community. By and large the economic statement related to expenditure and the sale of assets but said nothing at all about revenue. In the unlikely event of this Government being returned there is absolutely no guarantee at all that there will not be savage taxation increases in the August Budget. The Australian public must understand that. In fact, on a radio program this morning the interviewer said to me: `There cannot be any increases in taxation because the Prime Minister said that there would not be'. We cannot expect anyone to believe, on the basis of that kind of statement, that there will be no increases. I can recall all the Prime Minister's statements in 1984 when he said, for instance, that interest rates would fall in 1985. The Prime Minister said that he had sown the seed and that we would all reap the harvest. Of course we have reaped the harvest, all right-Australian families have got it in the neck, because over the past 2 1/2 years interest rates have risen to the tune of about $152 a month for the average Australian family. That is the degree to which that promise has been delivered. During debate on a matter of public importance in the last session of Parliament I produced a document entitled `Labor's top 10 disposable promises' which detailed the best of Bob's disposable promises. It began with the immortal and never to be forgotten line: `There will be no capital gains tax'. Or course, that went out the window. Then there were the promises about interest rates. Then there were the promises about family living standards. There was a promise about reducing the fuel excise-and that was an absolute whopper. During the 1983 election campaign the Prime Minister campaigned on the basis of reducing the price of fuel immediately he was elected to office. Mr Downer —Three cents a litre. Mr HOWARD —Yes, he said 3c a litre. He went around to the Australian people and said: `I will cut the price of fuel by 3c a litre. There will be no assets test and there will be no capital gains tax. I will reduce the price of fuel by 3c a litre. There will be lower interest rates'. And so it went on. Mr Howe —Tone it down! Mr HOWARD —Well may the Minister for Social Security ask me to tone it down. He is waving, trying to get me to stop talking about this because he does not like to be reminded. To the top 10 disposable promises we can now add the most disposable promise of all; that is, the current Prime Minister of Australia on the subject of early elections. And if ever there was a disposable Prime Minister, it is the present occupant of that office because he has misled the Australian people through his teeth on the subject of early elections. The Standing Orders of this Parliament prevent me from saying what is on the lips of every Australian voter about the Prime Minister's credibility on early elections. That credibility has been torn to shreds. The Prime Minister has demonstrated the most abysmal political cynicism and the most abysmal political opportunism on this issue. The Prime Minister has dishonoured everything that he has ever said about early elections. By running without a Budget the Prime Minister has completely dishonoured his capacity to run on the issue of economic management. In this election campaign we will have this extraordinary spectacle: Everybody will know what is in John Howard's taxation policy but no one will know what might have been in Bob Hawke's 1987 Budget. The supreme irony of that will haunt the Prime Minister throughout the rest of this election campaign. I can tell the Prime Minister that he will be hearing a lot more about that along with his colleagues in seats like Chisholm, Dunkley, Calare, Hunter, Cowan, Stirling, Barton, Phillip, Lowe, St George, Hughes and all the other marginal seats around Australia. They will be hearing a great deal about the fall in family living standards over the last four years. They will be hearing a great deal about the fact that when they have been in government for four years, two months and 17 days-or whatever it might be-they can no longer pass the buck to somebody else. There are two people in Australia who must take the rap for the fall in family living standards over the last four years, and they are the Prime Minister and the Treasurer (Mr Keating). No longer can they hide behind the alibi of blaming the foreigners; no longer can they hide behind the disgraceful, dishonest alibi of blaming the former Government; and no longer can they cast the blame to everybody other than themselves. The reality is that these two men have presided over the biggest fall in Australian family living standards for the last 40 years. Deliberate policy acts, failures and omissions by those two men have been directly responsible for the fall in family living standards. The Treasurer does not even try to deny the fact that an average family with two children is now about $41 a week worse off than it was in March 1983. The Prime Minister pretends that it is all the fault of the foreigners. He talks about the decline in our terms of trade. It is a wonder that he is not blaming the great plague for some of the economic problems that we have at present. I remind the Prime Minister and his colleagues and the Australian people that the present Prime Minister and the present Treasurer are not the only people who have ever had to grapple with adverse international economic circumstances affecting Australia. They carry on as though they alone have been the sole victims since Federation of the rest of the world turning sour economically on this country. I remind the Prime Minister that the fall in our living standards caused by the international economic recession and the drought of the early 1980s was greater than the loss in national income caused by the adverse terms of trade. Never let it be forgotten that the impact of that on the Australian economy in the early 1980s was infinitely greater than the impact of the adverse terms of trade of the past couple of years. Did we hear anyone from the then Opposition make any kind of allowance for that? Did we hear them saying: `If you have to grapple with a drought and if you have to grapple with an international economic recession, of course that will have an impact'. Of course, we did not. The reality is that the Government cannot hide behind its alibis. It has failed on four essential economic fronts. The first is that this is by any measure a big spending, big taxing government. The Treasurer parades himself as a born again expenditure cutter. The reality is that in his first two years as Treasurer he spent money like the proverbial drunken sailor. In the first two years that this Government was in power, spending rose by between 6 and 7 per cent in real terms and, even after the so-called great expenditure effort of the mini-Budget, the level of government spending as a proportion of national product is now higher than the average level during the seven years of the Fraser Government. The rate of increase in government spending under this Government is greater than it was in the seven years of the Fraser Government. The other great failure of this Government on the economic front was that it sat on its hands in 1985 when the Australian dollar began to fall. Instead of immediately responding to that fall and instead of immediately adjusting our fiscal and monetary policy, what did the Treasurer and the Prime Minister do? They caved in over the MX missile. They sat on their hands for the rest of the year and watched the crisis get worse and worse until that infamous day, just over a year ago, when the Treasurer said that we were on the verge of becoming a banana republic. The people principally responsible for bringing that about are the two people who are going to be in the political dock of Australia over the next 6 1/2 weeks-that is, the Prime Minister and the Treasurer. They are the men who have sought refuge behind alibis. They are the men who, by their deliberate policy decisions, have imposed a greater fall in the living standards of Australian families than should have occurred. They are the men who spent big in their first two years. They are the men who have imposed new punitive taxation levels on Australia. They are the men responsible for the highest interest rates since the Great Depression. They are the men who cower before their union bosses and do not have the courage to fight this election campaign on the validity of the Industrial Relations Bill. If that Industrial Relations Bill does not put Australian unions above the law, as we claim it does and as the Government knows it does, why does the Government not have the courage to fight the campaign inter alia on that Bill? Why does it pretend that the Bill does not have that consequence, that it will put it aside? In the unlikely event of the Government being returned, it knows as well as everybody else in this Parliament and as every single member of the Australian business community knows, that it will put it through immediately. When wheat and maize are rotting on the wharfs and when the trade union movement has taken over the Government and the foreign policy of this country, why does the Government not have the courage to use section 45d of the Trade Practices Act to get that wheat shifted to Fiji? The Government condemned the coup in Fiji because it supported the right of elected governments to govern. Therefore, I ask one concluding question: If the Government believes in the right of elected governments to government, why does it not tell the trade union movement to get lost on that issue? Why does it not govern and take control of our foreign policy? Mr HOWE(Batman-Minister for Social Security)(3.13) —The failed Treasurer, who is now a failed Opposition Leader, has not understood in any real sense the mood of the Australian electorate. The dual offering of a fistful of dollars and industrial confrontation represents a recipe which says a great deal more about the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard), who has rushed from the chamber, than it does about any credible policy with which the Opposition might go to the Australian people. One of the fundamental problems that the Opposition faces is simply the character of its Leader. Its Leader is a whingeing, whining, carping critic who once again has shown no capacity to develop any alternative policy worthy of any consideration whatever by this Parliament. He has put up a smokescreen of tax cuts because he is unable to carry through, and would be quite unable to carry through, what represents the underlying reality of the policies he espouses. Those policies boil down to two things: Firstly, massive industrial confrontation and, secondly, the most significant round of public expenditure cuts that we have ever seen in this country. Does anyone in this Parliament seriously believe that either the current Leader of the Opposition or the shadow Treasurer, the honourable member for Mackellar (Mr Carlton), is capable of carrying through the kinds of policies that they espouse? It is very easy for them to talk about tax cuts. However, it is much more difficult for the Australian people to imagine that they are capable of carrying through the fiscal restraint that would be necessary to deliver the tax cuts that have been offered. We have laid the Leader of the Opposition's credibility very clearly on the line. We have considered the commitments that have been not repudiated by the Leader of the Opposition but made by him or his various spokesmen at various times, and what they all add up to. They add up to more than $14 billion in terms of tax and expenditure policy. None of those commitments have been repudiated so far by the Leader of the Opposition. There is no clarity in terms of where the Opposition stands, except the commitments on the table that add up to the order of $14 billion. On the other hand, we are promised by the Leader of the Opposition that the Opposition's taxation policy will be made clear. We know from the Centre of Policy Studies, by way of a leaked document which represented a significant late draft of that policy, that the policy will cost at least $6 billion. We also know that the Leader of the Opposition has said that, to have any credibility, one needs to make it clear where the money will come from. On the AM program on 12 February the Leader of the Opposition said: Any politician who thinks he can be a credible national figure without telling people where the money is coming from is absolutely kidding himself. That is the position we have. The Leader of the Opposition comes in and carps, gripes, criticises, whinges and whines like a mangy dog. However, when it comes down-- Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) —Order! I do not think that the Minister should use those words. Mr HOWE —I withdraw the last phrase. When it comes down to putting on the line where the Leader of the Opposition's commitments are with respect to expenditure cuts, which are quite fundamental to his taxation policy, we have never had a clear statement of where the Opposition stands. Indeed, it looks as though we will not get one. The reason we will not get one is that, fundamentally, the Leader of the Opposition and the Opposition as a whole lack courage. It is probably the most gutless opposition we have ever seen in this national Parliament. Mr Reith —Mr Deputy Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I ask the Minister to withdraw and to acknowledge that our tax policy will be released. It is his Government's Budget that is not being released. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! There is no point of order. Mr HOWE —The Leader of the Opposition has failed to deliver, in terms of expenditure restraint, the cuts that will be necessary to deliver any kind of taxation policy along the lines that we understand a taxation policy runs. Where will the Opposition's credibility be when it goes to the Australian people without detailing its policy in terms of expenditure restraint? Where is the Opposition's credibility in terms of its own policy? It has been suggested today by the Opposition, over and against tax bribes of $5 billion or $6 billion, that the Government has not delivered in terms of the living standards of the Australian people. According to a recent report from the Economic Planning Advisory Council, a family of two children with two parents earning $30,000 as a result of this Government's policies, receives public expenditure on health care worth $34 per week. If the children are at school, the family receives benefits worth $110 per week. If the children are in higher education, the family receives benefits of about $473 per week. In terms of the thrust of the Opposition's statements, many of the major programs that are essential to the living standards of Australian people would be at risk if the Rambos in the Opposition, who I contend would be fundamentally weak in government, had their way. I refer to programs relating to child care, housing and transport. I turn to the Australian Labor Party's commitment to reduce taxation paid by Australian families. Taking a one income family on $32,000, since November 1984 they would have received from this Government nearly $28 per week in tax cuts, or a two-income family with a combined income of about $47,000 would have received tax cuts worth $37 per week since this Government came to office. In relation to the Opposition's credibility, quite clearly one of the options-it is an option that has been ruled out by the National Party of Australia and will presumably depend for its implementation on the numbers between the Liberal and National parties in terms of any future coalition government-is a consumption tax. In terms of what has been assessed by the Treasury, the Leader of the Opposition would need a broad-based consumption tax to raise about $8m after removing wholesale sales tax and compensating pensioners. That would require a 12 per cent consumption tax. Under such a policy inflation would rise to 15 per cent. That is one of the options, although at the moment it is a hidden option. After the Leader of the Opposition makes his statement, it may well be an option that is still there below the surface, depending on the balance of forces between the Liberal and National parties after the election. On 4 May Mr Andrew Hay said: Business expects a commitment from the Opposition to fund the majority of its income tax reform by expenditure reductions. The implementation of a new broad-based consumption tax can only be seen as a device for avoiding spending cuts. On 26 March, when being interviewed by Mr John Tingle, Sir Joh Bjelke-Petersen said: They have a very, very poor policy-when you think of the consumer tax of 8 per cent. Now it would probably be 12 per cent and, once you have got it, it will not go down . . . it will go on like Britain . . . 8 per cent, 10 per cent, 12 per cent and 15 per cent. In terms of expenditure cuts, I suppose that the one clear area that has been staked out by the Opposition relates to health policy and Medicare. When Labor introduced Medicare in February 1984 it meant health insurance for everyone. Before the introduction of Medicare no one received a fair deal. People paid the same for health insurance, regardless of income. About two million people had no health insurance cover. It is that which the Liberal Party wants to go back to. As announced in April, the Opposition's policy is to cut Government health spending by $3 billion by cutting the Medicare benefit to the majority of families, saving $1.3 billion, and by cutting Commonwealth hospital grants to the States, saving $1.7 billion. To cover the costs of such proposals the majority of families would be forced to take out more expensive private health insurance. The Commonwealth Department of Health costed these proposals and this was the result: Under the Opposition's proposals, 2.6 million families will have to pay an average of $7.90 per week per family in order to cover costs in Medicare changes. Similarly, the proposed shift of $1.7 billion in hospital and community health costs would add an additional $19.60 per week to basic hospital insurance for the average family. This means that, under a Howard Government, for a family on average weekly earnings with a basic contribution of $9.90 per week, the total cost of basic medical and hospital insurance would be $27 per week per family. As if that is not bad enough, the Department of Health has estimated that the cost of the Medicare levy would increase to 5 per cent and the effect of these policies on the consumer price index would be nearly 4 per cent. I think that when one looks at this Opposition the thing that strikes one most strongly is its lack of capacity to deliver what it talks about. I do not believe that anyone in Australia seriously believes that the current leadership of the Liberal Party is capable of carrying through the kind of tough and hard-headed policies that have reduced forward estimates within the last 9 months by more than $8 billion. I do not think that anyone in Australia seriously believes that the wimps who lead the parliamentary Liberal Party but who promise such tough policies would be able to deliver or to handle, not only the confrontation which would follow from its industrial relations policy, but also the confrontation with so many sections of the Australian community which would result in the kind of draconian cutbacks which must be involved in the strategy about which the Leader of the Opposition has spoken. I think that Australian people perceive the Opposition as being hopelessly divided. The Liberal Party is divided between the wets and the dries. Only today, when Mr Howard spoke, most of the dries were present while most of the wets were absent. In addition, there are divisions within the National Party. There is a Queensland National Party led by Sir Joh Bjelke-Petersen and, essentially, it has the majority of numbers. But there is a rump National Party which is currently led by the right honourable member for New England (Mr Sinclair); so effectively, in this Parliament at the moment, the Opposition is represented by four separate parties constantly in competition with each other for the leadership. The former Treasurer in the Fraser Government, and now the Leader of the Opposition, has been quite unable to gain control of the Liberal Party during his period as leader. In that time we have seen constant speculation about the possibility of a change in leadership; indeed, only yesterday, the President of the Liberal Party, Mr John Valder, in forecasting Mr John Elliott's entry into the Federal Parliament via a seat which nobody knows about, hinted also at a possible future change in leadership. We know that, throughout this campaign, Andrew Peacock will be waiting and hoping that the Opposition loses so that he can have another attempt at the leadership. He will do that after the campaign is completed and the Opposition is defeated. We know that the moment this election campaign is completed, the honourable member for New England will be dumped by the Queensland National Party. We know that Sir Joh aspires to lead the country in a direction which really he is past understanding. Having taken the tough decisions in relation to the May economic statement and having laid the foundation for the year ahead with the confidence of the business community and all Australian people-- Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) —Order! The Minister's time has expired. Mrs SULLIVAN(Moncrieff)(3.28) —I find it quite extraordinary that in a debate on the subject of the living standards of Australian families, the Minister for Social Security (Mr Howe), of all people, should spend only two minutes out of his 15 minutes actually talking about the Australian family. I find it doubly interesting that in those two minutes he referred to a family that had an annual income of $30,000 or higher and gave some examples. I dare say that the Minister was embarrassed by the fact that families on average weekly earnings or lower, families for which he has a primary responsibility, after four years of a Hawke government, are worse off than they were under a Liberal government. This matter of public importance refers to the threat to the living standards of all Australians, particularly families, posed by the Australian Labor Party's failed policies and its unwillingness to disclose the contents of the 1987 Hawke-Keating Budget. In the few minutes available to me, I hope to point out some of those areas where the living standards of all Australian families have fallen and to indicate that, without a doubt, the reason why the announcement was made yesterday concerning an early election is because this Government does not want to put the facts to the public and what will happen to it in future under a Labor Government. It was only 13 days ago that the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) said: I can't envisage any circumstances in which there would be such an early election. In answer to a journalist's question, he said: It can't be July in any circumstances I can imagine. What has changed in the last 13 days? What has happened is that we have had a Premiers Conference and all the Labor Premiers advised the Prime Minister to go for an early election before the effects of the $1 billion cuts in grants to the States are felt by the people-before the hurt starts, as they said. Plenty of hurt was inflicted by the Government's cuts in the economic statement, in its mini-Budget. But, when that is compounded after the States make their decisions, it will be all the more clear. In any event, the economic statement has returned Commonwealth expenditure to only the 1984-85 level. So, while Government members talk about fiscal or monetary-I am not sure which word it is these days-responsibility, they do not show any signs of it. As the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard) said, this is the highest taxing, highest spending government in Australia's history. Fifteen years ago public spending represented 32 per cent of gross domestic product. Today it represents 45 per cent. This Government has added $24 billion to our debt in four years. The last Fraser Government paid $3.3 billion in interest payments. The 1986-87 Budget will see $8 billion of the people's money paid in interest on the nation's debt. Who knows what the figure will be for 1987-88. We are in economic difficulties. If the Government is to continue on its high spending way, spending basically on itself and the Public Service, it will of course have to borrow more. Interest repayments are now the third highest item of expenditure in the annual Budget. That is the basic reason why we have higher taxes-not because of the social benefits to which the Minister referred ever so fleetingly. The average family in Australia has experienced a fall of at least $31 a week in disposable income and a fall in its living standards. Low income families, about who the Minister should care and should have had something to say, are no better off. In fact there are more and more low income families and more people living in poverty. The middle income families are considerably worse off under the Labor Government. The Australian Labor Party has forgotten its roots and it is frightened of the effect that its policies will have in the next few months on the people most vulnerable to them. Nearly three and a half million people live on pensions or benefits in Australia today, including nearly 800,000 children-a figure which should dismay everyone. There are now 2.6 million people living in poverty. That is a rise of 700,000 people since March 1983. Twenty years ago a middle income family could expect to retain 60 per cent of its income after paying its tax and paying for its housing. It now retains 40 per cent to 45 per cent of its income. Housing is one of the areas in which the effects of the Government's policies are most felt. I can only conclude that the Ministers of this Government are now so insulated from their constituents that they are not aware of the reality of the situation, which presents itself day after day in honourable members' offices as people, particularly low income people, are faced with an enormous dilemma in housing. They face higher rents, at least part of which are directly attributable to this Government's abolition of negative gearing and the capital gains tax. They face interest rates which have risen from 11 1/2 per cent, when the Hawke Government was first elected, to 15 1/2 per cent. In fact this week the Commonwealth Bank announced that for new customer housing loans the interest rate will go up to 16 1/2 per cent. But that is not a one per cent increase; it is a 6 per cent increase over time. Of course, the middle income earner, who hopes to own a home, faces the fact that came out recently, namely, that home loan repayments, as a proportion of gross median family income, have risen in the 12 months from December 1985 to December 1986 from 23.1 per cent of gross family median income to 26.9 per cent. If we take after tax income figures, the result is even worse. In the last 20 years the amount spent by people earning one and a half times the average weekly earnings on home loan repayments, as a proportion of after tax income, has risen from 18.2 per cent to 32.7 per cent. They are not the $30,000 a year people that the Minister talked about. For people on average weekly earnings, the amount of their disposable income spent on housing has risen from 20.9 per cent to 37.1 per cent. To go a little further down the line, to the people in whom the Minister should be most keenly interested, the people on three-quarters of average weekly earnings-that accounts for many families in this country-the amount of their after tax income spent on housing has risen from 24.4 per cent to 43.5 per cent. They are blood-chilling figures. At the same time, according to the Housing Loans Insurance Corporation figures provided by the Minister for Housing and Construction (Mr West) to an honourable senator in answer to a question recently, in the 12 months from December 1985 to December 1986, the number of defaults on payments had doubled. Those are the facts as they present themselves in our parliamentary offices. Low income people walk in and say: `I took a loan and could afford it. Interest rate increases mean that I can no longer afford it. I have to walk out of my home and lose all of the equity that I have in it'. We often hear people talk about how the interest rate on Bankcard has increased from 18 to 23 per cent under this Government. The Minister will be aware that bank interest rates are largely irrelevant to most low income people because they have to deal with the hire purchase companies. It is in the housing estates of this country that the hire purchase companies make their money. The low income earners are sent off to those companies and are paying interest rates in excess of 20 per cent just for consumer goods. The Minister referred to the medical situation. These days a low income earner cannot afford health insurance after paying for housing and paying tax. But, into the bargain, as well as not being able to afford private health insurance, low income earners also have foisted upon them even lower standards of health care. Those people who previously had to stand in the queues for free hospital treatment are now in longer-- Mr Howe —Come on! That is the States. Mrs SULLIVAN —Oh! The Minister refers to the States as though they are not affected by the Federal Government. We are still to find out what the cuts of $1 billion to the States will mean in terms of hospital queues, hospital manning and health treatment for low income people. Of course, for the middle income earner, the cost of private medical insurance is prohibitive. Earlier today the Minister referred to the benefits in education for the low income earner. Two years ago this Government spread the expenditure on the participation and equity program for one year over two years; in other words, it halved that expenditure. In this economic statement it has reduced spending on technical and further education by $30m, at the same time as keeping young people in the education system because of the reduced payments to young unemployed people. The Government has reduced the forecasted expenditure on Austudy payments. The very people who need education and training, and who need financial support in order to afford it, have been the most hurt by this mini-Budget. If that is the much vaunted mini-Budget, heaven help us in the Budget. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) -Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr BLANCHARD(Moore)(3.38) —After listening to the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard) speak on this matter of public importance, I can understand the predicament of Mr Valder, the Federal President of the Liberal Party of Australia. He has a predicament, which I will refer to later in my speech. When I read the wording of the matter of public importance raised by the Opposition today, I was amazed at its wooliness and its irrelevance to the real issues facing Australia. The Opposition talks of the threat to the living standards of all Australians, particularly families, posed by Labor's failed policies. What nonsense! It is, as the Minister for Social Security (Mr Howe) stated in this debate, not this Government's policies which pose a threat to the living standards of all Australians; it is the policies of the Opposition. Mr Reith —Where is your Budget? Mr BLANCHARD —All we get is those sheep-like bleats from the Opposition benches-and from the front benches, too. I would expect a little more from the honourable member opposite. The policies of this Government are designed to overcome the adverse movement in the terms of trade for our primary products. We all recognise that that is one of the prime aims. Yet these policies have been designed on the basis of fairness to the average Australian. Yesterday's national account figures are illuminating because they show, as the Treasurer (Mr Keating) told us in this Parliament yesterday, that the Australian economy grew at a rate of 2.3 per cent in the year to March. This is confirmation, and strong confirmation, that the Government's economic strategy is working. There has been a big boost to growth from exports as well as a good economic growth rate and further declines in inflation. I will compare the performance of this Government in those areas to which the matter of public importance refers with that of the Opposition. Mr Reith —Alibis, excuses. Mr BLANCHARD —I wish the honourable member would shut up. If he has a contribution to make, perhaps he could seek the leave of the Chair. Mr Reith —Where is your Budget? Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) —Order! If the honourable member for Flinders continues to interject I will warn him. The honourable member for Barker can consider himself to be joined in that. Mr BLANCHARD —Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. Let us look at the real situation in the area of jobs. In the last year under the Howard-Fraser Administration, this country saw the loss of 185,000 jobs. Under the Hawke Labor Government we have seen a growth of 759,000 jobs. If we look at wages, we note that in 18 of the last 20 national wage cases the Opposition sought freezes. As a result, those families would be $160 per week worse off if the Opposition had got its way. This compares with this Government's 29 per cent increase in wages during that period. If we look at the area of child care, to June 1986 we see that this Government found 106,000 places, compared with the poor record of the Fraser Government. In last year's Budget this Government spent $165m on child care, compared with only $65m in the last year of the Fraser regime. It is quite true that because of the economic difficulties that this Government has faced we have not been able to do all that we wanted. Twelve months ago the Opposition was trying to predict that Australia would slump into a severe recession. The only recession which has occurred has been the fall in the popularity of the Liberal Party and of its leader, the honourable member for Bennelong. The honourable member will not be the leader of the Liberal Party if the Federal President of the Liberal Party, Mr Valder, has his way. One sees in the papers this morning that Mr Valder's preferred option to lead the Liberals is not Mr Howard, the honourable member for Bennelong, but a couple of outsiders. Let me read from today's West Australian. On page 2 an article is headed: `Valder: Future holds doubts for Howard'. It states: Liberal Party president John Valder yesterday raised doubts about the future of the Opposition Leader, Mr Howard. Mr Valder said he could not be sure that Mr Howard would lead the party at the election. Mr Porter —Mr Deputy Speaker, I raise a point of order. Whilst you have been partaking in a conversation on the side-I do not say that critically in any way-the honourable member speaking has been straying rather from the subject of the matter of public importance. I appreciate that on this occasion some latitude has been given in this debate, but he is now quoting an official of the Liberal Party in some hypothetical situation that he is referring to, which has absolutely nothing to do with living standards and the crucial situation facing families in this country. I can appreciate that he might be embarrassed at having to debate this matter but, Mr Deputy Speaker, I really ask you to bring him back to the topic of the matter of public importance. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —All the speakers in the debate, from the first speaker who proposed the debate, have ranged very widely. I must admit I had difficulty seeing what promises made by the Prime Minister had to do with the debate when they were raised by the Leader of the Opposition. I think the honourable member for Moore is continuing in the same vein, so he may continue. Mr BLANCHARD —Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I repeat that the headline in today's West Australian on page 2 is: `Valder: Future holds doubts for Howard'. The article states: Mr Valder said he could not be sure that Mr Howard would lead the party at the election. And he raised the possibility that Victorian businessman and much-touted leadership prospect John Elliott might yet run in the election. He said it was still possible that Mr Elliott could become a member of the parliamentary party before nominations closed in three weeks. Mr Valder went on to say-- Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —I think the honourable member for Moore really is starting to stray a little too widely now. Mr BLANCHARD —Mr Deputy Speaker, I am just trying to make the point. If you feel I have made the point, I will continue with my speech. It is quite clear that there is a real crisis in the Liberal Party. This is the point of my referring to that article in the West Australian. It seems to me that, if any party has failed policies, it is the Liberal Party. Certainly, as that article indicated, Mr Valder has no faith in the present leadership. What a terrible confession for the Federal President of the Liberal Party to make that he would like to dump the Leader of the Opposition and put in an outsider, Mr John Elliott. That is as far as I will go on that. Mr Porter —Mr Deputy Speaker, I raise a point of order. This is becoming ridiculous. Not only is the honourable member totally misrepresenting any comments Mr Valder might have made but he is straying from the matter of public importance. If he wants to have an open debate, my God, we would welcome it. The Government is running scared on this issue. The honourable member has got to come back to this crucial matter of the living standards of families. Mr Howe —Mr Deputy Speaker, on the point of order: I think the living standards of Australian families crucially depend on the Government being united. This Government is united. Those opposite are still fighting over the leadership. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —I find some substance in the point of order. The honourable member for Moore will come back to the matter before the Chair. Mr BLANCHARD —I will. We, on this side of the House, have reason to be proud of our social achievements. Solid progress has been made by the Labor Government in the key areas of family living standards, employment, housing, education, health and prices. Our policies have delivered the goods, even in difficult circumstances. They will allow us to continue to improve the living standards of all Australians. This Government has a coherent set of economic and social policies. