Tuesday, 3 November 1987 Madam SPEAKER (Hon. Joan Child) took the chair at 3 p.m., and read prayers. Mr LIONEL BOWEN(Kingsford-Smith-Deputy Prime Minister) —Madam Speaker, I indicate to the House that the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) is still unwell but is recovering, and his second selection won the Melbourne Cup. Mr PEACOCK —I refer the Treasurer to the question I asked last week concerning the substantial net borrowings and financial health of public financial enterprises. I am currently awaiting the reply promised by the Treasurer. In the meantime, I ask: Is the Victorian State Government's WorkCare program, which has unfunded liabilities reported to be over $1.7 billion, one of the State government financial enterprises accounting for the substantial level of net borrowings of public financial enterprises? Mr KEATING —I am very interested and indeed somewhat amused to find the coalition interested in the borrowings of the States. The people in the coalition were behind-- Opposition members-Answer the question. Mr KEATING —I am answering it in the correct historical perspective. They were the people who decided to remove any control by the Loan Council upon the borrowings of the States for what they called infrastructure, so that when I became Treasurer only 25 per cent of the States' borrowings were under the control of the Loan Council. Since then we have sought to reduce the States' public sector borrowing requirement (PSBR), which was 3.6 per cent of gross domestic product (GDP) in 1982-83, and in 1987-88 we expect it to be 1.8 per cent or half the level it was under the Leader of the Opposition as Treasurer. I repeat: the PSBR on the States' account went from 3.6 per cent of GDP in 1982-83 to 1.8 per cent this year. In net terms, the States' PSBR will fall from an all-time peak of 2.9 per cent to just over 2 per cent in 1987-88. This means that the borrowing restrictions placed on the States are forcing them to pare back activity and run down cash balances built up primarily in the early 1980s. The fact of the matter is that the Loan Council arrangements instituted in the 1930s were instituted for good and cogent reasons. It seems that they were dismissed, diminished and dismantled not for good reason but because of the need for some flurry of activity by the former Government to be seen at the time. As the Commonwealth Government, under the current Prime Minister, has borne the principal responsibility for reducing the PSBR, we at the same time have required the States to reduce their borrowings as well. They are coming down in both gross and net terms. I do not mind if the Deputy Leader of the Opposition wishes to observe progress in this matter, but there is a view opposite that because the Opposition lost the election it can draw a line and have a clean sheet of paper to begin with. As I have said to honourable members opposite, that is wrong. The sheet is covered with dirty marks from their performance in office. Mr MOUNTFORD —My question is directed to the Minister representing the Acting Minister for the Arts, Sport, the Environment, Tourism and Territories. Will the Minister advise the House of the present condition of Sir Douglas Mawson's hut at Commonwealth Bay in the Australian claimed territory of Antarctica? What action has been taken to restore this historic building which served as the base camp for the 1911-14 Australasian expedition to Adelie Land, Antarctica? Will the Minister assure the House that the Government will take whatever action is necessary to preserve Mawson's hut for posterity, with completion of restoration by the end of 1988, our bicentenary year, if at all possible? Mr PETER MORRIS —The matter the honourable member for Banks raises is one of considerable importance to Australia's role in the exploration of the Antarctic. The honourable member may recall a plaque was affixed to the hut commemorating the deaths of two members of the 1911-1914 mission-Messrs Ninnis and Mertz. Some preliminary investigation and conservation work was undertaken by Project Blizzard in 1984-85 and 1985-86 with logistic and financial support from the Antarctic Division of the Department of the Arts, Sport, the Environment, Tourism and Territories. This work is being analysed by an expert committee formed in 1986 to advise the Antarctic Division on all aspects of the conservation of monuments and historic sites in the Australian Antarctic Territory. A member of the committee from the Australian Heritage Commission visited the site in the 1986-87 season and continued that work of monitoring and surveying the location. A draft statement of significance has been prepared by a heritage architect under the auspices of the committee. A management plan based on this statement of significance will be prepared. The honourable member in the last part of his question sought an assurance that the work would be completed by the end of 1988. I am not in a position to give that assurance but I can tell the honourable member for Banks that the conservation work based on this management plan will commence in the 1988-89 season. Mr