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. The debate is concluded. Ms MAYER(Chisholm) —On behalf of the Joint Committee of Public Accounts, I present the 276th report of the Committee, the response to report 250-Australia Post an Audit Discontinued. Ordered that the report be printed. Ms MAYER —by leave-This report examines the formal response to the Committee's 250th report, `Australia Post-An Audit Discontinued', which was tabled in the Parliament on 17 September 1986. That report examined the events surrounding the discontinued efficiency audit of Australia Post's administration of counter services. The Committee is generally satisfied with the response. However, the Auditor-General has taken a different view from that of the Committee in respect of the reporting provisions of section 48f (1) of the Audit Act 1901. The Committee concluded that previous Auditors-General should have reported under section 48f (1) and that the Auditor-General should comply with that provision. In the response, the Auditor-General states that he considers that there are no unfulfilled requirements imposed on the Auditor-General by the Audit Act in relation to the discontinued audit. The Committee notes the circumstances surrounding this particular audit and acknowledges that a number of operational administrative changes have occurred in the Australian Audit Office since that time. However, the Committee is of the view that, as a matter of principle, all efficiency audits should be the subject of a report and accordingly reiterates its initial conclusions. I commend the report to honourable members. Mrs KELLY(Canberra) —On behalf of the Joint Committee on the Australian Capital Territory I present the Committee's report on metropolitan Canberra together with minutes of proceedings and evidence received by the Committee. Ordered that the report be printed. Mrs KELLY —by leave-The Committee considers that the major issue underlying this inquiry is that of urban consolidation as opposed to continued expansion of the built-up areas in Canberra. In the preface to its report, the Committee addresses the issue of urban sprawl and its associated costs: High infrastructure, servicing and social costs. The Committee is keen, therefore, to see greater emphasis placed on urban consolidation in Canberra's future development. The Committee in its report has suggested ways in which the National Capital Development Commission, that is, the planning authority, and the Department of Territories can improve the present land administration system and, with the benefit of a more comprehensive data base, achieve a metropolitan Canberra which can realise the benefits of increasing density in established areas. This will make full use of existing service capacity and also limit, for the time being, further peripheral expansion of the urban area until this is considered appropriate. On the basis of available information, the Committee considers that the environmental and social costs of dispersed growth are greater than the costs associated with concentrated development. As a consequence, the Committee recommends that the development of Gungahlin not proceed according to the timetable previously proposed by the NCDC. The Committee, in its final recommendation, proposes that the NCDC and the Department of Territories implement an urban consolidation strategy with community consultation which seeks to increase residential density in existing suburbs and make detailed information publicly available regarding the costs and benefits of such a strategy. This strategy will be successful only if the Department of Territories, as the administering authority, and the NCDC work together to achieve the objectives set out in this report. It is expected that high levels of co-operation and improved communication will be achieved, along with a better plan for Canberra's future development, if recommendations in this report are carried out. The Committee also considers that a crucial step in overcoming the shortage of critical data on which to base informed planning decisions is the establishment of a land development account. This has been recommended in previous inquiries by both this Committee and other review bodies. It is encouraging that some progress has been made in this direction, and the Committee recommends that such an accounting system be established as soon as practicable. This should also allow judgments to be made concerning the costs and benefits of urban consolidation as opposed to further peripheral expansion. The Committee further recognises that the development process is hampered to some extent by a lack of commitment from government for longer term planning initiatives. At present, while the Commission conducts assessments on the basis of 12-month and three-year programs, the lack of certainty regarding continuing commitment to long term construction programs has implications for the private sector in terms of investment potential and maintenance of predictable levels of construction activity in the Australian Capital Territory. The Committee is of the view that a longer time frame for planning would, in the end, result in cost savings and a more efficient allocation of resources and therefore recommends that the NCDC should be supported in its proposals for longer term planning and programming, particularly for major capital works. Where the Government has agreed to a particular planning initiative which requires the expenditure of funds over a longer period than one financial year, consideration should be given to a five-year program of commitment. Another issue related to accountability for planning decisions raised during the inquiry is the present lack of self-government for the Australian Capital Territory. The Committee has adopted a de facto role as a major public consultative mechanism in the planning process and is seen as such by residents of the Australian Capital Territory. I must say that the Committee has reluctantly taken on that role. It therefore recommends that all future policy and development plans prepared by the NCDC be referred to the Committee for its consideration. Thus the Committee can comment on planning initiatives where this is considered appropriate in the public interest. The Committee recognises the serious nature of traffic and parking problems in and around Civic and to avoid compounding the problem recommends that the Commission and the Department of Local Government and Administrative Services provide greater impetus for the development of other town centres by locating government departments and authorities not already placed in central locations in the new town centres. This is particularly important in the growth of the Tuggeranong area. This has already been addressed in the Committee's report on the eighty-ninth series of variations relating to the development of section 38 in Civic and the Committee reiterates its support for an undertaking from the NCDC that a review of the civic centre policy plan be completed by June 1987. During the inquiry the Committee was alerted to problems concerning the system of land tenure in the Australian Capital Territory and the administration of the leasehold system. The Committee has decided to pursue this by commissioning an independent study of the system. The Committee was specifically asked in one of its terms of reference to report on the impact of the plan upon the south-east region of New South Wales. Any discussion of regional co-ordination and consultation should include the impact of Canberra's development on the surrounding region of New South Wales, and the Committee notes that the recommendation of a report by a joint Commonwealth-State and local government committee in September 1976 that a Commonwealth and south-east region advisory committee be set up has not been acted on. The Committee recommends that priority be given to the formation of the organisation proposed in 1976 realising that the need for such a regional body is now becoming acute as problems relating to the expansion of Canberra and its increased population levels are already having greater and greater impact on the region as Canberra continues to expand. In that context, on behalf of the Committee I would like to express appreciation to one of the Committee members, the honourable member for Eden-Monaro (Mr Snow), for his contribution and his understanding of the impact of Canberra's growth on the nearby region. The question of the availability of appropriate land for residential development in the Australian Capital Territory was also raised during the Committee's examination of the metropolitan plan. In investigating the scope for large-scale redevelopment, the Committee was made aware of the potential for such redevelopment in areas presently occupied by the Department of Defence, such as Belconnen, Jerrabomberra and Harman Bonshaw. I am happy that the Minister for Defence (Mr Beazley) is in the House to hear this recommendation. The Committee tried to pursue this suggestion by asking for information and co-operation from the Department of Defence. The Defence Department declined to appear before the Committee and did not respond to subsequent requests for information. The Committee is extremely critical of this lack of co-operation and, as no evidence was given to the Committee to justify continued use of the areas by the Defence Department, and because of the high opportunity costs of such continued use, the Committee recommends that the Department relocate from the areas of Belconnen, Jerrabomberra and Harman Bonshaw, thus releasing these valuable sites and redressing the high cost in lost opportunity for this land. Obviously, much discussion is still required to ensure that there is effective use of that land by the Commonwealth and the local community. Finally, I would like to stress that this is a very important report and the first major public review of the Y-plan which has shaped the development of Canberra since 1970. The Committee's report makes recommendations which will influence the future of Canberra in the next century and marks another stage in the planning and overall development of Canberra as the national capital. I would also like at this stage to record the Committee's thanks to our staff, particularly to the clerk, Bjarne Nordin. I would also like to thank my colleagues for their support in preparing this report. I commend the report to the House. Mr LANGMORE(Fraser) —by leave-I want to draw attention to one of the conclusions of the report which the honourable member for Canberra (Mrs Kelly) has just mentioned and to emphasise its importance. It became apparent to the Joint Committee on the Australian Capital Territory during the inquiry that the leasehold system, while it served the Territory well in its first phase of development, is experiencing problems in the redevelopment of the city's growth. The chaos resulting from the lack of parking places in Civic is a direct consequence of the current approach to the redevelopment of land in the Australian Capital Territory. Unfortunately, although it may be the most visible consequence of the present system of administration, it is not the most serious consequence. What is far more worrying is the possibility that businesses may be making a lot of money out of the low betterment tax at the expense of the taxpayer when lease purpose clauses are varied. It is essential, too, that the determination and administration of lease purpose clauses and the process for their variation and enforcement, as well as appeal mechanisms, be examined, because there have been complaints and problems with all of them. The Committee considered various ways of making an inquiry of this kind. We thought of doing it ourselves, but we felt that we were not in a position to make such an inquiry because of its technical nature and the time it would take. A judicial inquiry was another possibility, but we really felt that the simplest, most straightforward and shortest approach was to ask a consultant to write a report for us. We have been very fortunate in that Professor Max Neutze, the head of the Institute of Urban Studies at the Australian National University, has agreed to conduct the study. Professor Neutze is eminently suited for the task. He is one of Australia's leading urban economists. He is the author of Australia's two most authoritative books on urban policy and planning. His terms of reference for the inquiry will be, first, to examine the nature of the leasehold system of land tenure and the opportunities it creates for planning management of the Australian Capital Territory; secondly, to examine the consequences of the current approach to administering the system in relation to both development and redevelopment, including such aspects as the determination and administration of lease purpose clauses, enforcement of lease purposes, the process for variation of lease purposes, the nature and rates of betterment tax when lease purposes are varied, and the appeal mechanisms. He will also look at institutional arrangements for managing the leasehold system by the National Capital Development Commission and the Department of Territories, although it is possible that because of a recent initiative by the Minister for Territories (Mr Scholes) that issue may be resolved by the time he gets to that part of his inquiry. Finally, he will look at policy relating to the expiration and renewal of leases. Of course, an issue in a leasehold system is what happens when the leases expire. This inquiry will be quite important in the development of policy on the leasehold system and leasehold administration in the Australian Capital Territory. I am very glad that my colleagues on the Committee supported the conduct of this inquiry. I look forward to seeing the final report. Mr SNOW(Eden-Monaro) —by leave-There has been a great change in the relationship between the Australian Capital Territory and south-east regional New South Wales since I became a member of the Joint Committee on the Australian Capital Territory. I can only take some of the credit. Credit must also be given to my colleagues the honourable member for Canberra (Mrs Kelly) and the honourable member for Fraser (Mr Langmore). They have both been very co-operative in including the importance of the south-east region in any proposed changes or any proposed planning discussions for metropolitan Canberra. It has been particularly important in regard to the report that is now before us. Previously there were attitudes both within the region and within Canberra that the two were separate and must be seen as separate. There is now much more emphasis on the fact that both areas need to be seen as partners in the development of the region, and recognition of the fact that Canberra is a natural regional centre. We have included in the report a lot of attention to regional considerations, as the honourable member for Canberra said. I particularly mention roads. We have given attention to the need for improvement of many of the access roads into Canberra. I must say that I am delighted that my friend and colleague the member for Monaro in the New South Wales Parliament, the Minister for Corrective Services, the Hon. John Akister, has had included in his electorate the area between Queanbeyan and Bungendore along the road to the coast. I am absolutely confident, having regard to his record regarding roads in the rest of his electorate, that New South Wales will raise the level of priority given to the coast road in future allocations to road budgets from Federal funding which is made available to that Government. The honourable member for Canberra and the honourable member for Fraser have both given me strong support regarding improvements to the road between Tharwa in the Australian Capital Territory and Adaminaby in New South Wales. I thank them for that. The honourable member for Canberra came on a tour and the honourable member for Fraser attended a meeting with local people in Parliament House. There are many other matters which I do not want to go into because time is short. But I would not want this Parliament to conclude without thanking my colleagues and the many citizens in Canberra and south-east New South Wales who have looked for a promotion of the common cause that exists between the two areas, rather than looking for differences. Mr MILLAR(Wide Bay) —On behalf of the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works, I present the third and fourth reports of the Committee for 1987, relating to the construction of the Department of Aviation Central Training College in the Australian Capital Territory, and the construction of an air movements cargo hangar at Royal Australian Air Force base, Richmond, New South Wales, respectively. I seek leave to make a short statement in connection with the reports. Leave granted. Mr MILLAR —I thank the House. Because of time constraints I will not test the indulgence of the House by addressing the cargo handling facility at RAAF base Richmond, that being a straightforward referral. On behalf of the Committee, I would like to make some remarks in respect of the Department of Aviation Central Training College, Australian Capital Territory. The proposal referred to the Committee in January this year was for the construction of a Central Training College at Pialligo, Australian Capital Territory, for the Department of Aviation. In April the Minister for Aviation (Mr Peter Morris) requested the Committee to extend the scope of its inquiry to include an examination of the cheaper alternative of locating the college at Watson High School, which will close at the end of 1987. It is intended to accommodate the Department of Aviation air traffic control, flight services, search and rescue, flight standards, administrative and ADP training schools in the Central Training College. A new air traffic control and flight services simulator is being acquired by the Department for training air traffic control personnel. It is due to be delivered in September 1988 and Aviation required completion of the simulator building by that date. However, the Department of Housing and Construction has advised that the earliest date by which a simulator building can be completed at Watson High School is November 1988. At present air traffic control, flight services and flight standards training is carried out in Melbourne. The other three schools are located in leased premises in Canberra. The Department of Aviation submitted that there would be advantages in collocating all training schools in Canberra. Whilst Aviation's future responsibilities are unclear due to the establishment of the Civil Aviation Corporation, there will be a continuing requirement for specialist air traffic control personnel to be trained. Accordingly, the Committee recommended that the air traffic control and flight service schools should be relocated to Canberra and colocated in the one complex with the other training schools already here. The Watson High School buildings are basically sound, although it will be necessary to construct a new building to house the simulator because none of the existing buildings are considered suitable for that purpose. The limit of cost estimate for the Pialligo proposal is $11.2m. Indicative costs for the Watson High School are $9.115m. Both costs include the provision of a simulator building at $2.45m. The indicative costs for the Watson High School proposal are based on achievement as closely as practicable to the requirements on which the Pialligo design was based. Cost reductions could be achieved if the Department of Aviation altered its briefing requirements. The Committee accordingly agrees to the conversion of Watson High School provided that significant reductions in costs are achieved resulting from the Department of Aviation re-examining the scope of its briefing requirements. The Committee will hold a further public hearing to examine the limit of cost estimate for the conversion of Watson High School. In conclusion, I would like to address a number of matters relating to the reference about which the Committee is not entirely happy. They relate to timing and the consequential urgency attached to the examination of what was a most complex subject. The Committee believes that the requirement for the continued training of air traffic control personnel, the arrival of the simulator in September 1988, the time taken by the location of the Australian Government Employment Committee to examine the proposal and the need for the Public Works Committee to consider the Watson High School proposal after the work had been referred, placed considerable time constraints on the Committee and have given it very little option but to agree to the work proceeding. I thank the House. Bill returned from the Senate without amendment. Bill returned from the Senate with amendments. Ordered that the amendments be taken into consideration in Committee of the Whole House at the next sitting. Bill returned from the Senate with amendment. Ordered that the amendment be taken into consideration in Committee of the Whole House at the next sitting. Debate resumed. Mr MOORE(Ryan)(4.14) —Before the debate was adjourned on this Bill, the Bounty and Subsidy Legislation Amendment Bill 1987, I was speaking about the changes in the bounty payable on phosphates and I was referring particularly to its impact on wheat in Australia. The Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Kerin) is in the House and he will be aware that the decline in wheat prices has put considerable strain on the wheat industry in Australia. In the coming season these sorts of prices will probably place additional pressure on the wheat growing areas of this land. Yet this decision has been taken in the light of these conditions, and it will fall very heavily on the shoulders of the wheat farmers as a further cost burden. The cost of fertiliser has already increased by 14 per cent in the last 12 months. At the same time the price received for grain has fallen by almost 30 per cent. Since the Budget decision some fertiliser prices have fallen, and this is rather interesting. However, the price of all fertilisers will be lower only while stocks last. After that, the imported fertiliser will be significantly more expensive than it was before the Budget. This leaves a margin for the Australian manufacturers to put up their prices. The farmers who use imported fertiliser will be $13m worse off under this legislation. The Opposition will be moving an amendment in the Committee stage, but it does not oppose the Bill. Mr CAMPBELL(Kalgoorlie)(4.16) —The Bounty and Subsidy Legislation Amendment Bill is an omnibus measure covering amendments to various bounty and subsidy Acts. As was pointed out by the Minister for Science and Minister Assisting the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce (Mr Barry Jones) in his second reading speech, one of the amendments covers the Bounty (Textile Yarns) Act 1981. This relates to the extension of eligibility for bounty for a proportion of the overhead costs associated with the production for export. This applies only to companies which produce at least 50 per cent of the local market. It will enable them to claim 30 per cent of the overhead costs associated with the export component of their business. I believe this is fair and equitable and, even more importantly, that it will help to encourage export development. It is acknowledged in part by this Government that we, as a nation, must export or perish. This is not putting it too strongly. Unless we, as a nation, become more enthused about exporting, we will inevitably become a Third World country. Whilst this sounds simple, it is not so, for as a nation we must be selective about what we export. We should be seeking to develop exports in areas where we have a natural or intellectual advantage and we should be seeking niches in the export markets around the world, for we must diversify our trading base. Japan and America are apt to act with extreme caprice, and I believe they will do so even more in the future. This particular amendment allows the manufacture of yarn at the lowest possible cost to downstream users, while correcting export anomalies. It at once helps the yarn producers by spreading their costs over bigger production, but places no impediment in the way of the producers of cloth or clothing who, through their excellence of quality or design, can sell on the export market and thereby give Australia the benefits of value added exports. Clearly high fashion is an option and run of the mill clothing manufacture is not. I would not like to be working for Third World wages, and I certainly would not like my children to be working for Third World wages. It is interesting to reflect on the policies of the Opposition, which seem to hinge very much on making Australia competitive by reducing our wages to the level of those in Third World countries. Clearly, this is not the way to go. We should be looking for the innovation and excellence of design that will help us to sell on those markets. The honourable member for Ryan (Mr Moore) has been lamenting the problems of the rural sector. It seems to me that he has not thought through his arguments particularly well. The particular amendments mentioned in the Bill to the Fertilisers Subsidy Act 1986 are really a machinery measure to allow the payment of the subsidy to producers of the local product. It is true that the National Farmers Federation claims that this bounty decision is going to raise an additional $40m in costs for Australian farmers. I do not believe it has ever documented that claim. Even if it is true, it is also true that if there were an impost on imported fertiliser, there would be the potential for a corresponding decrease in local production. In other words, what was lost on diammonium phosphate, DAP, was gained on the monoammonium phosphate, MAP. Because of this legislation Australian manufacturers are already moving into the manufacture of diammonium phosphate. Another extension of this legislation is the long term security of phosphate supplies for farmers. It is quite clear that the world supply is insecure. Supplies from Florida will not always be available, only on an opportunity basis. The other large production potential is in Morocco. I certainly would not like to see Australian farmers locked into a supply from an area of the world that is prone to troubles from so many sources. For instance, the interdiction of the Suez Canal could cause havoc to the supply for Australian farmers if they depended on phosphate from the Mediterranean or from the edge of the Atlantic. The future security of Australian farmers lies in Australia becoming much more self-sufficient. Our traditional supplies are running out. There is no doubt that the Christmas Island supply is running down and that Nauru is suffering the same problem. But we have enormous potential in Mount Weld and in other places. Farmers must have security. I believe that this legislation will help to make supply from Mount Weld a certainty. It will go ahead, in part because of this legislation. The implications of this legislation go far wider than the farming community. The overwhelming environmental problem facing Australia today lies not in forestry regrowth in Tasmania, so beloved by the middle class trendies, but in soil erosion. It is a problem that this Government has addressed. But it is interesting to note that our contribution to the solution of the problem is small compared with the amount of money we are prepared to pay Tasmania for its loss of profits. Through this legislation I believe we can help maintain the fertility of our soils, and thus do something about soil erosion and salinity. It must be recognised that soil erosion and salinity are environmental problems that affect all Australians, whether they live in the city or in the country. They also have enormous implications for our foreign exchange. There is an element of long term thinking in this Bill that was not recognised by the honourable member for Ryan. This Bill addresses the Subsidy (Cultivation Machines and Equipment) Act. When the Government moved to introduce the subsidy-a subsidy demanded by farmers-an anomaly developed. At the time of the enactment of the legislation the then bounty did not apply to equipment that was already manufactured and in the dealer's yard. It was clear that the equipment manufactured during the life of the bounty would be dearer. This amending legislation is designed to cover that anomaly. The Bounty and Subsidy Legislation Amendment Bill is a very straightforward, common-sense piece of legislation. It is for that reason that it is not meeting a great deal of opposition from honourable members opposite. I note that the honourable member for Ryan read extensively from the second reading speech of the Minister for Science. One must therefore assume that he is, in large measure, in agreement with the legislation. It is the sort of legislation that has characterised this Government. It is common-sense, straightforward legislation. It tidies up existing legislation and it shows that this Government is prepared to look at issues as they arise and consider them on the basis of the facts. Mr BRAITHWAITE(Dawson)(4.25) —It is obvious that the honourable member for Kalgoorlie (Mr Campbell) was fast asleep when the honourable member for Ryan (Mr Moore) was speaking to the Bounty and Subsidy Legislation Amendment Bill 1987. Although the honourable member for Ryan said that he did not oppose it, he foreshadowed a major amendment to be moved at the Committee stage which will remove Part V from the Bill. If the honourable member for Kalgoorlie sees that as being in substantial agreement one can say only, as I said before, that he was asleep. May I take up the suggestion by the honourable member for Kalgoorlie that primary producers are trying to impose Third World conditions on the wages of Australians. Far be it from him to cite statistics when the people in whom we are supposed to be interested are the primary producers, the small business people and the big business people. Those who are the producers for others in the community have needs which must be satisfied. These people are pushing uphill all the time under a centralised wage system. The honourable member for Kalgoorlie has departed before I can tell him that the industrial legislation that was introduced in this House only a fortnight ago today, and deferred last Tuesday, was an indication again of what this Government is prepared to do to penalise the productive sector in order to satisfy some agreement or accord that this Government has with the Australian Council of Trade Unions. Let it not be said that we agree with all aspects of the Bill. The main thrust of it is to make the productive people, business people, second-class citizens before the law and to make the union bosses, who seem to have this Government well and truly under their thumbs, the prime citizens. It is said that the subsidy attempts to relieve some of the pressure on the costs and to improve the market potential of some of our growers-wheat growers in particular. I mention again that cost pressures come hard and fast under this Government. I have mentioned wages. Need I again mention in this debate the cost of fuel? A 3c a litre decrease was promised in 1983. Mr Deputy Speaker, you will remember how you campaigned on that basis. There has been a 13c a litre increase in the price of fuel over the four years that the Treasurer (Mr Keating) has presided over the Treasury. Mr Cobb —Another broken promise. Mr BRAITHWAITE —Another broken promise. They are the costs that Australian farmers have to bear in one form or another. We might say that those costs are rebatable, but people working in the bush do not have access to a rebate. For the farming community, those costs are inbuilt. It would not be right for me not to gently remind the Government of what the fringe benefits tax has done to the costs of production in this country. Mr Snow —Very little. Mr BRAITHWAITE —I am glad of that interjection because I can recall a comment from the miners of Australia that the fringe benefits tax would cost them $2 per hour extra. The honourable member might call that minimal. I also recall that the bankers of Australia, the financial institutions, estimated that it would cost them $60m. Mr Snow —Ask them now. Mr BRAITHWAITE —I will because we have in front of us a confession by the Treasury that the fringe benefits tax has taken more than was originally estimated. I assume that the miners are paying more, the financial institutions are paying more, and so on. Does the honourable member want to talk about the capital gains tax? I invite him to make an interjection on that. It is a further cost borne by our producers, who are trying to cope with the inconsistency of our overseas markets. Mr Kerin —The big increase is due to the players in the stock markets. Mr BRAITHWAITE —The Minister for Primary Industry interjects because he, amongst many others, says that our problems are all international; that we are in a bad way and have to suffer a decrease in the standard of living purely because of the international markets. I do not deny that the international markets are tough. I would like to talk about what subsidies and bounties, applicable in other countries but not available in Australia, are doing to our market. The Minister for Primary Industry will not convince me, the people in the bush or the small businessperson that many of the problems now facing people have not been imported from outside. They have been a result of this Government's-- Mr Kerin —Tell the sugar industry about that. Mr BRAITHWAITE —All right, I will talk about the sugar industry if the Minister so desires. The same thing applies to the sugar industry in relation to the centralised wage system, the cost of fuel, the fringe benefits tax and the cost of everything else. So the sugar industry is not exempt, unless I have misread the legislation, from the implications of all those things that the Minister now tries to deny. I believe that I do not have to repeat what the then shadow Minister for Primary Industry, the honourable member for Gwydir (Mr Hunt), said in connection with the Fertilisers Subsidy Bill in November 1986, but I refer honourable members to Hansard of that date and to the situation put by the honourable member for Gwydir at that time, even though it was an amendment only to clear up some inconsistencies about the reduced competition that would be available in the work place in trying to bring down farming costs and provide assistance to manufacturing. I think we must admit that a tariff or bounty puts a crutch under some businesses which they are not prepared to throw away. If it were denied that crutch, I am sure that manufacturing business in Australia would be a lot stronger than it is today, that is, if it had to get out and compete on an even playing field. I note that the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Kerin) is nodding his head and I suppose he is doing so from the point of view of the 1960s, but I remind the Minister that the 1980s are a lot different from the 1960s. We need policies applicable to the current decade and not those from back where the Labor Party likes to languish-in the pre-World War I era. In that context I point out that the centralised wage system gives to a section of the community an advantage which is not available to others. I will not go on at any length about what the honourable member for Gwydir said last November, but I will make a few comments about a question I asked of the Minister for Primary Industry about the parliamentary delegation to the United States of America. I agree that Australian parliamentarians should be face to face with both European Community and American legislators because of the difficulties being faced by the rest of the world in these market conditions as a result of massive subsidisation and bounties available in those countries, and particularly on sugar. Under the pricing system available in America, increased production of sweetners has been encouraged-although not necessarily from sugar cane-to the extent that I believe in a very short while that country will be exporting and not importing sugar. I must say that, to the credit of the Australian sugar industry, it has coped with that very well. As I understand it, just a few years ago Australia enjoyed a quota of some 250,000 tonnes. Within three years the Australian sugar industry has had to cope, and has coped, with a reduction in the quota to 74,000 tonnes. Of course we are now looking down the barrel of the complete elimination of the quota within the next few years. I understand that within the last decade, and certainly within the last 15 years, the preferential quota has been reduced from 800,000 tonnes to 74,000 tonnes. The Australian industry has been able to cope because of its efficiency and the manner in which it has been able to react to this, and due credit should be paid to it. The main problem is again emphasised through the payment of these subsidies indiscriminately for electoral purposes to keep a certain sector within the power of the Government. But what will be the effect? While Australia can cope with a decrease in the quota, it may not be able to cope with America becoming an exporter as far as these subsidies are concerned. What effect will that have? That will mean that, as a result of the overproduction, the market price will be decreased and as a consequence Australia will find itself fighting for traditional markets quite apart from the United States as that country applies import conditions. We can again see an exacerbation of the situation currently facing Australia due to the EEC subsidies and the American push so that Australia will be fighting harder and harder out there in the traditional markets. That is another effect of tariffs and bounties. At least a bounty is probably preferential from the point of view that it is a taxpayer cost and not a consumer cost. A tariff becomes a consumer cost. It is certainly not a level playing field out in the market-place. The wording of the legislation suggests that it is a collective Bill. As we understand it, the other amendments are put through at this time of the year to accommodate quite a few of the other aspects of Industries Assistance Commission reports and other amendments that are required, and I will mention a few of them. This Bill proposes to amend the Bounty (Textiles Yarns) Act 1981 to give effect to a recommendation arising from the Government's textile, clothing and footwear decision of 27 November 1986. I have already mentioned the Fertilisers Subsidy Act 1986 and the effect of amendments to that Act. There are amendments to the Subsidy (Cultivation Machines and Equipment) Act 1986 to correct eligibility for subsidy provisions in the Act as a result of legal advice from the Attorney-General's Department. There are amendments to the Bounty (Books) Act 1986 and to the Bounty (Bedsheeting) Act 1977 and small technical amendments to the Bounty (Computers) Act 1984 and the Bounty (Ship Repair) Act 1986. As the Minister for Science might say, it is terribly rivetting stuff, but unfortunately we must go through this process and it is just as well that it is an omnibus measure. I return to the whole question of tariffs and the protection being offered by the Government of the day. I know that there is a long history in Australia of raising tariffs for different reasons and in different circumstances at different times. But the basic effect is that the primary producers of Australia particularly would count the cost of protecting local manufacturing industry as being one of its major input costs against which they have no redress. While we continue down the line of what I might describe as indiscriminately offering tariff protection without looking at the whole problem that this creates for Australian producers, particularly those who have no redress against the costs and imposts that they must face because of it, their costs will become higher and they will increasingly scrap for their share of a toehold in the international market. Interest rates are part and parcel of what this Government has bequeathed to particularly the primary industries of Australia, but that is a factor that the Government will have to face up to at the July election. We have no intention of opposing the Bill but the honourable member for Ryan has foreshadowed an amendment to delete Part V of the Bill. We are being consistent with what we argued six months ago on 26 November, and we will support that amendment. Mr SNOW(Eden-Monaro)(4.39) —As usual when the honourable member for Dawson (Mr Braithwaite) speaks, we hear the real dilemma of the National Party of Australia. The National Party is keen to pull away the props from industry in Australia, but it does not say much about existing procedures in the sugar industry, for instance. That has always been a National Party problem-it is socialist in bad times. Quite frankly, it has never been able to resolve that dilemma. It is happy to have privatisation, but it would like to see another word for it because it does not want to hear that word used very often particularly as there are Commonwealth banks in most towns; it does not want to see the word used very often in relation to Telecom Australia because privatisation would mean that telephone rentals would cost an extra $300 to $700 per year; and it does not want to hear it used in connection with Australia Post because it knows that there would be no postal service or higher taxes would have to be paid and charges would have to go up astronomically to provide that service. With the more lucrative parts of Telecom, Australia Post, the Commonwealth Bank and other government instrumentalities being in the major cities, there is a cross-subsidisation to country areas. This has always been the National Party's dilemma. I wish to refer briefly to the amendment in the Bounty and Subsidy Legislation Amendment Bill to the Bounty (Textile Yarns) Act 1981. The amendment provides that producers' overheads which have been associated with export production may be included in an amount on which bounty is paid from 1 July 1987. If at least 50 per cent of the production of textile yarn is sold in Australia, a bounty will be claimable on 30 per cent of the bountiable costs associated with production for export. There was an anomaly which penalised yarn producers who were exporting. This important measure acknowledges the importance of exports in terms of economic recovery. Our exports are bringing $9 billion less into our national economy. This explains many of the measures which have had to be taken by the Government and explains to quite an extent the Government's economic strategy. There are a number of answers to this reduction in overseas sales. One is to increase exports and another is to reduce imports. Another alternative is to increase the processing products before they leave our country. My colleague the honourable member for Bendigo (Mr Brumby) mentioned this when he spoke on other legislation earlier today. We are now considering the future of the timber industry in the south-east region of New South Wales. We need to consider the possibility of increasing local processing of timber before it leaves the country. We need to consider the possibility of pulping woodchips before they leave Australia. This would mean that more jobs were created in Australia in the production of processed or semi-processed material. It would also mean that we received a much higher amount from the sale of the export. How much better it is to export processed leather rather than unprocessed cattle hides, as we do to quite an extent at the moment. Mr Braithwaite —We can't afford to process it now. Mr SNOW —We are gradually becoming able to afford to process it. It is interesting that Japan is now looking to other countries to process its products. Mr Braithwaite —Have you seen the cost of the yen? Mr SNOW —The value of the yen is very high, so it is more inviting for the Japanese to process their products in Australia. We should be saying to Japan: How about processing some of your woodchips and other products in Australia? Japan is taking the matter seriously. The Japanese are now exporting the Nissan motor product to Japan from Australia. In addition, they are looking to major car cities in the United States of America to manufacture for them. It is a good time for us to be talking to other countries about processing to a much greater extent in our country. Goulburn, which used to be in my electorate, has a semi-processing plant for wool. How much better it is to process wool in this region than to export the raw wool to other countries. We could get a much higher price for it and, in the process, employ many people in Australia. I have recently been helping people in Wapengo, near Bega. Don and Anna Fern manufacture a pillow called `Beautiful Dreamer'. I was delighted to try out the pillow. It was a delight to sleep on. It is resilient and very comfortable. Those people need a little encouragement from government, I believe, to make what would be a very valuable export. Anyone who uses the pillow would agree that it is a great innovation. It is resilient and comfortable and very few people would be allergic to it. When I started producing mohair in 1971, there was almost no mohair produced in Australia. At that time Australia was importing about $2m a year worth of mohair. There are processing firms in Australia-in Victoria, at Launceston in Tasmania, in South Australia and in other areas. This is creating more jobs. It is linking up with a growing industry in Australia-the angora-mohair industry. This is particularly important in terms of the situation in South Africa. In my view, the situation will continue to deteriorate and a major mohair producing country will have one of its major exports threatened. We are in a position to produce good mohair and to take a place in the world market. That is important when South African production could be affected. I commend the general thrust of the legislation, particularly the amendments to the Bounty (Textile Yarns) Act 1981. It is important that we encourage exports as a part of our economic recovery, and this legislation does just that. Mr TUCKEY(O'Connor)(4.48) —The Bounty and Subsidy Legislation Amendment Bill covers a number of aspects that are of significance in my electorate of O'Connor. I wish, therefore, to speak to the Bill in two sections. In particular, I wish to talk about the amendments to the Fertilisers Subsidy Act and the Subsidy (Cultivation Machines and Equipment) Act which, of course, deals with farm machinery. Mr Deputy Speaker, you are probably aware that when the original legislation regarding fertiliser, which this legislation now amends, came before the House, Opposition members and the coalition opposed the Government's proposal. Traditionally, subsidy, not bounty has been paid on fertiliser in Australia. Subsidy was paid to farmers, to agriculturalists. It was accepted that the fertiliser was needed on what are very unproductive soils in many areas. Large quantities had to be used and consequently farmers needed some financial assistance. So a subsidy was paid directly to farmers. Originally, it was paid only on product manufactured in Australia. However, times changed. Farmers started to move to what was known as high analysis fertiliser, of which Australia did not produce a large amount. Originally, the fertiliser companies that manufactured within Australia imported the product. However, as time went by it was realised that other people could import it, and some rural co-operatives in my State-groups of farmers-got together to reduce the price in the very difficult circumstances that confronted them at the time. When they started to import this product, we found that literally hundreds of dollars a tonne could be taken off the price and delivery schedules started to be designed to get it as close as possible to the point of consumption. At that time I represented the area of Esperance and regular shipments of DAP, diammonium phosphate, which is a high analysis fertiliser, were being shipped straight into that port. Farmers who lived only short distances from the port were able to overcome the substantial transport costs with which they were confronted when that fertiliser had to come from Kwinana in Western Australia where the bulk of it was being manufactured or imported by the fertiliser company. Consequently, the Government of the day-the Liberal-National Party coalition-decided that, to follow its policies of subsidising the farmer and encouraging him to put the necessary fertilisers on the ground in order to increase production, the subsidies should be paid equally on the imported product and the locally manufactured product. The principle was simple. It was not a subsidy to assist manufacturers in Australia who, as we know, had to put up with all the demands of the union movement; rather, it was assistance to farmers. In the past couple of days this Government has demonstrated that it has been unable to get Australian wheat out of the country. I have sent a facsimile of my letter to the Trade Practices Commissioner asking him why he has not taken action in relation to the shipment of grain which is blocked at Geelong and which should be on its way to Fiji. I have reminded him that, without consulting anyone, he has the power to address breaches in his Act, and he frequently does so where it applies to the business community. Frequently, we read of substantial fines amounting to tens of thousands of dollars being imposed by the Commissioner. Where is he on this issue? We know that a secondary boycott, in terms of the trade union movement, relates to an action by trade unionists that does not relate to their employer and that is not in the interests of the workers employed. In other words, it does not relate to a pay increase or to the redress of some safety issue, which is a primary boycott and that is permitted. A secondary boycott relates to a situation where people stick their noses into other people's business and they do so with bad intent. I note-and I wonder why it has taken so long-that the Australian Wheat Board is now contemplating taking action under section 45d, but the real responsibility lies with the Commissioner and not the Wheat Board. It would have to charge the farmers of Australia for the legal costs, which are never fully recovered, and it should have to act on this matter. I intend to put pressure on the trade unionists to ensure that we do not lose our Fijian market. The military rulers in Fiji know the old adage that one never lets the populace go hungry. Under the current conditions in Fiji, that would be a disaster. The military rulers will ensure that Fiji receives its grain by purchasing it from America where the trade unionists encourage democracy. But they are nationalists; they will support their American farmers while our Australian trade unionists thumb their noses at the farmers who generate the income which they need to survive. That is what will happen. I have called on the Trade Practices Commissioner. I make the point that this Government made the decision that only Australian industry must be supported. As a consequence, it has moved from a subsidy to a bounty and the bounty is paid now to local manufacturers. We are advised that that will reduce the price of the fertiliser provided, and so it will. But it has no effect whatsoever on their growing costs because they have been given a competitive advantage and they will gradually absorb the cost of the advantage that is given to them in that bounty. This legislation seeks to tidy up a couple of points, but as a matter of principle we sought to have those clauses removed. We did not like the original idea and we do not favour any amendment to it. Today, I obtained some figures, which I know to be correct, relating to the increase in the cost of superphosphate. In 1975 a tonne of superphosphate cost a Western Australian farmer $54, but the price has continued to escalate and today it is substantially higher than that. Single superphosphate costs about $113 a tonne. In fact, in 1984-these are the latest figures I have-it cost about $113 and I think it is now more in the order of $140. That is a huge cost increase. When comparing those figures on a percentage basis with the value of a tonne of wheat, in 1982-83 a farmer received $187 for a tonne of wheat and paid $86.35 for a tonne of superphosphate. The superphosphate represented 46 per cent of the value of a tonne of wheat. Today, the farmer receives $145 per tonne of wheat, which is a decrease of $42 per tonne. I think that figure is more like $140, but using the figure of $113, that represents 78 per cent of the value of the tonne of wheat. In other words, as a percentage of return on his product, a farmer now pays almost double the price for the superphosphate, the Australian manufactured product, when compared with the other product. That is what is wrong with this country. One sector of the economy cannot be exposed to the ravages of foreign markets and then be expected to carry the country's internal problems. Over the past two years the international price of money has decreased to one-quarter of what it was. The international price of fuel has decreased to one-half. These are probably two of the greatest inputs to farming today. Because of that fact, the price of other commodities such as wheat has fallen, but our farmers have to accept the fall in the price of wheat without receiving the advantages in the fall of those other two products. In relation to the price of money-interest rates-it is the first time in the history of Australia that our interest rates have been so far out of kilter with international interest rates. The Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) can tell the public time and again about the levels to which interest rates rose under the Fraser Government, but the reality is that, generally, they were still lower than those in many other countries, including Japan, the United States of America and Great Britain. Today, the American farmer pays about 8 per cent for his money, the Japanese farmer pays about 4 per cent for his money, but the Australian farmer, if he can get it, pays 22 per cent. Of course, this year many thousands are unable to obtain the money and, as a consequence, they are being driven off their farms. I ask the Minister for Science (Mr Barry Jones) for an assurance in relation to the amendments of the Subsidy (Cultivation Machines and Equipment) Act 1986. The reason for amending the legislation is to ensure that machinery that is still in stock-in other words, manufactured before the due date-should be considered as being manufactured after the due date. Traditionally, a lot of this machinery is carried in stock by machinery dealers and that is a matter that I want to address in particular. Any stock that was unused-was unpurchased by farmers and was not put to work-should therefore be considered as being manufactured after the due date. I commend the Government for this initiative and I thank it, because this provision will be of some help. The amendment states: Section 9 of the Principal Act is amended by omitting subsection (8) and substituting the following subsection: ``(8) Where: (a) the last substantial process in the manufacture of subsidised equipment was completed by a manufacturer before 15 April 1986; and (b) the equipment had not, before that day, been: (i) sold, or otherwise disposed of, to a person for use by that person in commercial agriculture; or (ii) used in commercial agriculture; . . . be deemed to have been manufactured on that day at registered premises; The amendment does not say it, but I assume that if the goods had left the manufacturer and had been sold to a machinery dealer the subsidy would still apply if they were still in the hands of the dealer. That is a matter that I would like clarified. The amendment makes it very clear that, if the machinery is not being used in commercial agriculture, it will be eligible and, therefore, I assume the same thing would apply if it were still in the hands of the dealer. If that is not the case, there will still be huge disadvantages. Unfortunately for the machinery dealers in Australia, who today are generally worse off than even farmers, the reality is that they have been the repository of the manufacturers' production. They retain their agencies and they have been forced to take large amounts of stock from the manufacturers and to carry it in their yards. When sales were high, that was not such a bad arrangement. As we all know, the interest rates for carrying that stock on hand are very high, but they are discounted relative to the amount of sales that are put through the finance companies. While sales were booming, that stock was held on hand and the ploughs and other items that are dealt with in this legislation were handled at very low interest rates. The reality is that now the sales have dropped dramatically; machinery dealers are being asked to pay rates as high as 33 per cent on what is known as their floor plan. I do not think that that shows the finance companies in a good light, but I have to admit that it reflects the current interest regime for which I hold this Government totally responsible. I have pointed out that this reflects an interest regime that is purely the responsibility of this Government, and it is unique to Australia. Nevertheless, it is creating many problems. The Farm Machinery Dealers Association has put out quite a lot of information in recent times which highlights a problem that the Government has to consider. In the first case, government has done quite a lot to assist farmers by way of rural reconstruction funding, drought loans and other things of that nature. But, unlike in the past, the same rules have not been applied to farm machinery dealers. Those dealers have been collapsing at a surprising rate. They certainly feature prominently in the bankruptcy statistics that I mentioned earlier today when I highlighted the fact that we are now approaching a record of 8,000 bankruptcies in any one year. Very large businesses do not go bankrupt; they are liquidated. Bankruptcy applies to small businesses. Without even any proper investigation of the figures, we know that when bankruptcies are growing, it is people in small business, the consumers and the wage earners who are going bankrupt. It is a matter of major concern. My office deals with these matters constantly. It really requires the effort of the State Government in Western Australia-I have approached it on the matter-to give to machinery dealers and other country businesses the same opportunities as farmers to be able to get low interest loans, messy as they may be. The Government must deal with the problem. I will highlight just some of the problems for the machinery dealers in my electorate. Nearly one-third of them have disappeared in the last couple of years. They have either literally gone broke or have seen that there was no future in the industry and that they had to get out of it. People who were employing 15 to 20 workers are now employing two or three. I am aware of the time constraints today but it is my obligation to put this fact on the record because these people are really suffering. Small businesses in rural areas are at the coal-face of the rural recession. There are still a number of farmers who have good financial resources. There are many in huge difficulty. But the ones who have the financial resources have, quite predictably, put a staple in their cheque books. They are making do with the old equipment and all they are buying are the spare parts. Although that business is what many of these dealers are being obliged to live on today, that is not the business that they need. They are not geared for it; they have been in the habit of selling new machinery. Other factors apply. For instance, this Government has thrown out the income equalisation deposit scheme and the investment allowance. Of course, the investment allowance was a major source of business for machinery dealers. Many farmers, when they had a good year, particularly after they lost the income equalisation deposits, were anxious to minimise their tax by investing in new plant. I do not think that was dishonest. It created work for many Australians. They have been the big losers in all these things that are happening in country areas. Generally, the machinery dealers were the biggest employers in any single country town. I do not have the time but, if I did, I would cite some of the figures provided to me by the Secretary of the Farm Machinery Dealers Association, Mr Sandy Lewis in Western Australia. He has given me figures just to show the sorts of things that are happening. His report states that the losses in this year were caused mainly by high overheads, taxes and interest rates; they have been the main contributors. Interest rates were up by at least one-third. Of course, these dealers have also been hit by the fringe benefits tax, because they are obliged to provide housing and those sorts of amenities to their workers in country areas. They have to provide the workers with vehicles to go out and do the work, so they have been hit by the fringe benefits tax at a time when most of them are making losses. That is a disaster. Nevertheless, this amendment will ease their burden a little and therefore I must support it and congratulate the Government for taking that step. It is time that the Government recognised that small country businesses are in a disastrous situation, particularly machinery dealers because they have lost their business as a result of this Government's policies, the slow-down in business and the inability of the Government to do something about the cost structure that is being forced on them. The Government could do something. There is no need to have fuel prices or interest rates at their present level. Once farmers have the proper rates, the international rates, they can get back to buying in their country towns; they can afford to re-equip their farms and do the sorts of things that prosperity demands. I ask the Government to take serious note of the matters that I have raised today. Even though it may not be here much longer, it could do something about them in the next couple of weeks. Mr BARRY JONES(Lalor-Minister for Science and Minister Assisting the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce)(5.06) —in reply-I thank honourable members for their contributions. The Opposition has raised some concerns about Part V of the Bill, that is, the amendments to the Fertilisers Subsidy Act 1986, which I will address at the Committee stage. But, while the honourable member for O'Connor (Mr Tuckey) is here, I will respond quickly to what he was saying about Part VI of the Bill, with the proposed amendments to the Subsidy (Cultivation Machines and Equipment) Act 1986. The honourable member for O'Connor sought an assurance that stock on hand held by dealers is to be considered to have been manufactured as of 15 April 1986. I am pleased to say that I can give the assurance that he sought-and this does not just apply over the election period, he should understand-where dealers qualify under the expanded definition of manufacturer in sub-section 4 (1) of the Act. I thank honourable members for their support. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. Message from the Governor-General recommending appropriation announced. Clauses 1 to 22-by leave-taken together. Mr TUCKEY(O'Connor)(5.08) —On behalf of the shadow Minister, the honourable member for Ryan (Mr Moore), I move: Pages 8 and 9, omit Part V (comprising clauses 16 to 19). As I said in the second reading debate, the Opposition does not support the Government's original move with these amendments. We do not believe that fertiliser subsidies should be paid to manufacturers. We have doubts that the benefits will eventually flow through to farmers. We believe that over time they are more likely to result in increased demands from the trade union movement, which we think is just what the farming industry cannot afford at the moment. We do not believe that it is within the competence of the principals of those fertiliser companies to resist the demands that will be made as the union movement becomes more and more conscious of the additional amount of Commonwealth funds flowing into that industry compared with the benefits to farmers. These clauses do nothing to improve the situation of farmers. We voted against the original proposal and we see no reason whatsoever to support these amendments. I am pleased to say that our opposition to these amendments is also supported by the National Party of Australia. Mr BRAITHWAITE(Dawson)(5.10) —The National Party of Australia also supports the proposed amendment to delete Part V of this Bill, which deals with amendments to the Fertilisers Subsidy Act 1986. I mentioned this in the second reading debate. Again, we confirm our complete opposition, as indicated when this Bill was initially introduced in November 1986. Our objections are recorded in Hansard. The situation remains the same. We support the amendment. Mr BARRY JONES(Lalor-Minister for Science and Minister Assisting the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce)(5.11) —Part V of this exhilarating piece of drafting to the Bounty and Subsidy Legislation Amendment Bill 1987 comprises amendments to the Fertilisers Subsidy Act 1986. When the honourable member for Ryan (Mr Moore) spoke in the second reading debate it was alleged that if there were removal of the subsidy on imports without the competition from imports there would be no assurance that domestic manufacturers would pass on the benefit of the subsidy, which they are required to do, to the domestic end users and that a monopoly situation would be created amongst the local manufacturers. I think the reply to that is that the current legislation requires the manufacturers to pass on the full benefit of the subsidies. Eligibility for the subsidy for manufacturers is expressly dependent on the full benefit of the subsidy being passed on to the purchaser or end user of the product in the price charged for it. As for the local monopoly argument, there is no evidence of this, nor is there any evidence of effective barriers to entry. A desirable rationalisation is occurring and new prospects are being considered. The honourable member for Ryan also expressed doubt as to whether local manufacturers had the capacity to produce sufficient high analysis phosphate and nitrogen products to meet current farmer demand with the claimed removal of competitively priced imported fertilisers. However, both the Industries Assistance Commission and the Department of Primary Industry have concluded that there is sufficient capacity to manufacture all the high analysis phosphatic fertiliser used in Australia. The manufacturers forecast that the next season may be slow because of low world commodity prices, with some continuing drought, leading perhaps to a reduction in demand of 20 per cent. Accordingly, the Government cannot accept the amendment proposed by the Opposition. The effect of the amendments proposed by the Bill would be to ensure that locally produced phosphatic fertiliser produced in Australia before the commencement of the Fertilisers Subsidy Act 1986-that is, 20 August 1986-receives the new higher rates for locally produced phosphatic fertilisers contained in the new Act. The amendment will confer the intended benefit of greater assistance to the farming community by increased subsidy assistance on locally produced fertiliser from the date of the commencement of the Act. The Opposition's amendment would have the effect of returning the lower pre-20 August 1986 assistance rates to the fertiliser industry. For that reason, the Government cannot accept the Opposition's amendment. Question put: That the amendment (Mr Tuckey's) be agreed to. The Committee divided. (The Chairman-Mr Leo McLeay) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 59 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 70 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 11 —— Adermann, A. E. Hodgman, W. M. Aldred, K. J. Hunt, R. J. D. Andrew, J. N. (Teller) Jull, D. F. Beale, J. H. Katter, R. C. Blunt, C. W. Lloyd, B. Braithwaite, R. A. McArthur, F. S. Brown, N. A. McGauran, P. J. Burr, M. A. MacKellar, M. J. R. Cadman, A. G. McVeigh, D. T. Cameron, Donald Macphee, I. M. Cameron, Ewen Millar, P. C. Cameron, Ian Moore, J. C. Carlton, J. J. Nehl, G. B. Cobb, M. R. Peacock, A. S. Connolly, D. M. Porter, J. R. Conquest, B. J. Reith, P. K. Cowan, D. B. Robinson, IanDobie, J. D. M. Rocher, A. C. Downer, A. J. G. Ruddock, P. M. Drummond, P. H. Shack, P. D. Edwards, Harry Sharp, J. Everingham, P. A. E. Shipton, R. F. Fife, W. C. Slipper, P. N. Fischer, Tim Smith, W. Fisher, Peter Spender, J. M. Hall, Steele Sullivan, K. J. Halverson, R. G. Tuckey, C. W. Hawker, D. P. M. Watson, D. J. H. Hicks, N. J. (Teller) Wilson, I. B. C. Hodges, J. C. Baldwin, P. J. Jakobsen, C. A. Beazley, K. C. Jenkins, H. A. Beddall, D. P. Jones, BarryBilney, G. N. Kelly, R. J. Blanchard, C. A. Kent, L. Blewett, N. Keogh, L. J. Bowen, Lionel Kerin, J. C. Brown, Robert Klugman, R. E. Brumby, J. M. Lamb, A. H. Campbell, G. Langmore, J. V. Charles, D. E. Lee, M. Charlesworth, R. I. Lindsay, E. J. Chynoweth, R. L. McHugh, J. Cleeland, P. R. Maher, M. J. Cohen, B. Martin, S. P. Cross, M. D. Mayer, H. Cunningham, B. T. (Teller) Mildren, J. B. Darling, E. E. Milton, P. Dubois, S. G. Morris, AllanDuffy, M. J. Morris, PeterDuncan, P. Mountford, J. G. Edwards, Ronald O'Keefe, N. P. Fatin, W. F. O'Neil, R. T. Fitzgibbon, E. J. Price, L. R. S. Gayler, J. Punch, G. F. Gear, G. Saunderson, J. Grace, E. L. Scholes, G. G. D. Griffiths, A. G. Scott, J. L. Hand, G. L. Simmons, D. W. Hayden, W. G. Snow, J. H. Holding, A. C. Theophanous, A. C. Hollis, C. Uren, T. Howe, B. L. West, S. J. Humphreys, B. C. (Teller) Willis, R. Hurford, C. J. Wright, K. W. Miles, C, G. Staples, P. R. Webster, A. P. Dawkins, J. S. White, P. N. D. Gorman, R. N. J. Question so resolved in the negative. Clauses agreed to. The Schedule. Mr BARRY JONES(Lalor-Minister for Science and Minister Assisting the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce)(5.21) —I move: Page 12, Schedule, amendment of section 13 of the Bounty (Computers) Act 1984, proposed subsection (1a), omit ``such other amount as the Comptroller-General determines in writing'', substitute ``, if another amount is prescribed, that other amount''. The proposed amendment will require that an alteration of the standard $200 minimum claim threshold proposed to be inserted in the Bounty (Computers) Act 1984 as part of the Government's continuing commitment to modernise and standardise administrative provisions in all current bounty and subsidy scenes must be made by regulation, thus preserving the Parliament's ability to scrutinise the proposed change by way of tabling and disallowance. In other words, the lack of parliamentary scrutiny relating to this provision in the original Bill was brought to the attention of the Government by the Senate Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills in its report of 13 May 1987. The Government accepts the comment of that Committee that alterations to the $200 minimum claim threshold should be subject to parliamentary scrutiny and not left to the discretion of the Comptroller-General, and proposes this amendment to achieve that result. Amendment agreed to. Schedule, as amended, agreed to. Title agreed to. Bill reported with an amendment; report-by leave-adopted. Bill (on motion by Mr Barry Jones)-by leave-read a third time. Debate resumed from 11 May, on motion by Mr Lionel Bowen: That the Bill be now read a second time. Upon which Mr Spender had moved by way of amendment: That all words after `That' be omitted with a view to substituting the following words: `whilst not declining to give the Bill a second reading, the House notes that- (1) it comprises a major and novel legislative package of 104 clauses; (2) it was introduced on Thursday, 30 April 1987, and has been called on for debate on the second reading on 11 May 1987, a period which allows less than adequate time for examination and consultation by the Opposition, and (3) it imposes on financial institutions heavy obligations for the retention of records concerning financial transactions, yet no statement from the Business Regulation Review Unit of the cost of such measures has been provided to the House'. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Cowan) —I remind the House that it has been agreed that a general debate be allowed covering this Bill and the Proceeds of Crime (Miscellaneous Amendments) Bill 1987. Mr CLEELAND(McEwan)(5.24) —When I last spoke on the Proceeds of Crime Bill and the Proceeds of Crime (Miscellaneous Amendments) Bill, prior to the debate being adjourned, I referred to the Government's record of attack on serious crime in this country. Because of the actions of the Attorney-General (Mr Lionel Bowen), who rightly deserves the title of the Eliot Ness of Australian crime, that record stands unsurpassed in the history of this country. Never before in this country has such a large number of Bills that go to the heart of organised crime been introduced by a single government. This goes back to the establishment of the National Crime Authority. The Telecommunications (Interception) Amendment Bill, the Proceeds of Crime Bill and the Cash Transactions Reports Bill form part of this Government's attack on crime. Collectively, these measures form the weapons that any civilised nation needs to stop the tentacles of crime infiltrating the communities that we in this House should all hold so dear. They should be seen as a very strong collective package. I am very proud to be part of a government and a caucus-I am Chairman of the legal and administrative committee of Caucus-which have worked so hard and done so much to assist the Attorney in bringing these Bills forth. That committee sat for many long hours and went through each of these Bills clause by clause. It did that for a very serious reason. These Bills, quite rightly, start to impede on what would formerly have been regarded as the rights of individuals. They create new rights. They infiltrate commercial activities and require commercial institutions to do certain things to ensure that proper tracing procedures can be carried out to tackle the proceeds of crime. Because of those changes-because, in fact, there is perhaps a diminution in the rights of some corporations and individuals-the committee spent long hours going through each paragraph and clause of the Bills to ensure that the rights of individuals and corporations were not unduly impeded and that the legislation would be able to perform its function quite rightly and properly without going that little step too far. The reality we must all recognise in Australia today is that crime strikes at the very heart of the financial structure and that organised crime can operate successfully only if it can permeate and gain the respectability of normal commercial financial institutions. That has been done, and it is still being done. We know from the history of the Mafia in the United States of America and from the research and the investigations that have been carried out there that organised crime operates first at the lower levels in the purely criminal activities of prostitution, narcotics, the numbers game and SP bookmaking, where it firstly gains its cash proceeds. Organised crime operates in cash notes, which are readily transferable. A criminal organisation, having got its cash, then finds it necessary to move that cash from the back streets-from the brothels, the street walkers and the narcotics dealers-into the respectability of normal commercial institutions. Of course, that has been done in many ways. Those who are interested in the Royal Commission on the Activities of the Federated Ship Painters and Dockers Union would be very interested to learn how Mr Costigan discovered organised crime does this. One of the ways in which it is done is through casinos, where one can quite properly change cash into betting chips. That might be done by one person transferring chips to another person and then recashing them for a cheque. There is nothing illegal in that at all, but it does turn cash into a commercial cheque. It can also be done through the Totalisator Agency Board, and Mr Costigan clearly outlined how that can occur. A person can open a phone betting account and transfer into that account a large amount of cash, running a series of transactions but ultimately drawing from the credit account cash in the form of a commercial cheque from the TAB. The cheque then goes into a banking institution. It has been laundered, and quite legally. Mr Hodgman —And backing horses you know are going to be scratched. Mr CLEELAND —Yes, and we have the bookmakers. We were told that on one day at a Sydney meeting many millions of dollars were transferred into the bag of one bookmaker and back out again. It is very difficult for governments to control that cash movement. I suppose there are limits to the way in which governments should impede the normal activities of bookmakers and gambling activities generally. Whatever method may be used to make that dirty money-if one can call it that-clean money, the reality is that those proceeds, once laundered, are put back into normal commercial investments. They may be used to buy shares; they may be invested in normal financial institutions in long term bonds or interest bearing deposits; they may be used to buy real estate. Whatever may be the case, they are transferred from cash at the bottom level to a normal and quite respectable commercial transaction. Of course, in the past it has been very difficult to trace the movement of that money from its original cash source through the laundering process into the financial institutions. Much of the work that is needed to achieve this purpose will be done by the cash transactions legislation, which will be a very important part of a group of Bills that will be debated in the House. The Proceeds of Crime Bill deals with cases in which a criminal is apprehended and evidence is obtained that large sums of money from illegal means have been laundered and put back into quite respectable and normal commercial structures. It will enable orders to be made so that those proceeds can be taken off the criminal, the criminal's family and those who have benefited from the movement of the illegal cash funds. The proceeds will be put back into the Commonwealth purse. On many occasions it will be possible, no doubt, for those who have been aggrieved by the criminal activities to make a claim against those funds. This measure is long overdue. We should all remember that when this Government came to office in 1983 the taxation system was one of great rorts and frauds. The previous Government, to its eternal shame, had not tried to do a thing to stop that tax fraud and other frauds. (Quorum formed) It is of interest to note that when one attacks members of the Opposition and shows what a disaster they were, they call quorums. Of course, if we look around the chamber, we see that there are no members of the Opposition present, except for one gentleman sitting on the front bench and one who I think is a National Party member. The others are probably in the corridor looking for their tax policy which they have not yet found. Mr Snow —That is a good point. They are looking for their tax policy. Mr CLEELAND —They are certainly looking for some sort of policy because they have not yet found one. The reality is that the previous Government did nothing about public fraud or criminal fraud. The previous Government, to its eternal shame, did not attempt to do anything. The Hawke Government has tackled the tax fraud which occurred in this country prior to its term of office. It is the Hawke Government which is tackling criminal fraud. It is the Hawke Government which is taking on the serious crime elements in this country. It is the Hawke Government which is concerned about the effect of crime on families. We hear a lot about families from some honourable members opposite, but they never produce any legislation to assist families. The Hawke Government is concerned about families and the effect of crime on families. It is concerned to ensure that those who infiltrate our society, who would use illegal activities to raise wealth, those who would use the public purse for fraudulent purposes, will not keep the proceeds of that crime. This Government will make sure that those proceeds will be taken from them and returned to the public purse. I remind the House that this Bill, in dealing with fraud, includes frauds on revenue. It covers those areas which occurred during the time of the previous Government. It enables the Government to bring back to the public purse money which was gained through illegal acts against the revenue of Australia. Those funds will be recovered and placed in the public revenue, which is where they should be. These Bills are a credit to the Attorney-General. They are a credit to the Government. I have been very proud to serve as chairman of the Caucus legal committee. I have been very proud to assist this Government in putting forward these Bills. I know that my constituents will be pleased with these Bills. In fact, all Australians will be pleased to see them. People like the late Mr Trimbole will not be able to use their ill-gotten gains and pass them back to their families. Such funds, as a result of this legislation, will be put back in the public purse, where they belong. Again, I congratulate the Attorney. He is one of the best Attorneys that this country has seen. I again say to the House that he deserves the name of the Eliot Ness of Australian crime. Mr McGAURAN(Gippsland)(5.39) —The National Party of Australia is willing and prepared to concede that the Proceeds of Crime Bill 1987 and the Proceeds of Crime (Miscellaneous Amendments) Bill 1987 represent a major milestone in the fight against organised crime. But we certainly stop short of the embarrassing praise heaped upon the Attorney-General (Mr Lionel Bowen) by his colleague the honourable member for McEwen (Mr Cleeland). I wonder how the Attorney-General likes being described as the Eliot Ness of Australian crime-an ambiguous piece of praise if ever I have heard it. More particularly, as the Attorney-General knows better than anybody, it was the Fraser Government which established the Royal Commission into the Federated Ship Painters and Dockers Union, better known as the Costigan Royal Commission, from which much of the disclosure, uncovering and revealing of organised crime occurred, leading to the point where this Parliament is in the middle of considering four pieces of very important legislation. The first pieces were passed by the Parliament a fortnight ago. I refer to the Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters Bill 1987 and the Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters (Consequential Amendments) Bill 1987. They will allow for co-operative arrangements between Australia and other countries which will better deal with the international aspects of organised crime. We have before us also the Proceeds of Crime Bill, which I will address my remarks to in a few moments. I understand that next week we are to discuss the Cash Transaction Reports Bill 1987 as well as the Telecommunications (Interception) Amendment Bill 1987. I put the Government on notice that there a number of aspects about those two pieces of legislation which cause the National Party grave concern; so much so that at this stage we are considering moving amendments certainly to the cash transaction legislation and possibly to the telecommunications interception legislation, if we cannot be satisfied on those aspects. But that debate will occur at a later time. I do not want to canvass matters that may well come before the courts, but I believe that this Attorney-General and this Government have treated Mr Costigan shamefully. Leaving aside the tremendous suspicions that members of the public and certainly members on this side of the House have about the premature and unnecessary winding up of the Costigan Royal Commission on the Activities of the Federated Ship Painters and Dockers Union back in December 1984, there has been the disgraceful slamming by the Attorney-General of Mr Costigan in a recent Press release, in which he none too subtly suggested that Mr Costigan was responsible for the leaking of information from that Royal Commission, which was to embarrass the person with the code name Goanna, later revealed to be Mr Kerry Packer. But I am unable to canvass it because it may well result in litigation. Both the Attorney-General and this Government have washed their hands entirely of Mr Costigan. They have not only ended his Royal Commission unnecessarily but also proceeded in a scurrilous attack on his integrity and character. If the Attorney-General, in his reply, wishes to place on record this Government's gratitude to and admiration for Mr Costigan, we would certainly welcome that. I do not for a moment accept that this is the first truly crime busting Attorney-General that we have ever had. I have immense respect for his administration of his Department in so many different ways, and the legislation immediately before the House, the Proceeds of Crime Bill, is something in which he and the officers of his Department can take great pride. It is long overdue. It is part of the continuing attempt by this Parliament to equip our law enforcement agencies with the necessary powers to combat the evils of organised crime. The Proceeds of Crime Bill will empower the courts to order the confiscation or forfeiture of properties acquired by criminals, thereby giving effect to that long held belief that criminals should not enjoy the fruits of their criminal activities and should not have some nest egg put away for them from which they can draw to fight the processes of law or to enjoy on finishing a period of incarceration. A whole number of royal commissions have advocated the type of forfeiture and confiscation powers contained in this legislation. One major contributor to the final bringing before the Parliament of this legislation was undoubtedly Mr Justice Donald Stewart in his report in 1983 of the Royal Commission of Inquiry into Drug Trafficking, better known as the Mr Asia inquiry. That Royal Commission examined the activities of the Clark syndicate in Australia and, amongst other things, the use of institutions to disguise the flow of funds associated with the drug operations of that syndicate. That report, better than many, illustrated the complexities involved in tracing funds and the use of companies and financial institutions to disguise the flow of funds which, more or less, made it impossible, with the powers then existing and then available to law enforcement agencies, actually to follow the money trail. This is complex legislation. It is a credit to all involved in its drafting, but I very much suspect that we will have to move amendments to it at a later time. We are breaking new ground in so many different ways with this legislation. It is no criticism of the draftsman, it is simply that I can imagine that at one point or another some of the provisions will not prove as effective as we would want them to be. I hope that is not the case. If it is, I have no doubt that the Attorney will seek amendments to the legislation without any delay. Not only will this legislation empower courts to order the confiscation or forfeiture of properties, but also it will empower them to restrain a suspect from disposing of property. That is very important because too often criminals are able to arrange their affairs in the expectation of facing court action or conviction, and thereby appear to all intents and purposes to have no assets. Moreover, under this legislation a court may impose pecuniary penalties in line with the profits gained by criminals. The money or assets will go to a fund to fight organised crime. In summary, the Proceeds of Crime Bill has five purposes. As I say, its principal purpose is to empower a court to grant orders for the freezing and confiscation of property used in or derived directly or indirectly from the commission of an indictable offence against the law of the Commonwealth, or naturally, of a Territory, other than the Northern Territory, I hasten to add. Furthermore, the Bill confers on the police new powers to facilitate the following of the money trail and to require financial institutions to preserve their records so as to maintain a record of that money trail. Moreover, it creates new offences of money laundering and organised fraud. Turning now specifically to some of the provisions, I should say by way of introduction that in 1985-86 federal agencies seized 62.3 kilograms of heroin and 12.2 kilograms of cocaine. At best, we can only guess that law enforcement agencies seize between five and 10 per cent of all imported drugs. Supposing we allow for ten per cent, we can therefore calculate that if we seize 62 kilograms of heroin, 620 kilograms of heroin entered this country, and that if we seized 12 kilograms of cocaine, 120 kilograms of cocaine entered Australia during the year 1985-86. That gives us some idea of the enormity of the drug trafficking problem that we have in this country. Moreover, it gives us some idea of the extent of the value of the evil of drugs. It is estimated that heroin has a street value of $700,000 for every kilogram, and that cocaine has a street value of $300,000 for every kilogram. So again estimating-and that is all we can do as we cannot be any more definite-that 620 kilograms of heroin and 120 kilograms of cocaine enter Australia, at those street values they are worth something like half a billion dollars-$500m. That, of course, is not taking into account other illegal drugs. There is obviously an enormous pool of finances from which increasingly sophisticated and more organised criminals can draw to frustrate the legal processes of this country. This legislation attempts to cover most of the different aspects of the money trail as well as to deprive criminals of their ill-gotten gains. For instance, the Director of Public Prosecutions will be able to apply, in respect of a person convicted of an indictable offence, for an order that tainted property in respect of the offence be forfeited and that a pecuniary penalty be imposed in respect of the benefits derived from the offence. I should say at this stage that a number of States have passed corresponding legislation, not in the same form, naturally. New South Wales, perhaps surprisingly, was the first State to enact such legislation in 1985. South Australia soon followed and the Victorian Act was passed in 1986. Clause 17 interested me because it deals with a confiscation order where a person is believed to have absconded. Under that clause, orders are not to be made unless the court is satisfied, on the balance of probabilities-that is the test-that the person has absconded and, firstly, that the person has been committed for trial or, secondly, that a reasonable jury could find the person guilty. Where the Director of Public Prosecutions has made such an application, the court may order that the property be forfeited to the Commonwealth. In considering whether to make such an order, the court may consider any hardship that may arise if the order is made, and the ordinary use of such property. We should not lose sight of the fact that if the conviction is quashed the forfeiture order is discharged. That is provided for in clause 22. There are a number of other specific aspects of this legislation with which I could deal, but I very much fear that my time is limited, so in conclusion I will seize upon one or two aspects of the legislation which do not deal with forfeiture and confiscation of property. Let me deal with the new offences of money laundering and organised fraud. Much of the legislation deals with information gathering powers. Under clause 66 police may apply for a production order to gain property tracking documents. It will be an offence to fail to comply with such an order. There are also clauses which deal with monitoring orders. Under these clauses the police may apply for an order which will direct a financial institution to give information to a law enforcement agency on transactions by a particular person. Such orders are not to be made unless the judge is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the person has committed, or is about to commit, a serious offence. I turn now to those clauses which deal with money laundering. These clauses deal with cases where a person directly or indirectly engages in a transaction that involves the proceeds of crime, or who possesses, receives, disposes of or brings into Australia the proceeds of crime, and the person knows or ought to reasonably know that the property was derived from unlawful activity. Organised fraud is taken to have occurred when a person engages in acts or omissions that constitute three or more public fraud offences and the person derives substantial benefit. The Proceeds of Crime (Miscellaneous Amendments) Bill, which is being debated cognately with the Proceeds of Crime Bill, makes consequential amendments to pieces of legislation that are affected in a very material way by the Proceeds of Crime Bill. In summary, the legislation is supported by the National Party. We congratulate the Attorney-General and his Department on the, I would think, countless days of work that have gone into drafting this complex and, I believe, urgently needed legislation. I am sure that almost all of its provisions will be successful. They have to be successful, given the size of the task of fighting organised crime. I look forward to reassurances by the Attorney-General that Mr Costigan was a valued and highly respected royal commissioner and that a Press release some weeks ago-causing many people within the legal fraternity uneasiness and some of them outright rage-was not intended to slur that man's character. Mr BRUMBY(Bendigo)(5.54) —It is my pleasure to support the Proceeds of Crime Bill 1987 and the Proceeds of Crime (Miscellaneous Amendments) Bill 1987 which the Attorney-General (Mr Lionel Bowen) has brought before the House. The major legislation with which we are dealing is the Proceeds of Crime Bill. As the Attorney-General has put it, it provides some of the most effective weaponry against major crime that has ever been introduced into this Parliament. Its purpose will be to strike at the very heart of organised crime in Australia by depriving those people engaged in crime of their profits and the instruments of their crime. That is a commendable objective. In doing that we will be suppressing criminal activity by attacking the primary motive, which is always profit, and preventing the reinvestment of that profit in further criminal activity. I do not think that we could ask for legislation to come before this House on a better basis. I know that all honourable members share a common objective-the need to fight organised crime. Some honourable members of course, have taken a partisan attitude to this objective, and I may return to that theme in a moment. The Age newspaper earlier this month commended this legislation when in an editorial headed `Making crime no longer pay' it said: The control of organised crime in a democratic community calls for effective measures beyond the normal bounds of criminal justice. First, it requires techniques of investigation that are not usually available or entrusted to conventional police forces. And second, it warrants penalties that take both the motive and the profit out of organised criminal activity. The two approaches are complementary. The threat of tough penalties is no deterrent if criminal conspirators can be fairly confident that they will not be caught or convicted. And effective detection alone will not protect society if the guilty can avoid just retribution or keep their ill-gotten gains. This legislation is described in a number of similar newspaper editorials as important and indeed crucial to the fight against organised crime. An earlier speaker mentioned that this legislation was part of a package of Bills which the Government has introduced to this Parliament. One of those Bills is the Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters Bill which passed through this Parliament earlier this month. That Bill provides for improved arrangements and co-ordination between Australia and overseas government agencies so that we are better able to deal with the problem of organised crime that occurs on a national and an international level. That legislation has already gone through this House. The Proceeds of Crime Bill, as I have said, is a major weapon-probably the most effective weapon ever introduced-against organised crime. We are debating this Bill at the moment, and next week, the last week of sitting of the Thirty-fourth Parliament, we will hear debate in this House on two other fundamental reforms in the area of criminal law reform and organised crime-the cash transactions legislation and the Telecommunications (Interception) Amendment Bill. These Bills and earlier measures taken by the Government represents a major attack on organised crime in Australia. I think all Australians would share the aspirations that this Government has in making an all-out attack on organised crime. In looking at the fight against organised crime we can go back some years. It is worthy of note that the reports of Stewart, McCabe-Lafranchi, Moffitt, Woodward and Costigan, delivered in the 1970s and the 1980s, have all showed that crime is not simply a matter of small isolated pockets removed from the mainstream of society. Mr Martin —What about the Martin report? Mr BRUMBY —I have just been reminded by my colleague of the Martin report, the report of the Joint Select Committee on Telecommunications Interception. That report has also contributed to the fight against organised crime in Australia. This Government has identified several areas of priority for the attack by the Australian Federal Police upon organised crime. The most important priority is drug trafficking. As part of the Government's commitments which we gave priority to the 1984 election, Australian Federal Police numbers have been increased very substantially. We have set more than $10m aside for that purpose. We have also provided more than $7m for the Australian Federal Police to upgrade its computer capacity. So it simply cannot be said by any speakers in this debate that this Government has not put its money where its mouth is or that it has not matched its rhetoric with resources, because in every sense it has, and it is determined to fight organised crime. In addition to the extra resources that it has given the Australian Federal Police, the Government has also established the National Crime Authority which I think in a very good way has carried on the work of the Costigan Royal Commission on the Activities of the Federated Ship Painters and Dockers Union. To date the National Crime Authority has been very successful in charging a number of people with very serious criminal offences. As a member of the Joint Committtee on the National Crime Authority, I know that the NCA is often reluctant for good reason to publicise its achievements. I can say that its achievements to date have been considerable and significant and they are part of a wide-based attack by this Government on organised crime in Australia. As I said, next week we will be debating legislation for telecommunication interception. That legislation will also assist in the fight against organised crime. The legislation we are debating at the moment also forms part of that package and enables the Federal Government to confiscate the ill-gotten gains of convicted criminals. Other things that we have done in our fight against organised crime include legislation which has passed through this Parliament to establish an independent Australian Customs Service with its own Comptroller-General to provide an appropriate focus for the management of that Service, and we have also approved additional resources for the Service so that it is better able to intercept illicit drugs entering Australia. We have established the Director of Public Prosecutions, streamlining the Government's prosecution system to overcome the deficiencies in the earlier arrangements noted by the Costigan Commission in its fourth interim report. I guess the final thing amongst a range of measures that I have described that this Government has introduced to fight organised crime is the further tightening of measures in legislation to limit, to prohibit and to make illegal blatant tax evasion in this country. I do not think honourable members in this House should forget too soon that it was this Government when it came to office which found that there had been blatant tax evasion and avoidance eroding the tax system through the 1970s, haemorrhaging the tax system so that it was ordinary pay as you earn taxpayers who were paying for the profits of organised criminals in relation to tax evasion. Those people who follow the newspaper reports would know that this Government has been thorough in its efforts to track down those who have unscrupulously evaded their rightful and legal responsibility to pay tax. They are some of this Government's commendable and very solid achievements. Earlier in the debate the honourable member for Gippsland (Mr McGauran) suggested that this Government had in some way sleighted or not adequately reflected on the work of Mr Costigan and the Costigan Royal Commission. I think I can answer that criticism fairly simply be referring to a Government statement in the Senate on 21 May 1985, as follows: Two words probably best sum up the public's view of the Costigan Royal Commission's work-`organised crime'. The Opposition has repeatedly tried to accuse this Government of a lack of commitment in fighting organised crime. Nothing could be further from the truth: We ensured the Costigan Commission had appropriate resources- and I ask the honourable member for Flinders (Mr Reith) and other Opposition members to note this- out of a total cost of more than $14m over five years, this Government- the Hawke Government- provided $8m in only two years. So it can hardly be said that we did not provide adequate support in that area. The statement continues: In particular, we increased the Commission's budget from just under $3m in 1982-83 to just under $6m in 1983-84; we have established the National Crime Authority to lead the fight against organised crime; we have established the Director of Public Prosecutions to streamline the prosecutions area and overcome earlier problems; and we have substantially increased resources available to the Australian Federal Police . . . The statement then goes on to list a whole range of other measures which I have already described. So in no way at all can it be suggested that this Government has in any way lacked the commitment or resources to fight organised crime in Australia. Indeed, we have matched our rhetoric with action, and we have put money where our mouth is. We have enabled law enforcement agencies in Australia to get on with the job of tracking down organised criminals. The legislation before the House is good legislation and it is historic legislation which will permit a number of actions to be taken against organised crime, and I will describe some of them. It will permit, after conviction, the forfeiture of property used in, or obtained as a result of, the commission of an indictable offence against the law of the Commonwealth. It will require for more serious offences the statutory forfeiture of an offender's assets six months after conviction. It will permit, prior to conviction, the tracing and freezing of property that may be subject to forfeiture. It will create new offences for `money laundering', which is the process by which profits of crime are disguised in order to make them appear legitimate. The legislation will also require the keeping of certain financial records by financial institutions and will permit, subject to certain safeguards, access to those records. It will provide for the proper identification of all persons and corporations opening bank accounts. For those States which have enacted proceeds of crime legislation, it will provide for discretionary, court ordered forfeiture for any indictable offence; and the Commonwealth legislation will do the same. So it is very powerful legislation, but I think it is justified because Australians in this Parliament and of all political persuasions are united in wanting to strike at the very heart of organised crime in Australia. We should not forget that at the basis of the vast majority of organised crime is the profit motive, the intention and desire in an organised way to make excessive and considerable levels of profit which are put towards personal gain at the expense of other people. Of course the most common way in which organised crime flourishes in countries around the world and in Australia is through drug trafficking, and those gains are ill-gotten. They are made at the expense-not just financial but also emotional, personal, and physical-of those from whom the gains are made. We are all united in wanting to strike at the very heart of organised crime in Australia. I repeat: It is the profit motive which generates the basis or motive for organised crime. It is those who take part in organised crime who often wish to launder money from their profits and put it back through what seem to be legitimate businesses to make those profits and their way of life appear to be legitimate. This legislation really does attack directly the basis of organised crime because it gives Australian law-makers the ability, the capacity, the right and the law to attack the ill-gotten proceeds or organised crime. I reiterate: This Bill is one of a number of Bills that we have put before the House to attack organised crime. We have already passed the Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters Bill and the Cash Transaction Reports Bill, and the Telecommunications (Interception) Amendment Bill will be debated in this House next week. Improved resources for the Australian Federal Police, the establishment of the National Crime Authority to take over from the work of the Costigan Royal Commission, the establishment of the Director of Public Prosecutions, and the revamping of the Australian Customs Service all indicate that this Government has made the fight against organised crime a top priority in its policies. I have pleasure in supporting this legislation and I am pleased that it has the bipartisan support of all parties in this House. Mr MacKELLAR(Warringah)(6.10) —This legislation is one of the most pungent pieces of innovative action against major crime to come before this Parliament. The legislation makes it possible for people engaged in lucrative illegal activities to be deprived of their ill-gotten gains. It is just not enough that people be imprisoned for their wrong doing. It is also important that those who have acquired assets through their dishonest practices should be deprived of the benefits. The origins of the legislation are to be found in the work of the Costigan Royal Commission. We all know that Mr Costigan was appointed to investigate the activities of the Federated Ship Painters and Dockers Union. He found that it had become a notorious centre for criminal activities with all the bully-boy incidents that go with crime. We talk about big crime to distinguish the sophistication of big money-buying favours to ensure big returns which are then squirreled away into personal wealth. As we know, all crime has a very nasty side to it. We know that the Mafia has been the centre of social devices for corrupting public officials, judges and the like in the United States of America and that this has involved the use of standover men, drug traffickers and all the nasty, indeed brutish, bases of an integrated criminal business. When the Fraser Government initiated the Costigan Royal Commission on the Activities of the Federated Ship Painters and Dockers Union, there were the obvious trappings of petty crime, thuggery and murder. What the Commission found, as it followed what the Attorney-General (Mr Lionel Bowen) referred to as the money trail, was a vast enterprise of tax evasion and fraud-some petty, some very significant. In other words, the culture of the trade union being investigated was a culture of crime, thuggery, bribery, drug trafficking and the forging and uttering of official documents. One docker prepared 40 fraudulent returns to the Australian Taxation Office. The same man used seven false names to defraud the Department of Social Security of $64,000. An illegal scheme concerning 220 Commonwealth officers for fraudulently promoting mineral exploration had involved four chartered accountants and one financier. A merchant bank had raised a scheme to evade tax by allegedly trading in commodity futures, with false names and multiple bank accounts. The plan was to launder large sums of money. In separate actions in one bank, a Melbourne bank manager was dismissed for his part in dealings with a corporate criminal. This is the sort of thing turned up by Commissioner Costigan when he investigated, by following the money trail, the painters and dockers union. What is alarming is that the trade union base enables all kinds of action to be devised which have nothing to do with the legitimate role of the trade unions-the interest of the worker or trade unionist. In the United States, the unions have proved a successful base for organised crime. The Mafia used the truckers union to install Jimmy Hoffa, and that union was used to coerce the whole economic system dependent on trucking to pay protection fees and the like. Clearly, Commissioner Costigan has had concerns that the Mafia was developing a pattern of influence here in the painters and dockers union. Who would have believed that the centre for Mafia drug activities in Australia would be the small town of Griffith in New South Wales? The murder of the anti-drug campaigner Donald Mackay, covered up by clearly corrupt police action for so long, has led to the exposure of Trimbole, a major drug trafficker. He so corrupted our passport issuing system that a whole new, complex and expensive procedure for the issuing of passports has had to be evolved. It now costs the citizen $60 for his passport. For a time there was great confusion in the Government as to what should be done about the need for the Commonwealth and State law enforcement authorities to work together to complete the investigations started by the Costigan inquiry. Two things happened. The Fraser Government's proposal for a crime commission to take over from Costigan was dumped by the Hawke Government when it came to power in 1983. After much umming and ahing, and pressure mounted by the Press and the Opposition, the Government set up a National Crime Authority under Mr Justice Stewart. The second proposal was to set up a permanent arrangement for a public prosecutor to work closely with the Authority to ensure effective court action to deal with criminal activity. An office of Director of Public Prosecutions was established in 1983 which brought to active life the idea that ways should be found to pursue civil remedy, as distinct from criminal prosecution, to frustrate the criminal's money-making activities. One process has been to take court action to recover money not declared as income. Mr Temby, in his first report, says: Effectively rendering a criminal enterprise profitless creates a disincentive for like-minded persons to engage in similar activity in the future. The Proceeds of Crime Bill is a development of the thinking to emerge from the Costigan Royal Commission and from the Director of Public Prosecutions. As the Attorney-General says, its purpose is to strike at the heart of major organised crime by depriving involved persons of the profits of those crimes. The profit motive is the central motive of highly organised crime. People involved want to make big profits, and to become respected and influential citizens in the process. So the profit motive is to be attacked, just as Commissioner Costigan proposed. The New South Wales police have had a dreadful record of having people in high places co-operate with those involved in making huge profits from crime. Efforts are being made to clean things up in the force. It is clear that the ordinary police prosecutor's powers would not be adequate to inhibit this kind of crime, or even to investigate it. The National Crime Authority, on the other hand, is able to co-ordinate police and special inquiries to ensure a more efficient process of detection. Now the question is: Having detected the activities, how do we kill it, and recover money and profit from those activities? The Bill confers new powers to follow the money trail; it requires responsible financial institutions to make proper records, and it can freeze and confiscate overseas accounts. It is an important obligation for financial institutions. Banks must retain cheques and payment orders above $200. Such a mechanism is needed to facilitate investigations. Such a procedure makes it very difficult to cover the trail of illegality. Most importantly, these legislative provisions look behind the facade of legal ownership of property to determine, as the Minister says, whether that property is subject to the effective control of the defendant, having regard to such things as shareholdings or directorships of companies. The legislation comprehends family and business relationships with the property. The legislation proceeds on the theme flowing from Costigan that the ill-gotten gains should be the objective of action. Orders against a defendant may require the court to assess the benefit derived from the offence. So we can see that there will be an incentive for big criminal practitioners to get out of formerly lucrative practices. But we must expect that this action, so necessary and so important, will create a search for new rorts and new dodges. Thus we should not be surprised by, but should welcome, any further amendments to legislation which make it increasingly difficult to cheat the system. As the legislation is put into effect, obviously there may be a need for further amendments. We would look to those amendments to come forward on the basis of their necessity. One of the important aims of this legislation is to make it difficult to launder money. We know that the Mafia in the United States ends up with raw money. All of its activities involve the use of ordinary dollar bills, which it acquires through street-level crimes. It has set up special offices outside the United States to traffic in dollar bills, unload them in countries such as Australia, and return the money in investable form back to the United States. The most attractive places for money-laundering are the racecourses and the casinos. There the money trail is lost. It is all too easy to pay bribes and favours through this process. Thus the laundering of money involves the corruption of many of the ordinary activities of Australia. There is some doubt whether it is possible to run casinos which do not become penetrated