SMITH —My question is to the Minister for Primary Industries and Energy. The Minister will be aware of the front page story in the Australian newspaper today in which the Minister irresponsibly has revealed for all the world to see the minimum price Australia will accept for its export coal. I ask the Minister whether the industry and the unions support this revelation which will now mean our minimum price will be our maximum. Madam SPEAKER —Order! The first part of the honourable member's question is out of order. The second part the Minister may answer. Mr KERIN —As a matter of fact, I am not aware of the front page story in the paper today. I am not sure which newspaper the honourable member is referring to-- Mr Smith —The Australian. Mr KERIN —Be that as it may, it looks as though the honourable member for Bass has been reading the newspapers again. Because of the national interest provisions all prices for coal are commercial in confidence. One or two prices are being bandied about in the industry because the industry knows full well what some prices have been and what, in effect, market prices have been. I have no other comment. Mr BLANCHARD —I address my question to the Minister for Community Services and Health, as the Minister responsible for housing assistance. Will the Minister inform the House of the progress of the first home owners scheme (FHOS)? How many people are being helped by the scheme? Is FHOS proving a success and relieving pressure on demand for public housing? Dr BLEWETT — I thank the honourable member for his question. This Government is committed to ensuring that home ownership remains affordable and accessible to all Australians. FHOS has made a major contribution to that. Congratulations for that belong very much to my predecessors, the honourable member for Adelaide and the Minister for Administrative Services. Since its introduction, that scheme has provided assistance to over 260,000 low to moderate income earning first home buyers to get into their first homes. This has helped to release needed rental accommodation into the market and also to reduce the pressures on the public housing sector. The amount of assistance under this scheme depends on income, family status, the number of dependants and the payment option chosen by the applicants. But the important thing to note is that FHOS assistance is going to those who need it. Over 60 per cent of joint FHOS applicants with dependants had incomes below $20,000 a year. Typically, FHOS applicants are lower income earners. They tend to have a lower equity and purchase cheaper homes than other first home buyers. For instance, the median price of $58,000 for homes of FHOS applicants compares with a significantly higher figure for non-assisted first home owners. Moreover, the changes to the income limits announced on 14 March 1987 have increased the reach of the scheme. The revised limits provide more generous income limits for families with dependent children. This is tangible evidence of the Prime Minister's election promise to move towards the elimination of child poverty by the end of 1990. The changes will enable an additional 13,000 households to receive assistance under the scheme and another 13,000 households will receive further additional assistance. In all, in this financial year, 1987-88, we anticipate 52,000 further households receiving assistance under FHOS. The estimated expenditure this year under the scheme is some $222m and, to date, around $1.15 billion has been approved to eligible first home buyers under the scheme. The high application rate which is continuing for FHOS assistance indicates that the scheme continues to be successful in providing assistance to first home buyers and in stimulating house construction. As I said earlier, FHOS is extremely well targeted on low income households. It has, therefore, reduced the pressure both on the private rental market and on public housing. It has done this by enabling marginal home buyers to enter into home ownership. Without FHOS assistance many of these buyers would not have been able to afford a home of their own. It is a very clear testimony of the Government's pursuit of equity in this area. Mr BRAITHWAITE —My question is addressed to the Deputy Prime Minister. Was there only two days difference between the letter to the Chairman of the Christmas Island Assembly from the Minister for the Arts, Sport, the Environment, Tourism and Territories warning the Assembly it would be dissolved unless its budgetary problems were resolved and the decision by the Federal Cabinet to sack the Assembly? What action was taken by the Government to bring to the notice of the Christmas Island community the alleged problems and financial mismanagement by the outgoing Assembly during or before the election campaign? Has the Government now sacked the Christmas Island Assembly only two weeks after its democratic election? Given the hasty, high-handed and autocratic action by the Government, will the Deputy Prime Minister immediately make a full statement to Parliament on the reasons for the Government's action? Mr LIONEL BOWEN —The Christmas Island Assembly was established by the Government as part of its 1984 decision to extend to the Island the same rights and obligations as mainland Australians. The Assembly was given the task of providing local government-type services on the Island through the Christmas Island Services Corporation. The Assembly has been unwilling to put the Christmas Island Services Corporation on a sound financial footing because this would mean introducing local charges on a user pay basis. The net result would be that the rest of Australia, which has adopted a responsible attitude to financial management, would be subsidising a privileged position for Island residents. Given this, the Minister had no choice but to dissolve the Assembly and appoint the Administrator to make the necessary decisions. Ms McHUGH —Has the Minister for Veterans' Affairs received Mr Hogg's report on the adequacies or otherwise of the final report of the Evatt Royal Commission on the Use and Effects of Chemical Agents on Australian Personnel in Vietnam? If he has received that report, to whom will it be made available, and when? Mr HUMPHREYS —I thank the honourable member for Phillip for her question. I am sure all honourable members would be aware of the keen interest she has shown in Vietnam veterans, especially those in her electorate. She has shown an interest not only in Vietnam veterans but in all veterans, and not only in her electorate but throughout the whole of Australia. If other honourable members showed the same interest as the honourable member for Phillip shows, they would earn a feather in their caps. I am happy to announce that I have received the report from Mr Hogg. Honourable members will be aware that Mr Hogg was originally appointed as a consultant to the former Minister for Veterans' Affairs, Senator Arthur Gietzelt, and then to me after the marvellous victory of the Australian Labor Party at the last election. Mr Hogg's task was to help prepare the Government's response to the Evatt Royal Commission on the Use and Effects of Chemical Agents on Australian Personnel in Vietnam. Mr Hogg's report, which takes into account work done by the Government departments and submissions by the Vietnam Veterans Association, will form the basis of a submission to the Cabinet. The question of the release of Mr Hogg's report is a matter that will be taken up in the context of the Cabinet's consideration of my submission. It is my intention to bring this matter to Cabinet as soon as possible, hopefully during the current sitting of Parliament but no later than in early 1988. Mr ALDRED —I address my question to the Minister for Land Transport and Infrastructure Support. In answering my previous question on the Heads of Agreement for the Christmas Island casino, the Minister for Primary Industries and Energy said that the developer had asked for approval of BAe 146 aircraft, although other aircraft were not precluded. Is the Minister aware that in another place Senator Evans has ruled out immediate aerodrome upgrading for heavier aircraft, yet he knows that there are no available civil aircraft of lesser specifications that could comply with the over-water route limitations? As Senator Evans has also barred future servicing by Australian Airlines 727s, would the Minister agree with the comments of the developer, Mr Francis Woodmore, that his company was fed `misinformation' by the Department of Aviation and that `there is prima facie evidence that we were forced into bed with Ansett'? Mr DUNCAN —No, I would not. I think that the best thing I can do in these circumstances is to table the air navigation regulation dealing with this matter so that all people can see the rules and regulations that apply so that it becomes quite clear why the particular aircraft that was approved was the only one that was approved. I table that document. Mr Aldred —Madam Speaker, on a point of order: the Minister has not answered the question. Madam SPEAKER —Order! There is no point of order. Resume your seat. I call the honourable member for Forde. Ms CRAWFORD —Is the Minister for Community Services and Health aware of the rumours currently being circulated in women's groups in Queensland that the Federal Government is to cut funding to the supported accommodation assistance program (SAAP) which funds refuges for women and children? Can the Minister assure the House that this Federal Government is still committed to continuing such programs for those who are most in need in our community? Dr BLEWETT —I thank the honourable member for Forde for her question. I assure her that the rumours, which I have also heard, are without foundation. Indeed, the reverse is true, given that the SAAP funding for all services in Queensland is expected to increase substantially this financial year. Indeed, the total Commonwealth and State new money to supported accommodation programs in Queensland will be increased by $3.325m. This is in addition to the over $10m we are already committed to. In fact, at this point I would welcome signs of growing co-operation from the Queensland Government on this matter. The