by money-laundering arrangements. The process of following cheques, and how they are paid for, clearly is going to facilitate investigation of laundering activities. It is no good returning to the United States the raw money brought in. I welcome the kind of action designed to provide a framework and focus for investigators. The measures should make investigation easier, more certain and, hopefully, more effective. Since the Costigan Royal Commission, Australia has been faced with the question: Can Australian law enforcement get on top of organised crime, or will organised crime so penetrate every department of Australian life-the social security system, the health care system, the financial system and the recreational system-that there will be found to be no capability for Australian law enforcement agencies to win through? Those who watched the Australian Broadcasting Corporation screening of the television series on the Mafia saw how terribly destructive big crime is when it permeates the social system. We saw in that series the destruction of a trade union, and even the destruction of a city. The city of Newark, New Jersey, has been destroyed by the Mafia, which corrupts and takes, but never builds. Big crime is terribly destructive; it is economically and socially disastrous. According to Commissioner Costigan, we have come very close to big crime taking over here. Those who saw the interview given to the Australian Broadcasting Corporation by Mr Justice Stewart will know how public dedication is needed to defeat organised crime. It gave us all an insight into the pressure on our law enforcement institutions and people involved. I do not wish to be unduly partisan in areas where the national interest demands that Australia is better served by strong and effective legislation. It is true that the Opposition, quite properly, became very vigorous about some of the earlier proposals to have a less effective National Crime Authority. There was no point in allowing weaknesses in the legislation, and the Opposition welcomed the proposal from the Senate Standing Committee on Constitutional and Legal Affairs to provide that the Authority receive relevant information from the Commissioner of Taxation. We were concerned also to ensure that the Authority have effective access to overseas interactions. As I said, the fact is that big crime lives off international connections. I welcome the recognition in this legislation of the internationalism of organised crime. I support the Minister in this respect when he says that the international measures to freeze and confiscate Australian assets accumulated through international crime activity are vital in the fight against the internationalisation of major crime. This legislation demonstrates the fact that there are rewards to our society for facing up to the dangers of organised crime with its international connections. The Royal Commissioner, Mr Costigan, stirred up a hornets nest when he persisted with his inquiries, despite much misrepresentation and controversy. With the retrospect of history, his work, and the work of Mr Justice Stewart as a Commissioner, and now as Chairman of the Crime Authority, has given Australia an insight into the dangers, but more than that, as this legislation shows, it has stimulated a public will to see that these matters are adequately dealt with. Can we hope that the tide against overseas and organised crime in Australia is now turning? Does the quietness with which this legislation has been received indicate that the people of Australia are not prepared to be fooled, that out there the Costigan reports and the work of Mr Justice Stewart are winning the minds of members of the public? I, with most Australians, have been greatly exercised in a concern about the existence and blatant bravado of the rogues who can so manipulate our institutions and our society. We know that those efforts, which are bringing success, should not be relaxed for a moment. It is important that there is not only legal provision for an effective attack on crime, but also it is important-indeed, of the utmost urgency-that the material and personnel support systems for the attack on crime be forthcoming, notwithstanding these stringent times. These, of course, are not measures to court popularity, but they are of the kind so gravely needed and justified by all who have come to fear the destructive malignancy of organised crime. I support the legislation. Before finishing, I raise a couple of matters which have exercised my mind, because this legislation and other legislation have serious implications for the Australian legal and accountancy professions and for corporate executives, some of whom have become deeply implicated in the laundering of money from organised crime. In relation to the legal profession, evidence was given to the National Crime Authority that crime money was being laundered through a trust account of a Melbourne legal firm. In relation to accountants, businessmen and entrepreneurs, the same evidence was given to the National Crime Authority which showed laundered money was networked through a chain involving an accountant, a businessman, a former bank manager and a Melbourne entrepreneur. I refer also to banks, financial institutions and computer hackers. It is about time that professions throughout Australia-and I refer to all professions-really looked very much to their laurels in terms of their own control over their standards and ethics. If the professional bodies do not move to strengthen further the codes, the morality and the proper ethics which should characterise their professions, then the individual members of those professions cannot complain if successive governments introduce legislation which, in their view, may have the effect of introducing further regulations and further difficulties for them. It is up to the professions to a much greater extent than they have previously demonstrated to build, not only amongst their own members but also amongst the public as a whole, a greater regard for the sort of business and professional morality that we have come to expect and should expect from these professions which, in the main, have a highly honoured history and background. In the main, people involved in the professions have a greater access to support and to financial reward from the community. In return for that I believe that the professions must do far more than they exhibit to build their own standards of professional morality and ethnics. If they do not do that, then they cannot complain when governments, either at the State or at the Federal level, act to do it for them. Sitting suspended from 6.25 to 8 p.m. Mr ROBERT BROWN(Charlton)(8.0o) —Madam Speaker-(Quorum formed). There has been general recognition of the fact that this legislation, the Proceeds of Crime Bill and the Proceeds of Crime (Miscellaneous Amendments) Bill that the Parliament is in the process of considering, is extremely important. The very fact that it is the Labor Government which has introduced it probably explains why the Melbourne Herald today has as its banner headline `Labor has a 10% lead'. Mr Grace —That is conservative, Robert. Mr ROBERT BROWN —It is suggested by the honourable member for Fowler that that figure is conservative. Almost certainly that figure is conservative. And why should it not be, when this Government has such an outstanding legislative record? If we need any further evidence of the quality of that record we need only to look at the legislation that we are in the process of considering, the Proceeds of Crime Bill 1987. This Commonwealth has existed for 87 years and for the first time ever a government has had sufficient concern about the fact that organised crime has enabled people to rip off the national community hundreds of millions of dollars and given those people the opportunity to launder those funds and frequently reinvest them into legitimate purposes and thus become the pillars of society. Many of those people out in the community, who vote for the Opposition-- Mr Cleeland —They fund them. Mr ROBERT BROWN —I appreciate that interjection; they certainly fund the Opposition. Under the previous Government, overwhelming and conclusive evidence came before the Parliament and before the Australian community that, as a result of tax evasion and tax avoidance, Commonwealth revenue was diminished to the extent of $7,000m every year. That is only in the area of tax evasion and tax avoidance. We are concerned in this legislation about the whole area of organised crime. The Proceeds of Crime Bill is probably one of the most complex and far reaching pieces of legislation to come before the Parliament. It runs into 87 pages and has 104 clauses. It sets out a complex and sophisticated system for the confiscation of property derived from or used in crime, for the monitoring of criminal activities and for the taking of remedies to safeguard the interests that the Commonwealth has in the proceeds of crime. In the second reading speech, the Attorney-General, the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr Lionel Bowen), said: The Proceeds of Crime Bill provides some of the most effective weaponry against major crime ever introduced into this Parliament. Its purpose is to strike at the heart of major organised crime by depriving persons involved of the profits and instruments of their crimes. By so doing, it will suppress criminal activity by attacking the primary motive-profit-and prevent the re-investment of that profit in further criminal activity. Of course, the significance of that, as the Attorney-General quite clearly indicated, is that the legislation is designed to strike at the very heart of organised crime in Australia. After 87 years of this Commonwealth, this legislation will ensure finally that those people who have been able to benefit from a whole range of criminal activities which unfortunately exist within our society, will no longer be able to retain the benefits of that crime. So many of them have for so long been able to do that. The fact that this has been a matter of concern within the community is indicated by a letter that I sent to the Attorney-General in February of 1985 as a result of approaches that had been made to me. At that time there was concern about Mr Terrence Clark, Mr Asia, and the fact that substantial wealth would be inherited by his son in Sydney as a result of the particular types of criminal activity in which he had been involved. At that time the Attorney-General replied saying that the Customs Act provided for the confiscation of profits derived from illegal drug trafficking. He went on to say: I believe that a person convicted of an offence should not be able to retain any benefits derived as a result of the commission of the offence . . . Commonwealth legislation provides for the confiscation of profits derived from trafficking in narcotic drugs illegally imported into, or exported out of, Australia. He went on to say that that was covered by the Customs Act 1901 and stated: Section 229a deems any `money' or `goods' that are in the possession or under the control of a person by reason of his dealings in illegal drugs to be forfeited goods. A police officer or any other authorised person may, . . . seize `money' or `goods' that are forfeited by virtue of the above provision. Section 243b provides for the imposition of a pecuniary penalty, that penalty representing the gross benefit a person has derived from dealing in illegal drugs. So there have been provisions in legislation in the past for confiscation of some of those benefits which otherwise would have accrued to, and stayed with, people involved in various types of criminal activity. One of the encouraging aspects of this legislation is, first of all, the extent to which Commonwealth-State co-operation is involved. The Bill provides a mechanism to enforce orders made under corresponding State laws which affect the freezing and confiscation of property located in a Territory. There is also a very desirable aspect of co-operation with foreign countries. The Bill also enables Australian freezing and confiscation orders to be enforced overseas and orders made in foreign countries in relation to foreign offences to be enforced against assets located in Australia. So there are very significant innovations as far as this legislation is concerned in dealing with these particular types of problems. We need to keep in mind that, in addition to the $7,000m a year, to which I made reference before, as a result of taxation evasion and taxation avoidance, all these other areas of crime in Australia have made it possible for people to amass vast sums of money. Of course, it is not only in Australia. Recent evidence in Italy indicates that in the first two years of Italy implementing its anti-Mafia legislation, illegally accumulated fortunes to the tune of $US500m-a very significant sum-were confiscated; and half of that amount was seized in just two operations. So there is plenty of evidence of the extent to which these types of crimes have made it possible for people to amass vast sums of money. Even the Costigan Royal Commission on the Activities of the Federated Ship Painters and Dockers Union in Australia showed the extent to which some of these funds were reinvested back into legitimate business activities. The Costigan Royal Commission cited one principal involved in those types of criminal activities that Mr Costigan was investigating as having beneficial interests in at least 38 legitimate companies. This was thought to be one of the less significant of those which had been identified. Examples can be multiplied time and again. Even in the area of corporate fraud a recent scheme involved a network of companies spanning six countries and allowed a businessman with addresses in the United Kingdom, Spain and Belgium to milk $13m from one Australian company. Graeme Cantwell, head of the National Companies and Securities Commission compliance and enforcement branch, said: The object of the exercise was to take 90 per cent of the profits while having 15 per cent (of) the company. When you put it on a chart it went all over the place. That has been one of the common approaches of people engaged in schemes of this kind. We found the same thing with all the artificial paper devices that were used in order to allow people to avoid taxation-all of the interconnections, all of the relationships, all of the links and the transfers of funds from one place to another. That particular share package was traced first to a Belgian company, then through companies in the Channel Islands in the United Kingdom, the Cayman Islands, Netherlands, Antilles, Panama, a medical trust with properties in the United Kingdom, Spain and Belgium, across to a string of Hong Kong companies and also to a company in New Zealand. These are the types of people who, as a result of their behaviour, their actions and their criminal schemes, have made it possible, in effect, to rip off the whole community. That particular businessman had only 15 per cent of shares in the Australian company over which he had effective control and he was able to arrange for it to buy $1 shares from the New Zealand company he owned at the inflated price of $6. So all of these schemes have various forms of devices that make it possible to pursue them. I understand that a study for the Special Minister of State's office last year estimated that fraud was costing the Federal Government about $4 billion a year, especially in Customs and income tax evasion. I gave the $7 billion figure before because that was combining income tax evasion with income tax avoidance which occurred under the previous Government. Why has it taken 87 years for any government to do something about this? For 87 years of this Commonwealth, people have been able to engage in these activities, amass these sums of money, launder them through gambling arrangements of various kinds and then suddenly appear as legitimate businessmen, as Costigan found, with legitimate business interests-pillars of society. I would not suggest for a moment that the Liberal and National parties were showing as much concern for these blatant crooks as they appeared to show for the tax evaders and the tax avoiders. But the question remains: Why has it taken this Commonwealth 87 years to do something about it? Finally we are doing something about it. I commend the Attorney-General, the Deputy Prime Minister, not only for the initiative that he has shown in connection with this legislation, but for the initiative and the courage that he has shown in other types of legislation for which he has been responsible. The role of the professionals too is pretty significant in the rise of corporate crime. White collar criminals are often not adept enough to construct the elaborate schemes they perpetrate on an unsuspecting public. No, indeed they are not. Those schemes are refined by the professionals, the accountants and the solicitors, the people with shingles hanging outside their offices often from the city's most expensive and most prestigious firms. It appears that these professionals have in the past been immune from prosecution; few suffered from the bottom of the harbour blitz although it is well known that Queen's Counsel opinions were a crucial aspect of marketing the schemes and that top accounting firms referred large numbers of clients into the schemes. Where does the guilt lie? Does the guilt finally lie only with the greedy and the wealthy who are able to pay for this professional advice in order to arrange the schemes and rip off the nation, or does the guilt lie as well with those smart, educated professionals with the bright, polished shingles hanging outside their offices inviting others to come in and to take advantage of the schemes which they devised and for which they get handsome commissions? Does the guilt lie with them? Of course the guilt lies with them. There is a whole range of more sophisticated business schemes and fraudulent arrangements. The New South Wales Attorney-General, Terry Sheahan, estimates that the mushrooming business of leveraged currency traders attracted $100m from the public and enabled some of those traders-28 at one stage-to rake off huge fees in a little over 18 months. Some companies' policy was to avoid paying out currency profits in cash. Instead, investors with paper profits were persuaded to take new contracts until they lost money, which thus went to the company. Salesmen were highly paid to do this brutal work. One operator is still advertising for salesmen who could expect to earn $100,000 a year. Why? Because the salesmen then go out to the small investors, the genuine people in the community, the vast majority of the Australian community, and encourage them to put their hard earned cash, their hard earned savings, into schemes of this kind and then they rip them off. And do they rip them off! They rip them off with a vengeance. They have been doing it for 87 years in this Commonwealth, they did it in the States before that, and they did it in the colonies before that. They are doing it all over the world. This Government is not going to tolerate it any longer. This Government is now showing the way. The Attorney-General has introduced this legislation, which serves notice on those people in the community that, while in the past it has been possible for them by various types of criminal behaviour to amass vast sums of money, vast fortunes, and to live in absolute luxury, no longer will it be possible for them to do so in the future. This Government has served notice on them. I am absolutely delighted that the Government has shown this initiative. I am absolutely delighted that this legislation will stand to the eternal credit of the Labor Government. Everyone knows that since Federation we have occupied the treasury benches of this country for far too short a time. Had we been given the opportunity over those many years to represent the Australian people for a longer period, there would have been far fewer abuses remaining in the community and the nation because we would have ripped them out, and our legislative program shows that. We have been in government only since March 1983. The program for which this Government has been responsible will stand as a beacon for future governments, Labor or conservative. In the next election the Australian people will re-elect the Hawke Labor Government. Madam SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr HODGMAN(Denison)(8.20) —I believe that all members of this House would strongly support the principles of the Proceeds of Crime Bill and the purposes for which it is being enacted. However, I have to say that there are some aspects that concern the Opposition and me personally. One of the main complaints-and it is a valid complaint-is that the Hawke socialist Government, now coming towards the end of its all too long term of office, has provided a very limited period for members of this parliament to study the details of this legislation. I strongly support the amendment moved by the shadow Attorney-General, the honourable member for North Sydney (Mr Spender), in which he points out that this Bill, which contains 104 clauses, was introduced on Thursday, 30 April 1987 and called on for debate on the second reading on 11 May 1987. Quite frankly, in the last week of the Parliament we now find that there has been less than adequate time for examination and consultation by the Opposition of this important legislation. Frankly, I do not believe it is fair or proper that the Parliament should be required to deal with legislation as complex as this with such a limited time to study the implications. Let me put it on the line. The legislation comes about as the direct result of the resolution of the Special Premiers Conference on Drugs but, as the Attorney-General (Mr Lionel Bowen) pointed out in his second reading speech-I compliment him, because he does not fall under any of the criticisms that I will make tonight-it in fact goes much further. As the Attorney-General said, the general regime of the Bill insofar as it relates to the freezing and confiscation of assets is consistent with the approved model. However, this Bill goes far beyond the regime approved by the Standing Committee of Attorneys-General in providing new effective powers to permit law enforcement agencies to follow the money trail, creating new offences of money laundering and organised fraud-I will deal with those offences later-providing for the statutory forfeiture of property following conviction of certain serious offences and requiring financial institutions to preserve the money trail for subsequent taxation and law enforcement purposes. There would not be a member of this Parliament on either side who would quarrel with the principle that persons should not be permitted to profit from the commission of crime. There would not be a member of this Parliament on either side of the House who would quarrel with the proposition that the authorities should be given every power to follow the money trail so that those who have committed serious crimes shall not be able, through a process of laundering or whatever, to enjoy the proceeds of those crimes. However, there are aspects of this legislation which involve fundamental principles, and I would be failing in my duty if I did not draw them to the attention of the Parliament. I deal first with the question of innocent third parties. I point out to the House that under clause 31 the burden of proof will lie on the third party seeking an order under clause 21 (6). Let there be no mistake about this. Clause 21 (6) provides: If a person applies to a court for an order under this subsection in respect of the applicant's interest in property and the court is satisfied that- therein lies the rub-the onus is on the innocent third party to satisfy the court- (a) the applicant was not, in any way, involved in the commission of the offence, or an offence, in respect of which forfeiture of the property is sought; and (b) if the applicant acquired the interest at the time of or after the commission of the offence-the applicant acquired the interest: (i) for sufficient consideration; and (ii) without knowing, and in circumstances such as not to arouse a reasonable suspicion, that the property was, at the time of the acquisition, tainted property; the court shall make an order: I put to this House without debating the issue, because I am aware of the time constraints, that this places a burden of proof on a third party who may not, innocent though he or she may be, be able to satisfy that burden of proof. I am not the least impressed by the legal aid provisions in relation to third parties which are found at the end of the Bill, in clause 102. I am not impressed by the fact that the burden of proof may cause a situation whereby totally innocent people will find themselves divested of property simply because they are unable effectively to prove a negative. I turn quickly to the clauses referred to in the excellent amendment moved by the honourable member for North Sydney, the shadow Attorney-General. Let us look at clauses 76 to 80. They place very substantial obligations on financial institutions in relation to the retention of documentation and records. The cost of this is not adverted to in the Attorney's second reading speech. He believes that there will be a benefit to the Commonwealth from the legislation, and that is so, but the cost to business and to reputable financial organisations, which would wish to comply with the law and would always give the assistance that has been requested in the past in the pursuit of the proceeds of crime, could be very substantial indeed. I join with the honourable member for North Sydney who, in the second part of the amendment he has moved to the second reading, complains that the Bill imposes on financial institutions heavy obligations for the retention of records concerning financial transactions but that no statement from the Business Regulation Review Unit of the cost of such measures has been provided to the House. I turn to the new offence of money laundering. Let me be quite blunt. I have no problem with the commission of that offence, the creation of that offence and the provision for penalty. But once again we see Commonwealth legislation with, effectively, a deeming provision. I say with great respect to the Attorney that that is not the good way, the right way, to start defining a new offence. Clause 81 (3) provides: A person shall be taken to engage in money laundering if, and only if . . . A person is either engaged in money laundering or he is not. A person's having engaged in money laundering should be proven to the standard of proof required by the law, and that is proof beyond reasonable doubt. I object to the use of the word `taken'. Again, I have no truck with those who are involved in the commission of crime and the laundering of the proceeds of crime, but this legislation says to the prosecution: `You don't have to prove that a person actually did it. If you can prove those sets of circumstances set out in clause 81 (3) paragraphs (a) and (b), that person shall be taken to engage in money laundering.' When we turn the page, we come to our old friend `reasonably be suspected of being the proceeds of crime'. Any lawyer in Australia will tell us that that is the sister or brother of the summary offence of being found in possession of property reasonably supposed to have been stolen. That is precisely the charge brought by the police when they cannot prove that a person actually received stolen property. I suppose that the Attorney's answer will be: `Look, the penalties are not all that high. An ordinary, natural person will be fined $5,000 or imprisoned for a period not exceeding two years or both, and a body corporate will be fined an amount not exceeding $15,000'. I object to words such as `reasonably be suspected'. We will have all the arguments again. Is a test objective or subjective? What authorities will apply? It is not good to introduce new legislation dealing with a serious social problem. It creates a legal minefield. There have been arguments and brawls in the courts going back to the courts of the colony about what has been meant by the words `reasonably supposed'. Again, I would have preferred to see the legislation clear on this point. In conclusion, because of the time constraints, I have made it very clear that I believe no member on either side of the House would have anything but strong support for the motives of the legislation. But we have heard a bit of hypocrisy in the last stages of this debate from honourable members opposite. I cannot conceive that they could have spoken such cant and hypocrisy. It was almost as is if they did not believe that the State of New South Wales existed and that the things that have been going on there for the last 20 years had been happening. I do not blame any member of this House. But what a paragon of virtue the Australian Labor Party has now become! One could not believe that this was the same Party which cut short the Costigan Royal Commission on the Activities of the Federated Ship Painters and Dockers Union when Premier Cain was prepared to give it an extension of time. One could not believe that this was the same Party in respect of which there was a full inquiry about the transfer of funds from the Nugan Hand Bank to the coffers of the New South Wales branch of the Labor Party. We should be able to debate properly in this House the unsolved crimes in New South Wales, such as the bashing of the honourable member for Sydney (Mr Baldwin) and the incidents at the Boulevard Hotel on the night of 21 February 1981-the unsolved robbery involving a person occupying the Lady Nelson Suite-which involved the taking of money, including United States dollars and travellers cheques, the source of which could not be identified. I have the police report here. If honourable members want me to, I will go into detail. Mr Robert Brown —Madam Speaker, I raise a point of order. The implications of those comments by the honourable member are quite clear. I think it is inappropriate for him to proceed in that way, as he knows. I think he should be called upon to desist from that line of comment. If he has any matter of substance that he feels is appropriate to bring before the Parliament, he knows the course to adopt. He can do it by way of substantive motion. He chooses not to. He chooses to refer to it in the cowardly way. Mr Downer —This is frivolous point of order. Madam SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member will resume his seat. I appreciate the honourable member's intervention, but I am listening carefully to the honourable member for Denison. I suggest to the honourable member for Mayo that he keep out of it. I call the honourable member for Denison. Mr HODGMAN —Thank you, Madam Speaker. I will simply deal with the facts. One of the ways in which it can be demonstrated how difficult it is to solve crime is when one deals with thefts involving, for example, the sum of $3,600 in Commonwealth bank notes-fifties, twenties and tens-and the sum of $1,000 in United States currency. That is very hard to track in Australia. Madam SPEAKER —I do not like to interrupt the honourable member, but he will not drop a name at the finish of this. Mr HODGMAN —No, I will not. How does one track a quantity of travellers cheques, bank and number unknown? These are facts from an actual case which demonstrate not only that the offenders are not apprehended, but also that the proceeds of the crime are not traced. I am keeping the Attorney out of this matter. I do not drop any names. But let us not have any more hypocrisy from the ranks of members of the Hawke socialist Government. Had they been prepared to permit Mr Costigan to continue his inquiry for another six months, who knows who might have been caught in that net and how many fish they let escape. If they had unleashed the forces of law and justice in New South Wales, the thugs and attempted murderers who nearly killed one of their colleagues, the honourable member for Sydney, might now be behind bars. If they had had a clear and honourable approach to the New South Wales Labor Party, the seedy transactions between Nugan Hand and persons acting on behalf of their Party would have been brought to public light and they would have been gaoled. It is a great pity that we have had hypocrisy from members of the Labor Party. We will have a lot more hypocrisy over the next few weeks, but on 11 July they will meet their nemesis. I conclude by commending a great Australian who is present in the chamber tonight-one who, in his own way, has been a stalwart in the fight against crime and a stalwart of decency and law and order in the Northern Territory. On behalf of all honourable members I welcome Mr Peter Paroulakis who is our endorsed candidate for the Northern Territory and who will succeed the present member for the Northern Territory (Mr Everingham) after the election on 11 July. I wish him all the best. For those reasons I support the legislation and the amendment which was well moved by the shadow Attorney- General, the honourable member for North Sydney. Mr DUNCAN(Makin)(8.35) —I can only say that I hope the Liberal Party candidate for the Northern Territory starts his political career and campaigning in these matters with a cleaner slate than the current member for the Northern Territory (Mr Everingham). However, I want to deal specifically with the clauses of the Proceeds of Crime Bill 1987. The principle on which this legislation is based is a very good one. There is a considerable sense of sympathy in the community for the victims of crime and for the need for governments to get back from criminals the proceeds of their misadventures, either to compensate the victims or to offset the cost of investigation and trial, and to ensure that they do not benefit from their misdeeds. There is also an understandable sense of outrage when the Mr Bigs of crime continue to benefit from their ill-gotten gains after their convictions or when they skip the country. I am more than happy to support the Bill. This legislation will allow the courts to freeze and confiscate property which was used in, or gained directly or indirectly through, criminal activity either in Australia or in other countries with which Australia has agreements under the mutual assistance legislation. It also confers on the police the power to follow the money trail and requires financial institutions to provide information which will enable them to do so. As well, it creates a new offence in relation to the laundering of money and organised fraud. From my past experience as Attorney-General in the Dunstan Government in South Australia, I know only too well that if these matters are to be adequately tackled, they have to be done at the Commonwealth level. It is virtually impossible for a State government to act alone in this area, as much as any State government might like to. I even have some doubts as to how effective the Commonwealth can be in the area, since the deregulation of the financial system was almost God's gift to money launderers. Nevertheless, if the legislation which is complementary to this-and which we were to debate cognately, I understand-is able to be put into place quickly and effectively, there will be some hope in the success of the measure before us. Of course, the success of the mutual assistance legislation will depend very much on the success of the negotiations with other governments and the intentions of those governments. It may also depend on further reforms to the national securities and exchange system and, of course, on the willingness of all the States to implement those measures. There is little doubt that capital is becoming far more internationalised. All governments, this one included, have assisted in this process, and in doing so have made it much more difficult to trace the money trail through the laundering processes converting criminal proceeds to so-called legitimate funds. The interdependence of the international economic system has meant that nation states barely exercise any control over the distribution of wealth, especially when it is hidden in large transnational corporations. It is the diminishing control which governments themselves have in this area which has made it easier and easier for the transfer of funds, with consequent laundering and the subsequent protection of the Mr Bigs who have been involved in organised crime and fraud. It is worth recalling just a few examples of the ease with which large scale fraud, money laundering and transfer has occurred in Australia in the recent past. Perhaps the biggest of the known frauds was that of the Bartons in New South Wales in the early 1970s. Alexander and Thomas Barton went from being small time shady businessmen to the world of big business. They were able to expatriate millions of dollars overseas and lived on the proceeds of massive frauds in the space of only a few years. Between 1969 and 1972 the Bartons raised some $25.6m through floating public companies. In 1972 they left Australia just as concern was mounting at the performance of their group, leaving $22.6m unaccounted for. After spending time travelling throughout Europe, no doubt enjoying some of the millions they had, they settled in Paraguay. The then New South Wales Liberal Government spent a considerable amount of taxpayers' funds in an unsuccessful effort to extradite them from Paraguay. More recently we have had the case of one Colin Room, the Tasmanian accountant who managed to defraud his clients of well over $2m. Room got word that he was to be investigated and he managed to spirit both the proceeds and himself out of the country, and he is still strangely at large. There have been numerous rumours of his high living in the United States of America, Europe and South America, and while the cost of the investigations must run into a considerable amount, Room is still at large. Apparently no one knows his present whereabouts. Now one of the more interesting things about both these cases is the apparent ease with which the persons involved moved among the establishment and big business, and the timing of their disappearances. The Bartons were linked with some of the well known members of the New South Wales business community, and with senior members of the Liberal Party, including the then Attorney-General, whose law firm acted on their behalf. Room not only moved among the establishment, but in Tasmania he was part of it. Many ordinary Tasmanians, no doubt including many of those who lost their savings as a result of his fraud, must be extremely concerned at the secrecy with which the Tasmanian Government is treating that matter. These are only two of the more notorious cases that come to mind. In the community are thousands of ordinary Australians who have been the victims of criminal activity who are unable to receive any compensation for it, and who must accept that the justice which is meted out by the courts is all that can be done. Of course, these are the lucky ones who actually see a successful prosecution. There are many others who never see justice being done, for whom justice is never done, because the accused absconds. At least with this legislation these ordinary law abiding Australians will be able to see that crime does not pay. I hope that State governments will introduce complementary legislation which also upgrades victims of crimes provisions. Even though I support this legislation there are a few things about it that I am in an uneasy frame of mind about. Four clauses appear to be reversing the onus of proof, and one appears to overturn the common law principle that a person may refuse to answer self-incriminatory questions. As a civil libertarian I am concerned about these proposals. One in particular seems to me to be very harsh. I refer here to clause 6 (c) (i) which includes in the definition of `abscond', the death of the accused. Others deal with the presumption by the courts that all property gained in a certain period is fraudulently acquired. These provisions are in clauses 19 (6) (c), and 27 (6). Clause 82 reverses the onus of proof for a person charged with receiving. Under clause 48 (5) a person being examined on his affairs by the courts may not refuse to answer questions on the grounds of self-incrimination. I know that in the fight against organised crime it often appears expedient to introduce exceptions to the general practice of the law. However, I believe quite strongly that the development of the right relating to the presumption of innocence was well founded. It is too easy for a government which does not have to abide by it to indulge in the sort of unsavoury pseudo-legal behaviour which we as a parliament would not condone. No matter what the circumstances, I do not think the presumption of innocence can be faulted. It is a bit like trial by jury. Sometimes things may go wrong, but on balance it is better to trust a group of our peers than to rely on the judgment of one person aided by the full resources of the law. This in no way means that I believe that we should be soft on criminals, especially the Mr Bigs, who are usually the ones who get away with it leaving the small timers to take the rap. On the contrary, I believe that we should bring the full force of the law down on them, and that is what I think this Bill will do when it becomes part of the statutes. It is high time that legislation such as this was introduced, especially those provisions which require financial institutions to provide information which will enable the money trail to be followed. Only in this way will we be able to have some idea of the ways in which money is laundered, and be able to trace the accomplices in the respectable end of town who are able to live happily off the proceeds of crime with a clear conscience. As I pointed out earlier, this Bill gives to the police additional powers. This is one of the cases in which I believe that the police have a very real need for new powers, which will enable them to adjust their investigation procedures to bring them in line with modern business technology and practice. That is what is needed if we are to trace the real perpetrators of criminal activity. Most ordinary Australians are law abiding citizens who are rightly upset by the contempt in which they are held by those Mr Bigs of organised crime, who hide under the cloak of respectability while getting away with criminal activities. Unfortunately, the real criminals in our society are not the small time occasional crooks who, through economic circumstances, turn to crime. I do not condone their activities, but I think that they are in some respects less to be condemned than the big time criminals. The people I am talking about are the Bartons and the Rooms in the community who, under the protection of the establishment, are able to defraud ordinary Australians, who are the big drug pushers, and who continually undermine the morals of our community with their hypocritical and anti-social behaviour. This legislation will at last give us the power to start to tackle crime at the highest levels, where it is organised, and for that reason I support it strongly. Mr GRIFFITHS(Maribyrnong)(8.46) —Surprised as I am to get the call so quickly, it gives me a great deal of pleasure to speak to this important piece of legislation. Prior to going to some of the issues that I think it is appropriate to raise, I think it is worth making a couple of comments in relation to the Government's record in the area of the fight against organised crime. There has been a raft of legislative initiatives under this Government. Earlier I heard some of my colleagues referring to the record of this Parliament in responding to organised crime, and that record, until the relatively recent past, has not been a proud one. There may be a number of excuses for that; for example, a lack of knowledge about the way that organised crime has expanded over the years and, by its very nature, a very real difficulty in making judgments about how to respond to it. (Quorum formed) This discredited and divided Opposition, rather than earning government will now go out into the community expecting to purchase government. The one consistent theme that comes out of the bleatings from Opposition members in relation to issues touching upon organised crime is that they embrace the same approach whatever policy area is before this Parliament. When one reflects on initiatives taken by this Parliament in relation to organised crime it is interesting to note the total absence of initiative of any substance by the Opposition when in government. We have not exactly graced the treasury bench for very long since Federation. That has been the province of the now discredited Opposition, and it really has not taken any initiatives of any moment in relation to this most important issue. On the other hand, the Government has taken a whole raft of initiatives. Let me address some of them briefly. We have the crime trifecta package. The Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters Bill, together with the Bills we now debating, provides one of the most potent weapons that any government has brought to bear in relation to these issues. The Telecommunications (Interception) Amendment Bill currently before the Parliament is a matter of great controversy. Nevertheless, on any objective assessment, it is one of the most significant instruments in the fight against organised crime. The Government not only established the National Crime Authority but also seeks to provide it with sufficient resources so that it is able to discharge its very important functions. Drug trafficking offences are the appropriate No. 1 target for all government initiatives in opposition to organised crime. The Government has increased the number of Australian Federal Police officers and increased the resources available to that police force. I instance the provision of significantly increased computer crime fighting capacity. It will come as no surprise to honourable members that that is one of the most important areas where we can increase the resources available to our law enforcement officers. The now independent Australian Customs Service has a much greater ability to respond in a flexible and potent way to these issues. The appointment of a Director of Public Prosecutions-once again this was talked about by previous governments but very little of substance was done-was also appropriate. There has been an increase in the resources available to the Australian Bureau of Criminal Intelligence. In my work as Chairman of the Joint Committee on the National Crime Authority, I am able to form an independent judgment about the effectiveness of the increased powers and resources made available to that body. Not only the National Crime Authority but also all other policing agencies now have access to significantly improved criminal intelligence material. I think most honourable members would agree that that of itself is a significant advantage or a significant new arrow in the quiver that represents the whole gamut of legislation and government initiatives that are directed towards the fight against organised crime. The legislation before the House is similar to legislation that has been embraced overseas but, in some instances, some aspects are significantly stronger. For my own experience, I was a little surprised by some of the power of pre-existing legislation-for example, customs legislation. I had representations made to me by a constituent I think it appropriate not to name to the effect that he owned, in partnership with an importing company, a truck which after the dissolution of that partnership he on-loaned to his former partner. According to the representations made to me, his former partner on-loaned the vehicle to one other who again on-loaned the vehicle to another person. My constituent put it to me that he was completely innocent about the transactions and it came as a great surprise to him when the truck was confiscated because it was transporting illegally imported narcotics. The interesting thing about the case is the potency of the legislation that we were able to call on in that instance. Of course, it is directed specifically to illegal activity related to the import or export of goods. When looking at some of the case law to make a judgment about the circumstances in which my constituent found himself I found a case where a taxi driver, having been called to a dockyard area and having been implicated in the moving of illegally imported narcotics, had his cab confiscated. The result was that it became quite clear to the taxi driver that, after having some legal advice on the circumstances that he faced, for all intents and purposes he had lost his motor vehicle. So by any definition it is a very potent piece of legislation. This legislation with which we are dealing embraces some of the cautious sentiments expressed by other members and has made provision to ensure that the property of innocent third parties is not confiscated in that rather draconian way. Of course I make no comment on the guilt or otherwise of my constituent, but I believe the case is an appropriate one for ministerial review. Provided certain other investigations are made in relation to these representations, the Minister may find it appropriate to exercise a discretion in my constituent's favour and to have that motor vehicle returned to him. There is one particular matter I thought we should raise in dealing with other aspects of the legislation. In this whole area there is a common theme of criminals, hiding their illegally and ill-gotten gains behind the corporate veil or otherwise seeking to shield them from public scrutiny. Mr O'Neil —Honourable members opposite would know about that. Mr GRIFFITHS —That is right. My colleague indicated that a more detailed knowledge of these areas is probably vested in honourable members of the Opposition, but I will not pursue that line of discussion at this moment. Provision is made in this legislation that where the subject property or properties is under the control of a convicted person, or otherwise held for his or her benefit, courts can go behind the corporate veil to ensure that property that would otherwise be kept from public scrutiny is in fact obtained and confiscated by the Commonwealth. That is a very important component of the legislation for this reason: It is common knowledge amongst accountants, lawyers and others who are involved in these areas that it is not a particularly difficult thing to hide property or money in a whole range of ways. This provision is intended to circumscribe the deliberate setting up of schemes to frustrate the fundamental objective of the legislation, which is of course to attack the very basis of organised crime by making it an unsafe bet that many years after the commission of criminal offences criminals can come back to their loot and enjoy it at their own leisure. Over the years there have been many instances where people have done just that. It is quite common to hear of people in the gaols throughout this country who are prepared to do their time, to do their porridge or whatever they call it, with the expectation of leaving gaol at some point and then enjoying the proceeds of their often many and nefarious crimes. As I indicated at the outset, this legislation is but one part of the armoury that this Government has brought to bear against organised crime. I listened with some interest to the Opposition once again criticising aspects of this legislation, as is its right in this chamber. The common theme was that the Government does not appear to have gone far enough or is somehow or other soft on organised crime. I believe that any objective observer could only conclude that, certainly on a comparative basis, this Government has done more than any other government since Federation in relation to these issues. That is simply an empirical fact. It cannot be contested, although there are legitimate areas that one can debate about how far the Government has gone and perhaps how far it should go in the future. The whole raft of legislation to which I have referred and the many and varied initiatives taken by this Government to address these issues are such that I believe for the very first time in many years organised crime figures in this country particularly have been destabilised at least to the extent that they cannot go about their activities with the benefit of the knowledge that the assets that they gain by those illegal activities will at some point be available for their enjoyment even though they may be convicted of offences relating to them. The Proceeds of Crime Bill is one of the most significant issues introduced by the Attorney-General (Mr Lionel Bowen). I believe that his work on organised crime will be one very important acknowledgment of his term as Attorney-General in this Parliament. I hope that in the future he will continue with these major initiatives, which I think are the cause of some jealousy on the other side of the House where there is a lot of sound and fury but very little action indeed on any of these issues. I believe that this Bill is not the crowning glory of the Government's initiatives in this area but is certainly a major part of its response to organised crime. I believe that the Government should be commended for that and I am sure that that will be the case in the community on a bipartisan or objective basis. I commend the Bill to the House. I think it is a most difficult area of law and one that we have thought long and hard over. It represents an appropriate balance between the civil liberties referred to by my colleague the honourable member for Makin (Mr Duncan) and the very serious challenge that organised crime poses not only to this community but to institutions such as this Parliament. Mr MAHER(Lowe)(9.05) —The Proceeds of Crime Bill is part of a very important package of Bills. I feel that it would be wrong not to say a few words in support of such important legislation and to praise the Attorney-General (Mr Lionel Bowen) for bringing in this Bill to facilitate the recovery of funds raised as a result of any serious offence committed against Commonwealth law. In his second reading speech the Attorney-General mentioned the fact that traditional methods of punishment by imprisonment and fine are not enough. I note that in some cases the penalty is 20 years imprisonment or a fine of $200,000, and in another case it is a fine of $5,000 or two years in gaol. I have complained before that the rule of thumb of a fine of $5,000 or two years imprisonment is not appropriate. If persons are to be denied their livelihood for two years, the alternative penalty of a fine should be at least twice the average weekly earnings for that period. I again draw that matter to the attention of the Attorney-General. It is not a criticism of the Bill; I have found this unevenness between the penalty of imprisonment and the alternative monetary penalty in all legislation. My first contact with people succeeding in crime by getting away with fraud was as a young solicitor working in the old Commonwealth Crown Solicitor's office in Sydney. The first job that I was given after being admitted was to go through a suitcase full of material-letters, receipts, et cetera relating to a bankrupt who was living the life of Riley in Sydney selling aeroplanes, making a fortune, and not paying any taxes. I was told that the evidence was in the suitcase and I just had to find it-but no one could find it. There must be other procedures for tracing money or obtaining orders to make banks release details. This man got off scot-free and he is probably still living it up in Sydney. Mr O'Neil —Did you give him back the suitcase? Mr MAHER —I am sorry, but I do not know what happened to the suitcase. I will mention several points in the legislation that have not really been touched on since I have been in the chamber. One is that banks henceforth have to keep records for seven years relating to the opening of bank accounts. That is very important. There is a feeling in the community that banks keep records for three years. I have had constituents who have tried to trace proceedings and have been told that all records were destroyed. Bank records will have to be kept for seven years. There will also be a procedure for monitoring orders whereby a Supreme Court judge can direct that financial institutions give information over a certain period of time to law enforcement agencies concerning transactions on accounts. There have been some appalling revelations of bank managers and other people opening accounts for people even though they knew the names were fraudulent. Such revelations have really shocked the prudent business world. There are other provisions in the legislation creating new offences for money laundering and organised fraud. These offences are particularly relevant in relation to solicitors, accountants, bookmakers and people who handle large sums of cash and are involved in cash transactions. As the Attorney-General said, legislation will be introduced requiring certain cash transactions to be reported to a central government agency. Other Bills in this package include the Telecommunications (Interception) Amendment Bill and the Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters Bill. The whole package of legislation in this area will be complementary. Honourable members who have been here for a few years would remember the bottom of the harbour cases, the McCabe-Lafranchi report of Inspectors Appointed to Investigate the Particular Affairs of Navillus Pty Ltd and 922 Other Companies-1983 report on tax avoidance in Australia presented in the Victorian Parliament, the report of the Costigan Royal Commission on the Activities of the Federated Ship Painters and Dockers Union, and the revelations that shocked Australia and contributed to a change of government as a result of the evidence that came forward. Before concluding I pay tribute to the work of the Attorney-General's Department and its officers led by the Attorney-General himself and the work of the National Crime Authority. My hope is that the work of the NCA will be assisted by this package of legislation. I well remember the allegations made to the New South Wales Select Committee on Prostitution by Mr Anderson, who alleged that in the early 1970s there was so much corruption in New South Wales that anyone who was a rising politician or a barrister who looked like becoming a judge-- Mr Cadman —Come on! That is a terrible thing for you to say. Mr MAHER —This allegation was made to the Select Committee. If the honourable member wants to check, let him read the Sydney Morning Herald report of that time. Mr Anderson said that there were attempts to corrupt people and obtain embarrassing details about them along with compromising photographs of people who looked like becoming leading members of parliament or judges. If one reads the Select Committee on Prostitution report, one will see that it disregarded what was said by this man Anderson. I feel that those allegations have never been tested, and I believe the National Crime Authority should test them. The allegations were most serious, striking at the very root of our society, and compromising in a very evil and devious way people who might now be in important positions. That is another reason why I wanted to speak to this Bill tonight and make the point that only by vigilance and total dedication will we ever rid our society of organised crime. I pay credit to Mr Justice Stewart and all those working in the National Crime Authority and other law enforcement agencies of the Commonwealth. Mr LIONEL BOWEN(Kingsford-Smith-Attorney-General)(9.09) —This has been a wide ranging and lengthy debate and I thank honourable members for their contributions. I am particularly appreciative of the remarks made by my colleagues the honourable member for Charlton (Mr Robert Brown), the honourable member for Maribyrnong (Mr Griffiths) and the honourable member for Lowe (Mr Maher). I thank them very much for mentioning the real issues behind the Proceeds of Crime Bill. It is to prevent criminal activity being lucrative. Whilst it might always be lucrative, if we can establish that people have money as a result of criminal activity, we will do everything we can to forfeit that money. It will be an additional penalty. We acknowledge that. When society is so concerned about the increase in crime and the devastation it causes, particularly to young people when they deal with narcotics, and the tragedy that families must bear because of criminal activity, it is only natural that we need laws that are modern, up to date and punitive. Whilst I can understand the sensitivities of some honourable members who have said that we might have reversed the onus of proof principle, I wish to make it clear that a person who has no guilt will not suffer any penalty under the Bill. All that is required in certain circumstances is an explanation as to how assets have been acquired. The honourable member for Denison (Mr Hodgman) made a contribution in this respect. He said that, whilst he had no truck with criminals, he objected to some of the provisions. I know that he means well, but if people who are asked to explain how they got assets-they could well be asked to do so under the present taxation laws-because it is suspected that they have been acquired through criminal activity and they cannot give an explanation, is it not about time that society said: `If there has been unlawful activity, we will take the assets'? If a person can clearly establish that he has acquired his money or assets through lawful activity, he has nothing to fear. We cannot have a person getting the benefit of unlawful activity and then saying: `Try to prove it against me'. As society knows, people do use money-laundering practices, and they are dealt with in clause 81. A complete defence is given to any accusation if a person satisfies the court that there are proper grounds for his having the property in his possession. I do not want to go through all the provisions, but I will deal with the matters which the honourable member for North Sydney (Mr Spender) properly raised. The honourable gentleman has moved an amendment in the following terms: whilst not declining to give the Bill a second reading, the House notes that- (1) it comprises a major and novel legislative package- I thank him for that. He made the point that the Bill contains a number of clauses. He would understand that it has required a fair amount of drafting and instructions. I thank the officers of my Department and my personal staff for their dedication in this exercise. I also thank my previous Principal Private Secretary for having the initiative to talk about how other countries are dealing with these matters and for developing ideas about how we might effectively legislate to prevent criminal activity being of any benefit if we can prove that a person's assets have been gained through unlawful activity. The honourable gentleman then said that in his view there was not sufficient time to consider the Bill because it was introduced on 30 April and was called on for debate on 11 May. I appreciate the fact that this Parliament has to debate matters within time constraints. It is now 28 May and we have had a pretty good debate this evening. I ask the honourable gentleman to consider the way in which we have to deal with legislation. The Bills passed by this House in the current sittings number approximately 85. The Bills passed by the Senate in the same period number approximately 25. The Senate has dictated to us that, unless we get certain Bills through before a certain date, it will not even deal with them. I know that the honourable gentleman has some influence with the senators in his Party. It is important for them to recognise that if the House of Representatives works effectively and earnestly in passing legislation, the Senate should also deal with matters as quickly as possible. We should not have a position in which the House of Representatives is able to pass 85 Bills yet the Senate feels inclined to deal with only 25. That is one of the problems we face in modern democracy. Whilst we recognise that the Senate is a House of review, it should not be a house of obstruction. That is one of the problems we have in this House when we try to confine debates to a reasonable time. I think that we have met that requirement in respect of this legislation. Later we will be dealing with other aspects of what is called the anti-crime package of legislation concerning cash transactions and telephone interceptions. We want to get that legislation passed also. I welcome the Opposition's support in that respect. The honourable member for North Sydney claimed thirdly that the Bill imposes on financial institutions heavy obligations for the retention of records concerning financial transactions. He suggested that the debate ought to focus on the proposition that the threshold level of $200, in respect of the retention of records was too low. I am advised that the $200 threshold was suggested by credit unions and appears to be supported by the banks. On 6 May Mr Cullen from the Australian Bankers Association advised: The Australian Bankers' Association now has no major objections to the Proceeds of Crime Bill as a result of the changes made to the initial drafts to meet the concerns of banks about its efficient and equitable operation. We appreciate the fact that our submissions on the Bill were addressed. The Bill represents a form of compromise between retaining all documents and retaining only those documents that are most likely to be relevant to criminal investigations not only of a major crime but also of more common offences such as medifraud and social security fraud, which usually involve a large number of relatively small transactions and constitute a drain on public funds. The increase of the threshold for retention to $1,000 would not only hamper the investigation of common offences but would also enable criminals to structure their transactions so as to keep them under the retention threshold. I know the honourable gentleman will be conscious of that position now. The honourable member for North Sydney also raised the question of protection of third party rights against forfeiture. Clause 45 of the Bill provides for any person with an interest in property which is the subject of an application for a restraining order to be notified of the application. Honourable members will note that clause 45 (5) states that the court may direct the Director of Public Prosecutions `to give or publish notice of the application to a specified person or class of persons, in the manner and within the time that the court considers appropriate'. So we could well find that the court has an additional initiative. Clause 46 provides that any person who claims an interest in a property which is the subject of an application may appear and be heard at the hearing of the application. Clause 48 provides that such a person may also seek a variation of the restraining order to exclude his or her property from the ambit of the order. Clause 15 (1) (c) provides that, where there is a suggestion that a person has an interest in property which would be the subject of forfeiture, notification of that application will be given. Honourable members will see when they look at these clauses that a person is given every opportunity to say that he has a genuine interest that needs to be protected. The court can take that into consideration. Also, the court may well rescind a forfeiture order if a person can establish that he has a bona fide interest in a property and had no knowledge of any illegal action relating to that asset. Most people with interest in property or assets usually have that interest registered in some form, and the registration itself usually provides for some protection of the equity. If it is not registered, there is a difficulty. However, it does not prevent a person from claiming an equity or the whole of an asset, and the court would deal with it on a proper basis. The honourable member for Gippsland (Mr McGauran) referred to Mr Costigan. I know that his remarks were not directly relevant to the Bill, but I thank him for raising the issue. As he knows, the matter arose out of the fact that there was a royal commission. I do not want to emphasise it again, but the matters were of some concern. They related to Mr Packer, a man of some significance in the business world, in Sydney particularly, and also in Australia. In that case Mr Costigan felt quite properly that certain matters should be investigated. Unfortunately, when he prepared, quite properly what is called case summaries, they were published by the National Times and everybody, including the National Times, acknowledges that that should not have happened. It caused untold damage to Mr Packer and his family, and that is of great concern to him, because he had no remedy. At that stage all he received was an apology. At the conclusion of the investigation into those three significant matters, I was left with this situation: The allegations were that, firstly, there had been a tax related offence which was sent to the Director of Public Prosecutions, who then reported that no charges should be brought against Mr Packer; secondly, that quantities of drugs had been imported in a container which, it was alleged, could have implicated Mr Packer and that matter was referred to the Commissioner of the Australian Federal Police who found that there was no evidence at all to connect Mr Packer in any way with the alleged illegal importation; thirdly, that there was a problem in respect of the death of a Queensland bank manager. The problem might well have been murder and the suggestion was that that ought to be the subject of investigation-which it was-by a coroner, who found that there was no basis whatsoever to allege that Mr Packer might have been associated in some way with the bank manager's death. They are rather serious matters. I acknowledge that any royal commission would have to deal with them and the Costigan Royal Commission dealt with them properly. When the matters were looked at, there was no evidence. Following those investigations I was in the position of having Mr Packer's solicitors say: `Are we just going to leave it on that basis? Because everybody says that there is no evidence, do we not say any more about the matter? Is it not fair and reasonable that a statement be issued to say that there is no evidence?' I asked the National Crime Minister whether it could issue a statement but it said no, that it was not its function, that its function was only to investigate the matter. It made that point very clear. Usually, when the Director of Public Prosecutions says that he will not prosecute, he does not issue a Press statement. Those allegations involve three serious charges which could have been made against anyone. These were very serious matters relating to taxation, drug importation and murder, but nothing was to be said about them. I make the point that I have the utmost regard for Mr Costigan, who is a man of the greatest integrity. No problem exists there. The problem is that somebody gave summaries of prima facie allegations to the National Times. I thank the honourable member for Gippsland for raising the matter but, because it has been published in the Press, I can understand Mr Costigan's concern that there may have been an inference that he had released the information to the Press. That thought never crossed my mind; he would not do that. He is an outstanding person, but when royal commissions are conducted and allegations are made, and when the media gets hold of those allegations, irreparable damage is caused. In the Press statement I said: It is not unreasonable to expect that in future, issues will arise which require the appointment of a Royal Commission to investigate allegations . . . It is essential that, when such proceedings are conducted- and bear in mind that I am talking about the future- adequate protection is given to people who are the subject of the investigation. I further said: It is incumbent upon those who conduct Royal Commissions and the governments which appoint them and deal with their recommendations, that the utmost care is taken to protect individuals from the damaging consequences of the improper release of material relating to the conduct of the Commission. Again, I emphasise that that in no way passes any reflection on Mr Costigan or members of his staff. The important thing is that the National Times knows from whom it was obtained and it had a responsibility not to publish it. It is equally incumbent upon the Press to show some respect for the rights of individuals when reporting on the conduct of royal commissions, particularly when, as occurred in this case, and as was acknowledged subsequently by the National Times, it had no evidence and nor was it aware of any evidence which would support the allegations in the material that it published. Publication was not justified. In this case the publication of an apology is not a remedy. I thank the honourable member for Gippsland for raising the matter, but I want him to understand that this is a unique set of circumstances. We created the National Crime Authority, the Fraser Government set up the royal commission and the Press decided to publish something for which there is no foundation. Mr Costigan made the point-and I emphasise it-that he would not have approved in any way the release of the information, but I have to say that it was released. In future, we have to be very careful about these matters, because Mr Packer is perfectly entitled to feel that irreparable damage has been done and that apologies do not satisfy the situation. Any person, particularly a member of parliament, could suffer the greatest damage as a result of allegations. But we can imagine what it does to the wives and children of people who have to live with this sort of accusation. I thank the honourable member for Gippsland for raising the matter because, if there is still some concern, I want to put it to rest. I believe that we owe Frank Costigan a great deal. I think that he was one of the few counsel who had the courage to take on the commission given to him by the Fraser Government in respect of the painters and dockers. I think that it appointed him for a purpose which it did not foresee, and we were delighted with the results. I make the point-I have put it on record many times-that the issue with which I am dealing is somebody saying on behalf of Mr Packer that he is completely innocent and that those accusations should never have been published. Mr Cadman —We stuck with him. Despite that, we stuck with Costigan. Mr LIONEL BOWEN —Yes, I think that honourable members opposite did and I have never said that they did not. What I am trying to say is that I think he stuck with the Fraser Government because it had a lot of difficulty in obtaining counsel to undertake this Royal Commission. It required Mr Costigan's courage to take it on and that is the point. We had a lot of difficulty in getting the then Government to table the Costigan reports and I can understand why. That is the position. Mr Cadman —But you sacked him. Mr LIONEL BOWEN —No, I refer to when the Liberal Party was in government. It would not publish the reports. On many occasions we had to obtain the reports from the Victorian Government in order to find out what the then government had in its possession, because those matters related to its incompetence in being able to deal with bottom of the harbour and tax evasion schemes. That was its problem. However, I thank honourable members for their contributions. A couple of amendments will have to be moved and I will discuss those in the Committee stage. Amendment negatived. Original question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. The Bill. Mr LIONEL BOWEN(Kingsford-Smith-Attorney-General)(9.29) —I move: Clause 2, page 1, line 7, omit ``the twenty-eighth day after''. This is a machinery amendment which has been circulated. The reason for this amendment is that the amendment to clause 2 of the Proceeds of Crime Bill provides that it may come into operation on the day when it receives royal assent. The legislation originally was to come into force 28 days after royal assent. It was originally assumed that the Proceeds of Crime Bill 1987 would be enacted before the Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters Bill 1987; but the reverse has occurred. It is therefore now intended to proclaim the Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters Bill as soon as the Proceeds of Crime Bill receives the royal assent so that Australia can give an assurance of reciprocity to certain foreign states which have frozen assets located in their jurisdiction in anticipation of that assurance. I think that is a satisfactory explanation. Mr SPENDER(North Sydney)(9.30) —We accept the amendment. But, since we are now at the Committee stage and addressing the whole Bill, there are one or