recommendations for the allocation of these new moneys are now coming forward for joint ministerial consideration. It is expected that approximately 60 per cent of the new money will be for upgrading existing services and 40 per cent for establishing new services in all the sub-programs under SAAP. I am quite confident that women's refuges will share equitably in those increased funding arrangements. Mr BLUNT —My question is addressed to the Minister for Community Services and Health, or his offsider if he is responsible. Mr Griffiths —You ought to know. Mr BLUNT —I do not think that you know. Go and have a look at the toing and froing to see who is responsible. Madam SPEAKER —Order! Address the question to the relevant Minister, please. Mr BLUNT —Madam Speaker, there is some confusion in the Government as to who is responsible-- Madam SPEAKER —Just put the question to the Minister whom you wish to answer. Mr BLUNT —Is the Minister aware of a speech by Dr Alan Moran, the Director of the Government's Business Regulation Review Unit, to the Association of Child Care, in which, agreeing with Finance Minister Senator Walsh, he said that private child care was more efficient than public child care? Apart from gagging Dr Moran, what action is the Minister going to take in the light of Dr Moran's comments that public child care is overstaffed; the staff are overqualified; the present subsidies are wasteful and encourage overuse, give rise to inequities, benefit only 17 per cent of those designated most in need and create poverty traps; public child care is slower than private child care to respond to shifting user needs; and State governments have overregulated child care? Government members-What is the question? Mr BLUNT —For the benefit of the back bench members, the question is: What is the Government going to do about it? Mr HAND —I have read articles in the newspapers attributed to Dr Moran and I have read newspaper reports of statements attributed to Senator Walsh. The Government stands by its current policy in terms of child care. There is a process for developing policies, and we shall carry out that process within the Government. Mr BEDDALL —My question is addressed to the Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade. I ask the Minister whether he is aware of numerous detentions in Malaysia under its Internal Security Act. In particular, can the Minister assure the House that the security of Australian nationals in Malaysia is not in jeopardy? Mr HAYDEN —We understand that about 90 persons, all from communal groups, have been detained and a number of newspapers closed. Our High Commission has reported in recent weeks heightened communal tension, which has been severely exacerbated by the dispute over the placement of non-Mandarin speaking teachers in Chinese community schools. We believe that we are aware of the principal considerations which prompted the Malaysian Government's decision, but I regret that citizens of a democracy, especially parliamentarians or community leaders, should be held by their government without any recourse to normal judicial processes. I have expressed the same concerns in other contexts. Accordingly, at my direction, the Australian High Commissioner in Kuala Lumpur has made representations to the Malaysian Government over the detention of elected members of Parliament, including the Leader of the Opposition, and the use of the arbitrary powers of the Internal Security Act. The Australian Government recognises fully that internal security and communal issues are entirely matters for the Malaysian Government to manage. They are amongst the sensitive issues which confront any Malaysian government. I sincerely hope that the current difficulties being experienced by Malaysia will be short lived, and that freedoms of the Press and the individual normal to Malaysia are restored. Our High Commission and the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade will continue to follow developments in Malaysia closely. I should say that, to date, developments in Malaysia pose no dangers to Australians living in or travelling to Malaysia. Mr BLUNT —Now that we know that the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs is responsible for children's services, I would like to ask a supplementary question following my earlier question. As a move to private child care will save $70m per annum and enable the creation of 20,000 new child care places, will the Minister immediately, and in the best interests of parents requiring affordable and accessible child care and the taxpayer, shift the 38,900 community based child care places to the private sector? If he will not do that, will he please explain to the House why he can give the answer that he has just given and continue to waste $70m? Madam SPEAKER —The honourable member must ask his question, not debate the matter. Mr HAND —The Government has an excellent record in child care, one of which it is proud. Since we came to office we have more than doubled the number of places to 110,000, compared with 46,000 when the coalition parties were in government. We place emphasis