two things that I want to say about the Bills as a whole and about one or two things that the Attorney-General (Mr Lionel Bowen) has said. I pointed out in my speech on the amendment to the second reading motion that this is a very complex Bill. The Attorney-General acknowledges that. It is a Bill of some 104 clauses and debate has been far too rushed in this House. It is a major package. It is a well-drawn package and I commend those in the Attorney-General's Department whose job it was to draw up this Bill. But, when one is dealing with legislation which is so novel and so far reaching, it is very much better for the legislation to be introduced and allowed to lie on the table so that we can assess it, so that we can consult and so that we can have a very much better view of the intricacies and possible difficulties that a new complex legislative package presents, especially when here we are dealing with something quite new. We all know that there are forfeiture provisions in existing legislation. But, as I pointed out in my speech on the second reading, they are of a peripheral and archaic nature. It does not do very much good to be able to forfeit the tools that a burglar uses in his crime or to be able to forfeit implements used in gambling. We have here a proposal which we in the Opposition have urged for a long time and which royal commissioners have urged for years. This Government has now been in power, I am sorry to say, for 4 years, 2 months and a few days-- Mr Lionel Bowen —We will probably go on to eight years. Mr SPENDER —The Attorney-General says that he will go on for eight years. There is no prospect of that because the Australian people will deliver a verdict on 11 July. The point that I make is that, in opposition, the Australian Labor Party talked a great deal about organised crime, the Fraser Government and the failings of that Government. I remind the Committee that the Fraser Government put up the National Crimes Commission Bill, which was the genesis for the National Crime Authority Bill, which became the National Crime Authority Act. That is the first thing. The Fraser Government established the Costigan Royal Commission on the Activities of the Federated Ship Painters and Dockers Union. The Fraser Government extended the terms of reference of that royal commission. These things should not be forgotten. The Attorney-General, in referring to Mr Costigan, referred to what took place with regard to Mr Packer. I entirely endorse what he said about Mr Packer and the irreparable damage done to him by the leaking of the so-called prima facie allegations to the National Times and their publication by the National Times. If any newspaper does that, it should understand very clearly that what it is doing is perfectly indecent because the remarks once made, the publicity once given, can never be compensated for. I was glad when the Attorney-General published his views, which I endorsed at the time, that Mr Packer should be able to feel that his reputation was entirely unsullied. But that is damned little recompense to a person who has had as much unfavourable publicity as Mr Packer drew from the publications in the National Times. Returning to one or two things that the Attorney-General has said about this Bill, I remind him that he says, in answer to questions raised concerning the rights of innocent third parties-questions which were raised from his side of the chamber as well as from my side of the chamber-that interests in assets usually have some form of registration. That was the gist of what he said. Of course, that is largely wrong. If one is talking about interest in real property and land, of course there is a system for registration. But, if one is talking about bullion, diamonds, cash or bank accounts, no registration system exists and therefore those who come to courts are faced with the prospect of proving what their interests are. The point that must be stressed is that, when we are dealing with a legislative package which is quite new and which confers the most far reaching powers of forfeiture on courts-and rightly so because criminals should not be able to retain the proceeds or the profits from their crimes-one must understand that new legislation in unexplored territory will poise problems for the administration of justice and the rights of third parties. These are things which we all need to address. There is no politics in it; there is no basis for contention. I am sure that the Attorney-General will agree that, if problems arise concerning innocent third parties, he as the shadow Minister for legal affairs in the next Opposition and I as the Attorney-General, or whoever is the Attorney-General from our side of the chamber, should be able to get together and agree upon sensible amendments that will overcome any injustice. For the purpose of the record I will list a few possibilities. The first is the need, perhaps, for a requirement that there be some form of advertising by the Director of Public Prosecutions of an application for forfeiture. That is not an answer in itself because we know that advertisements that appear under the legal notices are not scanned daily. But at least we have to look to the means of publicising them so that innocent third parties may be put upon notice. I know that the Attorney-General has referred to a clause which provides that a court may direct that there be some form of publicity given-but I think we need to go beyond that. Next, it may be that the court, in deciding whether to grant a forfeiture order, should be required to consider the interests of third parties, together with the hardship of other persons who have the ordinary use of property. Next, property subject to forfeiture orders should vest in the Commonwealth subject to every charge or encumbrance to which the property was subject immediately before the forfeiture order was made. This may be intended by the legislation. However, I think that is something that we need to bear in mind so that, if it turns out that the court interprets the legislation so as not to give effect to every charge or encumbrance, for example, an equitable charge which is unregistered or an equitable interest which is unregistered, we may need to look to overcoming that at some time in the future. I do not say that it is a necessary defect. I say that it is simply a potential problem. Next, it may well be that the Commonwealth and the official trustee in the case of restraining orders should be obliged both in the case of forfeiture orders and restraining orders to preserve the value of property, including taking positive action where necessary. Where, for example, assets which are used in a business are the subject of a restraining or forfeiture order, where does that leave the business, what are the consequences for that business and what damage is done to the value of the business? These are questions that need to be addressed. Anyone who has had any experience in receiving orders, in winding up orders in the courts, knows that once a business is closed down, the goodwill vanishes and the capacity to reinvigorate the business is marginal at best. Again, this is a matter that we need to look at carefully when we study the operation of the legislation through the courts. Other possibilities for consideration are the possible need for provisions as to the date which is to apply in assessing the value of property. It may be that a provision similar to clause 27 (3), which deals with pecuniary interests, should apply to property valued under forfeiture order provisions. We should remember that property may be valued, there may be an appeal and it may be a long time before there is a determination. And what then? These are questions that have to be worked out by the courts and they are questions which as parliamentarians we may have to address without, as I have said, any sense of contention. Lastly, there are limitations on time for the purposes of making an application to establish an interest in property which is the subject of orders under the Act. I believe that it is very important that people not be shut out if they neglect their rights simply because time has expired. That again is something that we are going to need to look at in the course of the operation of this Bill. But allowing for the delay of the Government in bringing forward this package, it is a Bill which the Opposition supports. I commend again those who had the job of drafting a very difficult Bill. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr LIONEL BOWEN(Kingsford-Smith-Attorney-General)(9.40) —I wish to reply briefly. I acknowledge what the honourable member for North Sydney (Mr Spender) says: There may be circumstances where the court has to give special consideration because the rights of people may not be clearly evident at the time of forfeiture. He mentioned though that there were some assets such as cash, bank accounts, diamonds and bullion, et cetera, that there would be some difficulty about. One thing he did not mention was possession. The Commonwealth would not have those assets in possession in the initial stage. I would be very surprised if those who did have them in possession were not aware that there might be some person who would certainly have another interest in them. I accept the view that there might be special circumstances where that would not arise. If there were circumstances where a period had elapsed and somebody, for some reason that I do not understand at this stage, felt that he should have had an opportunity to declare an interest, I am sure we would need to consider that matter. We want to make the point that there are a number of provisions giving opportunities for people to appear and adduce evidence. The honourable member acknowledges that if land or real estate are involved there is likely to be a registrable interest. I can understand that, but I am very conscious of the fact that in the taxation area at present the Taxation Office is able to actually take assets on the basis that it feels they are able to be taken at that stage because of tax due. There is an opportunity there for a person to rebut that presumption. I thank the honourable member for his understanding of the difficulties in this matter. We are entering into a new area of punitive action. I think it will require all the judicial capacity for which our courts are noted. I am sure that, if there is any suggestion that a person has an interest and if that person is not known, every effort will be made to try to find that person through the relevant provisions, particularly considering clause 45 (5) and other such matters. We will do the best we can in accordance with the knowledge that the courts now have as to how to try to find people who may have an interest. We are getting near the end of the parliamentary session. The honourable member was gracious enough to suggest that he may be shadow Attorney-General or Attorney-General, but he was not confident enough to suggest that he alone would be. I notice that the honourable member for Gippsland (Mr McGauran) is smiling anxiously. Honourable members will notice that the honourable member for Denison (Mr Hodgman) talks every time the honourable member for North Sydney speaks. He has the field-marshal's baton in his knapsack, so be very careful of that. Amendment agreed to. Bill, as amended, agreed to. Bill reported with an amendment; report-by leave-adopted. Bill (on motion by Mr Lionel Bowen)-by leave-read a third time. Consideration resumed from 11 May, on motion by Mr Lionel Bowen: That the Bill be now read a second time. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. The Bill. Mr LIONEL BOWEN(Kingsford-Smith-Attorney-General)(9.45) —by leave-I move: (1) Clause 13, page 6, line 37, omit ``cheque'', insert ``payment order''. (2) Clause 13, page 6, line 38, omit ``cheque'', insert ``payment order''. This basically is a printer's error. The Proceeds of Crime (Miscellaneous Amendments) Bill has a number of clauses. Clause 12 deals with how cheques are to be dealt with. Clause 13 refers to how payment orders are to be dealt with. Due to inadvertence in the printing of clause 13, on page 6, honourable members will see a reference to `cheque' when it actually should be a reference to `payment order' in accordance with the title given to it. It is purely a machinery amendment and is self-explanatory. Amendments agreed to. Bill, as amended, agreed to. Bill reported with amendments; report-by leave-adopted. Bill (on motion by Mr Lionel Bowen)-by leave-read a third time. Debate resumed from 14 May, on motion by Mr Young: That the Bill be now read a second time. Mr MacKELLAR(Warringah)(9.48) —The debate on the Commonwealth Electoral Amendment Bill has been brought on suddenly in the House. Of course, we heard about it only just prior to the suspension of the sitting for dinner this evening. I think it is symptomatic of the Government's actions that we should not have any real knowledge of if coming in at this stage. It is a great pity. It has been brought about by the fact that the Government is going to an early election. I remind honourable members of this House and anybody who may be listening to the broadcast that we all knew from the many statements made by the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke), particularly the one on April Fools Day, 1 April this year, that we would not be having an early election. That was followed earlier this month by other statements that he could not see any reason why July would be a month in which an election could be held. We find yet again that the Prime Minister's statements and words simply cannot be believed because here we have again an early election being thrust on the Australian people with no basis or real reasons at all, brought about merely because of political opportunism. The Prime Minister obviously believes-he has been duped by some of his Ministers-that this may be the most advantageous time for him to go to the people. He has no basis at all or any real reason such as problems with the Senate or anything else. The fact remains that the people of Australia really will have to look very closely at the reasons why the Prime Minister has chosen to go to an early election and has required this Bill to be brought on early and very quickly without adequate knowledge by the Opposition of its being brought forward. One would have to be very suspicious of what the Prime Minister and his Ministers have up their sleeves in relation to the coming Budget. Mr John Brown —Arms; that is what we've got up our sleeves. Mr MacKELLAR —The Minister at the table is a notorious Minister, if I can use that phrase kindly. He knows all about having things up his sleeve. No doubt he is one of those who said to the Prime Minister: `Now is the time to go before the people really wake up to what we are about, before they understand what is in the industrial legislation that we have relegated to the bottom of the Notice Paper so that it will not be debated'. I have no doubt that the people of Australia will not be duped by the absolute insincerity of the Prime Minister's statements in relation to the reasons for the early election. I am always fascinated when I hear the Prime Minister say that his integrity is untarnished. I am always fascinated by someone who protests so loudly about his integrity, about how his word can be relied upon. No doubt during the election campaign we will instance to the people the many statements he has made which have been subsequently and very quickly repudiated by the man himself. The Bill is a consequence of the work of the Joint Select Committee on Electoral Reform. This Committee has been operating for some four years. Mr Blunt —A hard-working committee. Mr MacKELLAR —It is a very hard-working committee and it receives a tremendous amount of information and many submissions from a wide variety of people. Some of the submissions are given great consideration, and some befuddle the mind. Nevertheless, the work of the Committee has been very important. There have been strong disagreements between members of the Committee but, hopefully, those who have worked assiduously on it have come down to a largely agreed view on a great number of very contentious issues. This Bill comes from the work that the Committee has done largely following the experience of the last general election in 1984. Some 156 recommendations came forward in the most recent report of the Committee, and I understand that this legislation is the first part of two packages of the Government's response. The Bill is needed to give effect to recommendations that the Government has taken up involving a legislative requirement, and thus is before us at present. As I have said, most of the recommendations of the Committee have been accepted by the Government. But one in particular has not been accepted. I am told that it was rejected in Cabinet, and I would like to know why. Perhaps the Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism (Mr John Brown), who is at the table, can give the reason. As a member of the House of Representatives, he would know how important it is for members of parliament both in the House of Representatives and in the Senate to know the gender of people coming on to the electoral roll. The Committee recommended that gender, occupation and date of birth be included in the details of people whose names appear on the roll. I can understand a rejection of the recommendation for date of birth being included, but for the life of me I cannot understand how noting on the electoral roll the gender and occupation of the individual elector is any invasion of privacy whatsoever. I must say that it would be extremely helpful to all members of Parliament in their dealings with their electors, particularly in writing to them to welcome them to the electorate, and in relation to so many other matters that take up the work of members of Parliament, if those details, particularly gender and occupation, were included in the information supplied on the electoral roll. I ask the Government to reconsider its views on that recommendation. The legislation deals with a number of matters. I will not go into them all. It deals with the responsibility of electoral officials, the return of postal votes from overseas and advertising by governments and individuals, and it deals at some length with the redistribution process. It deals particularly with the status of the officials involved in the redistribution process and the need to aim at absolute equality of enrolment at the 3 1/2-year mark following a redistribution of boundaries. This is a most important area. Some difficulties arose from the redistribution process prior to the last election, particularly in the country areas of New South Wales. Those problems have been addressed by the Committee and recommendations have been and, to a great degree, accepted by the Government. The Bill also deals with arrangements to ensure that as many eligible electors as possible may vote. It deals with the registration requirement of candidates, the simplification of the nomination process, the scrutiny of votes, and a definition of election advertising. This Bill has become an extremely complex document. Hopefully, the Government will develop a document that simplifies the requirements of both parties and candidates. That would be particularly helpful for candidates who are not members of established political parties because the requirements now encumbered on a candidate, other than a candidate for an established political party, as outlined in the Bill, are quite extensive. The Bill is a fairly weighty document and, as I said, the requirements are very detailed. They must be understood. If not, a candidate, inadvertently or otherwise, may transgress them. The Bill has already been debated in the Senate at considerable length. The issues have been canvassed by the major and the minor parties there. I must say that the contribution of the Australian Democrats was as confused as I find most of their thinking on the majority of the issues that come before the Senate. There was some disagreement. Amendments were moved by the National Party, and an amendment was moved by the Opposition and subsequently accepted by the Government. I understand that the National Party will move further amendments in Committee in this place. The Opposition understands the reason why this Bill has come before the house, but we do not understand why it had to be rushed in so precipitously tonight. We do understand, of course, that the Prime Minister and his Ministers may be smarting a little at the public reaction to the decision to hold an early election, a decision, I reiterate, that was made against the background of a categorical denial of an early election by the Prime Minister as recently as 1 April of this year. We regard the Bill as having been dealt with in a detailed manner in the Senate and therefore as not requiring an extensive debate at this stage in the House of Representatives. Mr LEE(Dobell)(9.58) —I, like the previous speaker, am a member of the Joint Select Committee on Electoral Reform. With several other members in the chamber at present, I have had the pleasure of hearing evidence from many expert witnesses on areas in which people believe that the Commonwealth Electoral Act can be improved. Honourable members will be aware that the Act was overhauled in the last Parliament; in fact, in many ways the Commonwealth Electoral Amendment Bill will simply fine tune the alterations made then. The Committee has been very ably chaired by Senator Robert Ray from Victoria. Mr John Brown —A good numbers man. Mr LEE —Yes. He is not only an excellent numbers man but also an excellent Chairman of the Select Committee on Electoral Reform. That Committee made 156 recommendations and this Bill will implement the first stage of the reforms recommended by it. In the area of redistributions of electorates, this Bill will give the public and other interested parties greater opportunities to participate in the redistribution process. I think it is very important that local communities have an opportunity to express their views to the Electoral Commissioners as to the directions which that redistribution should take. It is very important that if, after the preliminary boundaries are released, the local community believes that it has been badly treated, that community should have the right and the opportunity to explain its objections to the Electoral Commissioners so that they can give those objections fair weight. The Bill will also give the Electoral Commissioners an additional degree of flexibility in determining the redistribution timetable. Of course, whenever a redistribution takes place it is only as good as the quality of the electoral rolls. That is why it is very important that habitation reviews be carried out annually. In fact, the Committee has made that recommendation. The Bill also abolishes the requirement for absolute future equality which was established under the previous Act. Under the previous Act the Electoral Commissioners had to carry out an estimate of what the population would be in electorates three years and six months after the date of the redistribution. Of course, no one can see clearly into the future. Those estimates often had associated with them a certain percentage of error. It was quite ridiculous to expect the Electoral Commission to divide electorates to within very small numbers of voters when its figures were based on estimates and projections. The Electoral Reform Committee has recommended that the Electoral Commissioners be given the power to vary the absolute future equality by plus or minus 2 per cent. I endorse that change. On the question of redistributions and the way in which boundaries are drawn, I would like to make a few comments about what any future government comprising National Party, Queensland National Party or Opposition members would seek to do to the Commonwealth Electoral Act. I would like to recount to the House an interview on the AM program involving a member of the Opposition front bench, the honourable member for Flinders (Mr Reith). In the transcript of that interview Mr John Highfield, the commentator, stated: . . . Mr Reith outlined a conversation he had early last year with one of the Premier's- that is, the Premier of Queensland- chief supporters in the Federal Parliament, Queensland MP Mr Peter Slipper. Mr Reith stated: We had a general discussion, there were a number of us sitting down after dinner one night last year and the subject got on to electoral reform, and the proposal that he- that is, Mr Slipper, the honourable member for Fisher- was putting was that a National Party government in Canberra would be justified in rearranging electoral boundaries so as to ensure their continued political success. The interviewer asked: And you take that seriously? Mr Reith answered: Well, I didn't take it very seriously at the time although I believed what he said, but I must say I rather considered it with the contempt that it deserved. So there we see once again divisions amongst the Opposition parties. A member of the Opposition front bench, the honourable member for Flinders, had a conversation with a member of the Queensland National Party and was totally outraged by that National Party member's plans if that Party were ever successful at a future election, which I know is very doubtful. If it were ever successful, of course, the National Party would intend to introduce its version of the Queensland gerrymander at the national level. Throughout Australia any region which voted for the National Party would be given an unfair advantage over areas that voted for the Australian Labor Party or for the Liberal Party. The National Party would simply seek to rig the boundaries in the same way in which they are rigged in Queensland. This legislation also implements a number of reforms which govern the conduct of the election. One of those alterations is the provision for overseas polling officials to be subject to the same penalties for the neglect of duty as other polling officials. I received a number of complaints from constituents who sought to vote overseas at Australia's various embassies. Subsequent to the election they received letters from the Electoral Commission in which they were asked why they had failed to vote. In fact, they had voted at the overseas diplomatic missions. After investigation it became apparent that those overseas polling officials had failed to ensure that the votes of those constituents were rapidly forwarded to the Electoral Commission. Because they had failed to carry out their responsibilities properly, those Australian citizens who had taken the trouble to cast a vote had been denmied the opportunity of having that vote count towards the result of the election. That is totally unsatisfactory. The Committee has been advised by the Electoral Commission that the amendment which is being proposed will ensure that if those officials do not carry out their instructions properly, they will be subject to the normal penalties which apply to employees of the Electoral Commission. The Electoral Commission is also given the power to extend times and deadlines which are established in the legislation by up to 48 hours in emergency situations, so that we do not have a situation where, due to some unforeseen circumstances, the electoral process is thrown into confusion. I suppose the most important reform in this legislation is the alterations to the Senate scrutiny. That is not of much interest to many people who are not experts on scrutineering votes and determining the results of Senate elections-- Mr Barry Jones —Or senators. Mr LEE —Or senators, as the Minister suggests. But it is very important to Australia as a country if we have an election and we fail to get the result of that election reasonably quickly. We all remember what happened in 1975 when the elected Government was dismissed. We had an election, and one can imagine what would have been the position if we had failed to get a result in the Senate because of some complication in the Senate count. The 1984 amendments to the Commonwealth Electoral Act replaced the original random sampling process which had been used from 1948 to 1984 with a fractional transfer system which is used in the Tasmanian State elections. That means that every ballot paper remains in the count. It means that if an elected candidate's surplus is distributed, the Electoral Commissioner must go back over every single ballot paper to allow the count to continue. As a result, in one of the larger States such as Victoria or New South Wales, if a large number of candidates seek to nominate for the Senate, it is possible that it could take several months to get a result in the Senate. I think it is very good that this legislation will be on the statute books to ensure that we get a speedy result in the Senate election. Before I conclude my remarks I want to touch on one final matter-that is, the question of disclosure of political funding. I believe it is the fundamental right of every Australian citizen to know who is supporting political parties and political candidates throughout the country. I believe that the debate on whether we should disclose political funding is the result of disclosures by many different newspaper organisations after the 1972 United States presidential election campaign, when it was exposed that various fundraising groups involved with President Nixon-through the famous CREEP Committee, the Campaign to Re-elect the President-sought to launder funds and donations which had been made anonymously to the organisation. The funds were laundered and, as a result, people were not aware that often shady organisations were making donations to the different candidates to seek to buy influence. As a result, to give the Americans credit, they pioneered legislation in this area. In many ways I believe that they have set an example which other countries around the world can investigate . Our Committee received evidence of loopholes in the current legislation. Of course, the current legislation seeks to ensure that wherever donations over a fixed limit are made to candidates or political parties, people must declare who those donors are. Every Australian if he wishes to take the trouble can see who is making donations to the different political parties. Our Committee received evidence that a group called the National Free Enterprise Foundation made a substantial donation of six figures to a party in Queensland, which was not the Australian Labor Party-it was not from my side of politics. That foundation was able to use a loophole and to avoid disclosing who provided those funds. In our Committee's second report we made a very important statement at page 172, which I would like to read into the Hansard tonight. It refers to people seeking to avoid the provisions of the current legislation, and it states: In Recommendation 1 we recommend that the Committee be re-appointed as a Standing Committee with a general function of reviewing the Electoral Act and the work of the AEC- that is the Australian Electoral Commission- Such a committee would be well positioned to investigate suspected abuses and would have undoubted powers to do so. It goes on to state: It can be anticipated that such a committee would not hesitate to exercise these powers where it suspects the aims of the legislation are being subverted. Organisations that are making donations to different parties in the belief that they can remain anonymous should not forget that in the next Parliament a committee may require them to attend a meeting of that committee. That committee could have the power to require answers to questions and the production of records and documents. If there is any evidence that people are seeking to subvert this legislation and to find loopholes in the provisions which require the disclosure of political donations I hope that our Committee will investigate that. We should not forget the call by the `Joh for PM' campaign or the `Joh for Federal Parliament' campaign or the `Joh for the Senate' campaign, whatever it is tonight, for donations of up to $25m to fund his hit campaign, his attempt to take over the national Parliament and then introduce his gerrymander at the national level. The President of the Queensland branch of the National Party of Australia, Sir Robert Sparkes, said that it would be his intention for any future National Party government to amend the Commonwealth Electoral Act retrospectively so that donors to the National Party's campaign would not have to be declared publicly. They could remain anonymous and in the shadows. It is quite interesting that Sir Robert Sparkes has proposed this retrospective legislation. I thought that the conservative parties were opposed to retrospective legislation. Mr Robert Brown —Except when it suits them. Mr LEE —As the honourable member for Charlton suggests, except when it suits them. In my view they oppose retrospective legislation only when it is legislation that a Labor government has introduced to seek to recover funds from the tax cheats who have abused the law of the land. But of course Sir Robert Sparkes has no moral objection to retrospective legislation if it will allow the white shoe brigade and all the other faceless men to continue hiding in the shadows. I believe the Australian people have a right to know who is bankrolling the Liberal Party and the National Party campaigns and for that matter, who is donating to the Australian Labor Party. We will make sure that the Australian people do know because we are not afraid of their knowing who makes a donation towards the re-election of the Labor Government. Once the Australian people know who the members of the white shoe brigade are and once they know who these faceless men in the shadows are, they will judge the Opposition's actions and reach the correct verdict. I support the legislation which is before the House. Debate (on motion by Mr Blunt) adjourned. Motion (by Mr Barry Jones) proposed: That the House do now adjourn. Mr SLIPPER(Fisher)(10.15) —Since coming to office in 1983 the Federal Labor Government has snatched nearly $2 billion from Australians and, in particular, Australian families. This Government has abolished the tax rebate for health insurance premiums, terminated housing interest rebates, cut the children's tax threshold, abolished the concessional expenditure rebate, abolished the family allowance for dependent students aged 18 to 24 and means tested allowances for 16 and 17-year olds, and it has failed to increase and index dependant rebates and family allowances. Average Australian families, the traditional Australian battlers, are reaching new heights of desperation. High taxes, high interest rates, high costs for health care and the decline in the real value of the family allowance and dependent spouse rebate have all taken their toll on the Australian family unit. Just what is this Government's approach to preserving the family unit and the family way of life? Since 1983 the Government's approach has been nothing short of contempt for the Australian family and the values it espouses. This Government has continually propped up programs and policies for alternative lifestyles while at the same time neglecting marriage and the family as being the basic unit of our society. Labor's shameful track record includes: Encouraging family breakdown through the welfare system; awarding dubious grants and financial assistance to minority groups; allowing the power of the Equal Opportunities Commission and the Human Rights Commission to intrude on the rights of individuals; permitting the screening of blasphemous and offensive film materials such as the film Hail Mary; and failing to act on the expanding X-rated film industry currently operating from the Australian Capital Territory and the Northern Territory. In the 1986-87 Budget Labor saw fit to introduce a young homeless allowance for 16- and 17-year olds. Families throughout Australia are now finding that for some 16- and 17-year olds this allowance provides an incentive for them to leave home. The Government's contempt for the family unit can be clearly seen in a recent proposal to allow girls under the age of consent and yet living in de facto relationships to receive social security benefits at the married rate. It was only after considerable pressure from the National Party of Australia that the Government was forced to back away from this unjustifiable action. How could this Government have considered for even one minute that it had a right to use taxpayers' funds through the social welfare system to subsidise and encourage immoral behaviour? The sad fact is that Labor has continually shown that it has no hesitation in squandering public money on groups whose activities are not acceptable to the vast majority of Australians. Instead of providing young people with the incentive to stay with their families and to gain an education or employment, this Government is encouraging them to leave home early and to rely on Commonwealth assistance. At the same time, this Government has seen fit to neglect the real needs of Australian families. It has awarded taxpayers' money to way-out groups. Millions of dollars have been spent on projects that to the majority of taxpayers would be highly questionable. People are also fed up with the ridiculous manner in which the Human Rights Commission and Equal Opportunities Commission Act and the Commonwealth Sex Discrimination Act intrude into their everyday lives. Under this Federal legislation it is not now possible to place an advertisement in a newspaper asking for a married couple to fill employment or accommodation vacancies. A constituent writing to me on this matter stated: It appears we Australian citizens cannot now legally advertise for married people, but we can legally advertise for gay mates, friends, partners-you name it. Clearly, this sort of Government interference should not be tolerated. This Government should come clean and inform Australians why it objects to the term `married'. As I have said previously in this House, perhaps given its preoccupation with social engineering, it has failed to realise that the vast majority of Australians believe in the institution of marriage. Ordinary decent Australians and their families are being placed at the bottom of this Government's priorities. Twelve months ago, a large number of Australians approached this Government over the screening of the film Hail Mary. The Government did nothing. The then Attorney-General (Mr Lionel Bowen) said: But I think the issue is probably best dealt with in the sense that those who want to see it will see it and the majority who, perhaps, do not want to see it should avoid it. The Government seems to have adopted a similar attitude towards allowing X-rated videos to flourish in both the Australian Capital Territory and the Northern Territory. All States have banned X-rated videos, and yet, the Federal Government will not act to stop this material being sold through the post from the Australian Capital Territory and Northern Territory. Our nation's capital is now the porn capital of Australia and yet Labor allows this degrading industry to continue to grow. This Government should hang its head in shame at its neglect of the rights of Australian families. Australian families cannot trust this Government. The rhetoric does not match its actions. The National Party is committed to ensuring that government programs, policies and grants do not encourage alternative lifestyles which are repugnant to the community at large. Mr ROBERT BROWN(Charlton)(10.20) —I have been detailing some of the strange developments and events in Queensland. I am up to item 27 which I have identified as `the former Press Secretary'. Allen Callaghan, a former Australian Broadcasting Association journalist, joined Premier Joh as Press Secretary in 1971 and departed in 1979. Despite strong opposition from the Public Service, Callaghan was appointed to the newly created position of Deputy Co-ordinator of Culture, National Parks and Recreation. Five years later, in 1984, he was promoted to head the Department and was appointed a member of the Queensland Day Committee. His wife Judith was the Committee's Executive Officer. Unfortunately, Allen and Judith Callaghan were corrupted by whatever it is that pervades some areas of public life in Queensland. In November 1986 Judith Callaghan was released from gaol after serving three months of a two and a half year sentence for misappropriating more than $44,000 of public money. Most of the money had been acquired from the Queensland Film Corporation while her husband was Chairman. In April 1987 Allen Callaghan was gaoled for four years for dishonestly applying $43,574 of public funds to his own use between October 1979 and October 1985. Callaghan has pleaded guilty to 124 charges. As head of the Arts, National Parks and Sport Department, he had been earning over $1,000 a week. The Crown Prosecutor said that the expenses which Mr Callaghan had claimed `could only be described as extravagance, luxury and self-indulgence'. Item 28 concerns a Minister. The National Times in 1986 said that Queensland Government Minister Russ Hinze had been labelled by some as `conflict of interest personified' in a State where conflict of interest had become institutionalised. It said: As Local Government Minister, he is also a developer. As Main Roads Minister, he doubles up as a major gravel supplier. As Racing Minister, he owns more than 100 race horses. In response to criticism he says `Too bloody bad'. Russ Hinze's companies have had remarkable luck in raising loans. In addition to a loan from the Moscow Narodny Bank, loans have also come from the International Pacific Corporation and the Euro-Asian Bank which also lent $3m to a Bjelke-Petersen company. The Hinze racehorse stud company, Waverley Park, has been able to bypass financial institutions. The Lesley Corporation's Coral Gardens Waterways Estate in the Albert Shire where Hinze lives stalled in 1981. As Minister for Local Government, Hinze approved the rezoning of a further 80 hectares, and land sales resumed. In 1984 the Lesley Corporation lent Waverley Park $35,000. Eddie Kornhauser, the developer of the $120m Paradise Centre in Surfers Paradise, lent Waverley Park $50,000. Kornhauser said that the loan carried a commercial rate of interest but he was not sure when it had to be repaid. He said: Hinze said at the time it would be if he retired from parliament or something. An $80,000 loan in 1981 from a company called Cowrie Corporation was written off in 1984. The newspaper Times on Sunday has been unable to establish the identity of the Cowrie Corporation. Dr HARRY EDWARDS(Berowra)(10.22) —There are two central issues, apart from tax, that will dominate the forthcoming election. First, there are the severely reduced living standards of Australians, especially one income families, under this Hawke Labor Government. Ordinary Australian families are hurting, and only Ministers who have completely lost touch with the grass roots of what is actually happening out there to Australians, and especially to one income families, could be unaware of this. The second key issue is the boost to the power of the trade unions-more correctly the union bosses-which will inevitably occur if, unhappily, Labor were to win the election. The clear intent of the Labor Party can be seen in the Industrial Relations Bill which was introduced into the Parliament a fortnight ago, but hastily relegated to the bottom of the Notice Paper on Tuesday last as the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) psyched himself up to call an early election. The Industrial Relations Bill was no hastily conceived measure. Rather, it was the product of long and exhaustive deliberation by the Government dating right back to when it assumed office in 1983. The Minister responsible for the Bill, the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations (Mr Willis), clearly set out the process by which the Bill came into being in his speech introducing the Bill. He recounted how the Government established a tripartite committee of review into Australian industrial relations law and systems soon after the Government came into office in 1983, how the Government in its charter to the committee was concerned that all avenues should be explored to ensure that Australia would have the most appropriate industrial relations law and systems, how the Hancock Committee Review into Australian Industrial Relations Law and Systems reported in April 1985, and how since then there have been extensive consultations on its recommendations not all of which, after due consideration, are taken up in the Bill. After all this, the Bill was finally introduced into the Parliament a fortnight ago making changes to the existing system which are `extensive without being a ``leap in the dark'' ' and so on. My point is that there can be no question that the Bill truly embodies Labor's considered authentic views, its policy, on what should be the shape of Australia's industrial relations law and systems. As I have said, the policy is a central issue in the forthcoming election because the Labor Party policy is to put the trade unions above, outside, the ordinary law of this land, to create in effect one very protective set of laws and courts, the so-called Labour Court jurisdiction for the unions and another set of law and courts for everyone else. It is a system of industrial apartheid as it has aptly been referred to. In particular, the policy is to emasculate the very important sections 45d and 45e of the Trade Practices Act, the `John Howard laws' of 1977 against secondary boycotts. These are the laws under which was enforced the abandonment of the enormously disruptive industrial action by the plumbers recently which was fouling up work on a range of major building sites. By an action in the Federal Court of Australia under this section of the law leading to the granting of an injunction and the imposing of fines there was a quick restoration of industrial sanity and normal work. The Mudginberri situation, well known to honourable members, was another notable case in point, where an employer under blatant union attack gained redress via a section 45d action. The policy of the Labor Party embodied in the Industrial Relations Bill is an abject sell-out to union muscle. It is clear evidence that for the Hawke-Keating Labor Party, as for its predecessor Labor parties, when it gets down to a choice between what is good for the trade unions and the Australian Council of Trade Unions, and what is good for Australia and Australians as a whole, nothing has really changed about the ALP-the unions win hands down. So at the 11 July election Australians have a clear choice to vote for the Prime Minister and return the Labor Party, and the trade unions will be put above the law, which is bad for businesses, big and small, and bad for the majority of Australian workers, bad for investment and for the country itself-or to vote for the Leader of the Opposition (Mr John Howard) and all Australians will be treated equally before and under the law. Mr KENT(Hotham)(10.27) —As a member of parliament for a number of years now, I realise that some aspects of life in politics are ugly. I have seen some people walking around with knives in their backs, and I am aware of the intrigue and treachery that from time to time goes on around us. However, I am shocked to learn that such things, and even worse things, are going on in our universities and institutes of higher education. One would expect that such places are centres of learning and excellence and that intrigue and back-stabbing are not prevalent in the world of academia. Recently, however, I came across an interesting memorandum sent to the Director of the Gippsland Institute of Advanced Education, by the Head of the School of Engineering, Dr Ken Spriggs. Before I read the memo, let me first inform the House of the circumstances which prompted Dr Spriggs' letter. In mid-1986 the Head of the School of Social Sciences at the Gippsland Institute of Advanced Education, Mr Peter Harwood, informed the Institute's academic staff association that he could not recommend tenure for Dr Hicks at the end of his two-year probationary period. The grounds for his decision were: Firstly, Ron Hicks' coolness towards students; secondly Ron Hicks' unavailability for consultation with students; and, thirdly, Ron Hicks' refusal to talk to or follow instructions given by Peter Harwood. After a number of meetings, in December 1986, Mr Peter Harwood finally admitted that all the concerns he had raised earlier about Dr Hicks had been satisfactorily resolved. However, he advised the meeting that he still had a `feeling' about Dr Hicks and for this reason could not confirm tenure. Consequently, Dr Hicks approached the Director of the Institute and suggested the establishment of an independent inquiry into the matter. Dr Kennedy agreed. The inquiry was made up of one academic, Mr Bill Battersby, Senior Lecturer in Economics, and the Assistant Director of the Institute, Mr Jerry Smart. The inquiry confirmed that the concerns expressed by Peter Harwood had been resolved and suggested confirmation of tenure for Dr Hicks. However, the Director refused to make a decision and now denies that any such inquiry took place. In addition, Peter Harwood has been working behind the scenes in an attempt to prejudice Dr Hicks in any redress that he may seek in this matter. I will now read to the House excerpts of the memorandum from Dr Ken Spriggs, Head of the School of Engineering, to Dr Kennedy, the Director of the Institute, which was prompted by these developments. I quote: Thank you for your reply of 20th February, 1987 to my memo expressing concern as to the Institute's present industrial relations. You expressed some worries as to what I only attempted to allude. I will spell out my concerns in greater detail. I was referring to the following when I said some heads of schools generously interpret institute policy in their favour . . . Dr Spriggs then went on to say: Heads of schools do not teach students. We are allowed actively to pursue financially profitable outside activities . . . heads of schools earn close to $60,000 per annum in salary. Additional income can be earned with other salaries as in the case of Peter Harwood as Chairman of the LRC (Latrobe Regional Commission) . . . I have already received complaints from students that the heads of School of Business and Social Sciences have been soliciting them to issue complaints about their academic staff. Life for the administration could become difficult if the student union or the staff association obtain this information. Dr Spriggs concluded his memo by saying: `Our activities would not stand up to close scrutiny' refers to the four or five presently aggrieved academic staff or the staff association or even the student union who could take issue with any or all of the above mentioned topics. If our political masters learn of our work practices some embarrassing questions could be asked. I believe it is essential to maintain a lower public profile with regards to industrial issues. I repeat let's forget about these `Jewish trouble makers' and allow us to continue to enjoy a peaceful profitable existence. All the factors that I have put before the House lead me to ask why Mr Peter Harwood hates Dr Hicks? Is it because Dr Hicks is a Jew or for some other reason? However, be that as it may, the central point to be made in this instance is that this episode at the Institute is revolting and it is time that an impartial external commission of inquiry is established without delay to look into all aspects of anti-semitic and other victimisation at the Institute. Only such an inquiry can ensure and put to rest criticisms and allegations of discrimination, nepotism and blatant anti-semitism at the Gippsland Institute of Advanced Education. It is also the only way the taxpayers of Australia can be assured that money earmarked for education is spent appropriately on teaching and advancing knowledge and not on the promotion of personal vendettas and racial hatred and bigotry. Mr COWAN(Lyne)(10.32) —The matter that I wish to raise tonight concerns the home care service in New South Wales. It is most important to the aged people of Australia that they have the assistance of the home care service, particularly in view of the Nursing Homes and Hostels Legislation Amendment Bill 1987 that was adopted in this Parliament only a week or so ago. I commend the service because over a period of years it has certainly contributed towards the care of the aged in the community. Tonight I will briefly refer to a concern that I have in relation to the Nelson Bay area within my electorate of Lyne. I have been concerned for quite a while with regard to the financial assistance available to the home care service at Nelson Bay. The area is very close to Newcastle, is one of the most prominent retirement and seaside areas of Australia, and is an area that attracts many aged Australians. For the past 12 years a local home care group has operated in this area to assist and arrange for labour force assistance to the aged within this community. I am concerned that over the last few years little extra funding, if any, has been made available to that group to meet the demands of the local area. I was in Nelson Bay only about a week ago and I spoke with representatives of the local home care service. They are ladies who speak on behalf of a committee comprising at least 12 people who represent all the service groups and health groups within this community. They are concerned about the great number of aged people and others within the community who cannot be assisted by the home care service simply because not enough money is available to them. They pointed out to me that they are able to meet the requirements of only about 120 residents in the area, although there is a demand approaching nearly 180 in the community. They have on staff 20 ladies who are very familiar with the needs of the community and are very satisfactory workers so far as the committee is concerned. I appeal to the Minister for Community Services (Mr Hurford)-and I have written to him putting the case of the Nelson Bay Committee-to have a particular look at the needs of this area in view of its growing significance and the fact that there are so many aged people in the community and in view of the hard work that has been done by the committee and staff and because of the general demands that must be met in future years. I do not take to task the Government's policy in this area, but I think we need more care for the aged in their own homes. If the Government is going to meet the needs of the community in this respect, that assistance must be made available because meals on wheels, the home care service and other health assistance agencies are most important to these people. Many of these people have come from the metropolitan area and from other States to live in Nelson Bay because of its geographical situation and because of the medical services available both there and nearby at Newcastle. Therefore, it is important that we do our utmost to assist this voluntary group of people within the community who have meant so much to the aged. I understand from the ladies involved that there is a move to actually create a full time office of home care within the Port Stephens Shire area. That concerns me. I have no great objection to that as long as the autonomy of this group of people at Nelson Bay is maintained because they have a history of being able to cater for this area. Their demands are such that I think they need as much assistance as possible. I appeal to the Minister for Community Services and ask him to do what he possibly can to assist in this area. Mrs DARLING(Lilley)(10.37) —I was outraged and somewhat surprised at the smut purveyed by the honourable member for Fisher (Mr Slipper) early this evening in the guise of moral rectitude. Madam SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member will be careful not to impugn or cast any aspersions on honourable members. Mrs DARLING —I am sorry about that, Madam Speaker; I will reword it. I am trying to make a direct comment about something which outraged me. I was outraged at the false accusations against the Government made by the honourable member for Fisher this evening in the guise of his own moral rectitude. How dare he even suggest, let alone declare, that members of the Government have not supported the institution of marriage or the family; even more, that he should declare that we on this side have in some way encouraged degrading practices within Australia. He is wrong and his logic is twisted. The honourable member for Fisher giving of an allowance to homeless 16- to 17-year-olds who lack the privileged position which he implied creates a privileged position for them which somehow equates with moral superiority. The Government is aware of the position of parents of children of that age who are trying to afford to bring them up; and it is also aware of the number of young people who have come from rural areas and who are out on the streets without parental support. It was for this reason that the Government introduced unemployment benefits for 16- and 17-year-olds. When the Government was forced because of the financial situation in Australia to cut back that unemployment benefit, we introduced a $25 job search payment and an additional payment of $25 for those young people who are in a bad economic situation. In some ways, the comments by the honourable member for Fisher equate with the National Party's attack on supporting parents in Queensland. Statements have been made in Queensland that single parents who stay by their children instead of going off to follow a larger and more comfortable wage are somehow not part of a real family. The National Party has not considered the situation of a young man or woman-most often a woman-whose partner deserts or whose family breaks apart. One day he or she is a respectable part of the community, attending parents and citizens meetings, belonging to the local tennis club and paying off a house, car and furniture. The next day, he or she is suddenly placed in the horrific position of being a supporting parent. Such people can no longer afford to pay off the house, the car of the furniture. Their income is reduced to about $100 a week, plus the child allowance that is payable. Because such people stay by their families, they have been attacked by the National Party in Queensland as being somehow immoral and not up to the standard of other people. Mr Tim Fischer —Did you give the honour- able member for Gippsland notice? Mrs DARLING —Is this to be a part of the National Party's campaign in the 1987 election? I did not have time to give the honourable member for Fisher notice. He has only just made the statement. I did not intend to speak, but I was really upset at the way in which he attacked people on this side without giving us notice. The honourable member linked the Australian Labor Party with video pornography. In the 1984 election campaign, the Hawke Government's attempts to restrain the flow of hard porn into Australia and its blatant sale over the counter were misrepresented as actually opening the floodgates. The opposite of the true situation was put forward. That campaign was actually carried out in churches and community organisations which, in good faith, believed the things that were said. What is moral about misrepresenting the assets test on pensioners? Again in the last election campaign, pensioners who were able to retain their full pension were told by Opposition members in Lilley that they would lose their full pension. I have mentioned before that I know of pensioners who withdrew their money from their banks, put it into a fund, which was said to return money, and which turned out to be a shonkey fund, and lost it all. That was real immorality. Madam SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr TUCKEY(O'Connor)(10.42) —Tonight I again have with me in Canberra two students from my electorate who are here to see at first hand the workings of the national capital and the Parliament of Australia. As you would agree, Madam Speaker, they have been here during a very exciting week. This is the tenth occasion on which I have invited students from senior high schools in my electorate of O'Connor to visit Canberra. The two young ladies, who are in the chamber tonight, are Stephanie Tonkin and Michelle Mader. Stephanie, whilst living in the small community of Coomberdale, attends school in the town of Moora a few kilometres away at the Central Midlands Senior High School. Moora is located approximately 180 kilometres north of Perth and is a community with a population of 1,750. Michelle is from the District of Woodanilling and attends the Katanning Senior High School, which requires her to travel around 50 kilometres a day. Katanning is 260 kilometres south-east of Perth and has a population of approximately 5,300. The girls have contributed all the material for this speech and, as honourable members will see, both Stephanie and Michelle are very proud of their home towns and the schools that they are representing here today. Central Midlands District High School, located at Moora, has approximately 280 students and 30 teachers. Although small when compared with city high schools, Central Midlands offers a vital service to the people of Moora and districts. Many subjects are offered to the students and sport is also a major part of their learning activities. Katanning high school has approximately 650 students and 50 teachers and offers a friendly student-teacher relationship. Subjects are varied and include law, photography and horticulture. This school offers education to a large district. Sport also plays a major role at Katanning and a wide range of activities is offered to students. Both schools have residential hostels located close by, thus offering accommodation to those students living in outlying areas who are unable to travel daily to school by public or private transport. The opportunity to board is available under expert supervision. The service offered is excellent and both hostels are well patronised and have waiting lists of many years. Katanning has become a centre for Christmas and Cocos Islanders who have chosen to migrate to the mainland and have assimilated into the local community exceptionally well, bringing with them a new religion to the district. They regularly go to the mosque to pray and most follow their traditional way of life. I was fortunate to be a guest of the Moslem community when its mosque was dedicated by the Tunku Abdul Rahman of Malaysia. Moora proposes to establish a silica mine near the town and this will be one of only four in Australia. The ore from the mine will eventually be used in the production of silicon chips, solar cells and alloys worldwide, thus bringing the exciting era of high technology to the district. Katanning senior high school has produced a number of winners over the years, the latest being Yein Wei Ong, who won the Western Australian State spelling competition-a grand achievement. Each year a number of exchange students from overseas arrive in Australia to attend a host school and community for varying periods from a few weeks to one year. Both Katanning and Central Midlands senior high schools participate in these student exchange programs, thereby enabling local students to learn about a completely new culture and society. Many friendships are initiated with these exchange students and contacts are made with future travel plans in the mind of many. Overseas students who have been involved in these programs have come from countries such as South Africa, West Germany, the United States of America, Denmark, Japan and the Central American country of Panama. Both districts are major wheat and sheep producing areas of Western Australia and contribute to Australia's export earnings through wheat, wool, sheepmeat and live sheep exports. Both districts are served by regular rail and road transport. Katanning has the largest sheep sale yards in Western Australia, outside of the metropolitan area, and is also a major administrative centre for co-operative bulk handling, housing the principal authority that handles the transport of grain. The sand plain region of Moora is abundant with natural wildflowers of which Western Australia is both proud and famous. These wildflowers are in great demand in Europe and Asia and for the last 10 years Moora has been involved in the export of these wildflowers. It is now developing into a major export industry, as I have said a number of times in this Parliament. During their stay in Canberra, the girls have seen most of the sights, including the Australian War Memorial and Black Mountain Tower. They have attended several sessions of the Parliament, including Question Time in the Senate and the House of Representatives and, of course, they have met with you, Madam Speaker. Both Stephanie and Michelle thank their schools for the opportunity to visit Canberra and experience at first hand the workings of the Parliament. I am extremely happy to have had both Stephanie and Michelle in Canberra with me this week. They are great ambassadresses not only for Coomerdale and Woodanilling and their schools, but also for Western Australia. I thank you, Madam Speaker, for your assistance in allowing me to deliver this speech on their behalf tonight. Mr CLEELAND(McEwen)(10.47) —Recent reports of the discovery of DDT in Australian meat exports to the United States of America and of the subsequent risks that discovery imposes on future export sales highlight the endemic use of pesticides in Australia. That DDT imposes health risks is no longer in doubt. The publication of Silent Spring exposed the ecological changes which are occurring within our environment and the dangers that those changes bring to the health of ourselves and our children. DDT is included in the chlorinated hydrocarbon group of chemicals which also include dieldrin, aldrin, chlordane and heptachlor. All of these chemicals are widely used in Australian agriculture and in domestic areas to kill insect pests such as termites and spiders. Despite their widespread and generally unregulated use, little is known of the long term effect on human beings exposed to them. It is, however, known that chlorinated hydrocarbons are carcinogenic. A risk analysis of chemicals used for termite control published by the United States Environmental Protection Agency in November 1983 concluded that there were major uncertainties. It said: The risk assessment for these chemicals is incomplete because of the lack of definitive data on the extent of human exposure, the amount of exposure, and, most importantly, data on the critical biological end point in humans exposed to these chemicals. It was reported in the Age on Tuesday, 12 November 1983 that Mr Don Mathews of the Victorian Chemical Laboratory, a State government authority, believed that the training of registered operators of these chemicals could be improved. In other words, the present training of registered operators was insufficient. There is ample evidence that this is the case. It is common practice in many areas in Australia that the ground on which new housing is to be built and existing houses are sprayed to destroy insect pests. I recall a case in which I was involved concerning a Mr Peter Wilson of Warrandyte in the State of Victoria. Mr Wilson had his house sprayed to remove termites and insect pests. Some time later, concerned at the odour remaining in his house, he called for an investigation to be made as to the chemical used and its safety. Tests disclosed that one of the chlorinated hydrocarbon group of chemicals had been used and that the strength and amount used was excessive. In fact, the house was unfit for human habitation. Mr Wilson went through a difficult and costly process to make that house safe for himself, his wife and children. The long term effect on Mr Wilson and his family has not been determined. There was no prosecution of the registered operator, no removal of his licence and no determination as to the safety of other houses sprayed by him and the risks to those families. A feature of the chlorinated hydrocarbon group of chemicals is their ability to invade air and dust particules and hence invade the human body through toxic effect on the skin. One of the great problems is that we are finding in Australia that the milk of mothers is being affected quite heavily by the use of these chemicals. Choice magazine reported and documented a case in Perth concerning the use of heptachlor where a woman's milk, some 10 months after the use of this chemical, was defective. This mother was feeding a child. A survey tested 40 women for pesticide levels in breast milk and it showed that they had dieldrin levels 37 times the `safe' level applicable to the babies they were feeding with their milk. These recorded levels of chemicals stored in the tissues of mothers is only the tip of the iceberg. This situation is occurring, despite State regulations controlling the use of the chemicals and requiring domestic users to be licensed. In agricultural areas massive quantities of these chemicals are being used without any control whatsoever. The users have no knowledge or concept of the dangers inherent to our ecological balance or the risks to humans. In a well publicised and documented incident in the western part of Victoria, the use of chlorinated hydrocarbon chemicals in a dairy district resulted in pasture so contaminated that the milk collected was unfit for human consumption. When such chemicals are sprayed there is no control to prevent the absorption of the chemical into adjoining houses and into humans. Because we do not know the long term effects of even small doses, we may be sitting on a health problem of grave proportions. There are grave problems in this area and I am greatly concerned that we are pouring tonnes of these chemicals into Australia at the moment. There is little or no control and I believe it is time for a national attempt to set forth a code of conduct and regulations controlling their use. If we do not, the risk is that our food exports, as exposed by the recent case relating to DDT in exported meat, will become so grave that no country will buy contaminated meat from Australia. The risk to our health, to our children's health and to the export market is grave. Madam SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr REITH(Flinders)(10.52) —The matter I raise tonight concerns the foreign tax credit scheme which comes into operation on 1 July for professional sportsmen and sportswomen. The implications of the scheme will be quite significant and could be reasonably described as the equivalent of what used to be referred to as the brain drain. This matter was referred to in the House during Question Time on 29 April when my predecessor as the shadow Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism, the honourable member for McPherson (Mr White), addressed a question to the Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism (Mr John Brown) concerning the implications of the foreign tax credit scheme. In part, the question stated: Is the Minister aware that an Australian resident sportsman who, after 1 July, wins a major tournament overseas and pays tax in that country will then pay additional Australian tax? What will the Minister do about the sportsmen and women who are contemplating leaving Australia and basing themselves overseas because of Australia's high taxes, together with the new foreign tax credit scheme that will operate after 1 July? The Minister then replied that he would take up the matter with the Treasurer (Mr Keating) to check the fine detail. Essentially, he suggested that the implication in the question was incorrect. The Minster then came into the House the next day after Question Time and said: I was not quite sure of the answer yesterday and did not want to give the honourable member inaccurate information. But I am pleased to tell the House that, as usual, he was wrong. Honourable members will not be surprised about that-he was wrong again. There was then some interjection between the Minister and the honourable member for McPherson. The honourable member for McPherson said by way of interjection: `They have to pay again'. The Minister responded: `They do not pay again. They get a credit for the tax that they pay overseas'. The interjections continued, but the Minister completely refuted the implication of the question. The Minister then provided the honourable member for McPherson with a more detailed response, part of which included the statement: If the foreign country is one with which Australia has a double tax treaty then this is not a new tax treatment; it was a feature of the former Government's tax system. Whilst the Minister may have checked his facts to some degree, I say that I have checked the matter further and have found the Minister's answer is in fact quite wrong. The Minister said that when an Australian sports professional wins a professional event and pays tax in a foreign country that tax would be calculated as a credit against the total tax bill for which that person would be liable in Australia. He said that there was nothing new about that. Of course he was referring to the situation that will pertain after 1 July. The fact is that prior to 1 July a professional sports man or woman who won an event and received prize money overseas would not have to pay additional tax in Australia. I refer the Minister to Article 13 of the tax treaty between, for example, Australia and the United Kingdom. I refer to the CCH publication, which I think is generally highly regarded. It states: If the United Kingdom earnings of Australian entertainers and athletes touring the United Kingdom are subjected to tax in the United Kingdom, Australia would exempt those earnings from its tax under sec. 23 (q) of the Assessment Act. In other words, if one wins the British Open and pays #20,000 in tax, when one gets home one will pay no more tax. However, after 1 July that person will pay the Australian tax. Because we have internationally high tax levels more tax will have to be paid here than would have to be paid in most of the overseas countries that sports men or women, for example, would compete within. It means that in Australia after 1 July a person will have to top up in relation to payment of tax, and I point out that in this regard the Minister was completely wrong. Madam SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr MAHER(Lowe)(10.58) —In the few minutes that I have available to me I want to raise an issue concerning public safety in my electorate. I draw the attention of the Minister for Defence (Mr Beazley) to a proposal to build six or eight dolphins adjacent to Spectacle Island in the Parramatta River near Drummoyne. I have raised this matter because, as honourable members might know, ammunition is brought overnight from Newington on the Paramatta River to Spectacle Island and then the next day it is taken to Garden Island and the naval ships. This whole procedure of bringing ammunition through heavily populated, residential harbourside suburbs must cease. The ammunition must be taken down to Jervis Bay. This whole public safety issue worries me greatly. I have been approached by some of the representatives of the Sea Scouts on Snapper Island who are being evacuated from Snapper Island to Elizabeth Bay or Rushcutters Bay on the grounds of public safety. This worries me greatly because I have been shown a map of what is supposed to be a blast area, which includes part of Hunter's Hill and seems to go in to Drummoyne, which is in my electorate. I know that the procedures are foolproof, that the ammunition is incapable of being charged and exploding, but there is always the risk of saboteurs or of human error. I call on the Minister to have a look at this matter and to stop any development in the Spectacle Island area and to prevent the storage of ammunition at this site. Madam SPEAKER —Order! It being 11 p.m., the House stands adjourned until 10 a.m. tomorrow. House adjourned at 11 p.m. The following notices were given: Mr West to move- That, in accordance with the provisions of the Public Works Committee Act 1969 and by reason of the urgent nature of the work it is expedient that the following proposed work be carried out without it having been referred to the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works: Provision of new submarines. Mr West to move- That, in accordance with the provisions of the Public Works Committee Act 1969 and by reason of the urgent nature of the work it is expedient that the following proposed work be carried out without it having been referred to the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works: Rationalisation and redevelopment of property holdings in Tokyo. The following papers were deemed to have been presented on 28 May 1987: Customs Act-Notice-1987-No. 5. Excise Act-Notice-1987-No. 5.