on those in need, not on those who have money, on whom the coalition government placed its emphasis. As to the background information contained in the honourable member's question. I responded to that when answering the earlier question. Mr PUNCH —Will the Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade inform the House of the Government's intentions regarding assistance to the Fijian orthopaedic program? Mr HAYDEN —The honourable member for Barton raised this matter with me and, indeed, expressed his deep concerns about implications arising in this area as a consequence of our suspension of aid to Fiji early last Tuesday morning. I am grateful to the honourable member for having done so. As I pointed out at that time, I did not have the detail of the matter but I suspected, correctly as it transpires, that the employment of six Australian doctors in Fiji was covered by the Australian staffing assistance scheme. Under this scheme the difference between the appropriate Australian salary for a particular professional function and that applicable in Fiji is met by the Australian Government through a direct lump sum payment to the Fijian Government for all such people so employed in Fiji. Obviously that program became a casualty of the general suspension of aid. I should state for the record that it has been said that there has been a severe and most undesirable deterioration in the number of health professionals, and therefore the level of health services available, in Fiji as a result of the Government's decision. This is not correct. My advice is that in excess of 58 Fijian and Indian doctors have left Fiji and there has been a massive departure of nursing personnel. But this was well under way before the second coup. Furthermore, we have been advised by Professor Lander, the head of the Fiji School of Medicine, an Australian, that assistance provided by Australian doctors, although valuable, is marginal in the context of the general disintegration of health services in Fiji. So, the real problem is the conditions obtaining in Fiji and the way in which they were brought about. Nonetheless, the honourable member for Barton is quite correct in stating, in the compelling case he put to me, that there are humanitarian considerations in this matter. I have taken up a proposition that he has put to me. It involves a method by which we can get around our worries about dealing directly with the Fijian Government, given the attitude we have expressed about the way in which it has come into office and our fastidiousness about aspects of our relationship with such a government. I have decided to take up that proposal. The proposal from the honourable member very simply was that the funds provided under the Australian staffing assistance scheme for Australian doctors could be provided to the Fijian Government through an intermediary, such as a non-government organisation. We have adopted that proposal and an offer has been made to the Fijian Government. We look forward to its positive response. Dr WOOLDRIDGE —Does the Minister for Community Services and Health agree with recent statements by the Labor Premier of Victoria, who, when speaking to the Australian Hospitals Association, stated `that the Federal Government's health policies distorted incentives and were not logical, that the abolition of the private hospital subsidy and reduction of Medicare benefits out of hours . . . had placed even greater pressure on the public hospital system, and that Victoria's waiting list was due to the Commonwealth's decision to reduce funding to the States for health care'? How does the Minister reconcile the Victorian Premier's statements with his own assertions that Federal Government policies are not responsible for hospital waiting lists? Dr BLEWETT —I am aware of the statements made by the Victorian Premier on this matter, but I point out that, despite the change in the private hospital subsidies, private insurance coverage rates in this country have remained static over the past 12 to 18 months; that is, they have not been affected by that decision. As most members of the profession are aware, the decision in relation to after hours was aimed primarily at the forms of abuse that were taking place with all night clinics in some of our major cities. For instance, in New South Wales, in a period of two years, those kinds of services had increased by 100 per cent. I believe that thinking members of the medical profession appreciate the decisions that have been made in those areas. Mr SCOTT —Can the Minister for Primary Industries and Energy confirm that the Grafton Research and Advisory Station has been quarantined in the last few weeks due to the high organic chlorine levels in the soils? Can the Minister advise of the number of farms and/or properties that have been quarantined and how many acres this involves? Mr KERIN —I regret that I cannot inform the honourable gentleman as to whether the Grafton Research and Advisory Station has been closed. To my recall, the number of properties that are now under quarantine in the States is of the order of 370. No properties have been quarantined in the Northern Territory or in Tasmania. I think there are only seven in South Australia and over 100 in Western Australia and similarly in Queensland and, from recall, about 94 in New South Wales. Perhaps the Grafton Station is one of those. I have no idea of the acres or hectares involved. Mr HAWKER —Does the Treasurer still believe that the Budget for 1987-88 will remain in balance? Mr KEATING —In the short period after the presentation of the Budget I would say that most of us in this job would think the outcome would be as we predicted. That is the position now. I said in a speech on Friday that, barring some minor shifts in some of the aggregates, if one looks at the broad picture on receipts and outlays one sees that the Budget is running very much according to target at this stage. Mr COURTICE —Is the Minister for Primary Industries and Energy aware of comments by the Deputy Leader of the National Party of Australia that the Government is ignoring agriculture and directing all its attention to so-called high technology industries? Can the Minister advise the House on the truth of such an assertion? Mr KERIN —I have read recent comments by the Deputy Leader of the National Party continuing the long, boring, old National Party tradition of seeking to divide Australia, be it country from city, wage earners from the self-employed, agriculture from manufacturing, or whatever else that Party perceives as suiting its short term political interests. But the speech was to a meeting of the National Party and I think some latitude should be given to such speeches to the party faithful. It is a pretty silly line and I note that the Leader of the National Party also recently said on radio that the Government is totally ignoring mining and agriculture. The fact is that this Government is promoting the development of all competitive industries in Australia. As my colleagues the Treasurer and Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce consistently point out, this obviously includes the so-called sunrise manufacturing industries. But it goes much beyond that. We know that Australia has some of the most competitive primary industries in the world; that is what the Cairns group and all our trade effort are all about. Obviously these industries will provide a large proportion of Australia's exports and economic activity for many years to come. The difference between us and the Opposition is that we are not sitting back and complacently relying on these activities, come what may. I guess that the National Party position could be summed up by saying that wool and gold were good enough for the 1850s and are good enough for now. It is a bit ironic that they are doing all right, but there are other things to life than wool and gold. Unlike our predecessors we are not crushing these industries under an over-valued exchange rate, a double digit inflation rate and perverse pork-barrelling protection. Unlike the Opposition, we recognise that primary production should not be about just producing and exporting bulk commodities-the colonial mentality that has not escaped the Opposition. It should be about quality, marketing and competitive value adding to that production. This means much closer links between the primary and secondary sectors of the economy. Let us look at the record. The currency float benefits all competitive industries-primary, secondary and tertiary. The benefits to agriculture run into billions of dollars. The Government's industry policy approach both enhances industry competitiveness and reduces the assistance burden on other activities. It is under us, not the Nationals, that pricing arrangements for wheat and dairy products have been reformed to encourage quality, production and innovation. It is we, not the National Party, who have reformed the statutory marketing authorities to give them maximum commercial flexibility to improve their commercial effectiveness and we have introduced other marketing reforms. It is no coincidence that under us wool export volumes have increased by over 40 per cent and the proportion undergoing further processing has increased by almost 20 per cent. This perceived dichotomy between manufacturing and primary industry is a figment of the warped National Party imagination. Our policies are benefiting everyone. Let us look at the record. Under us there have been record coal sales, record iron ore sales. Mineral exports are up 53 per cent under us. Horticulture is up 38 per cent. There are record wool prices. We have deregulated crude oil. There are absolute record exports. We have set up the innovative agricultural marketing program. We have set up the Australian meat marketing innovation fund. We have record funding for wool promotion; we have not squeezed it down to $20m as Malcolm Fraser did with his razor gang. We have nearly trebled research funding. As I said, we have reformed the statutory marketing authorities and today we will be debating the Australian Horticultural Corporation. We are looking at further processing-value adding for wool, cotton and leather. We have put together a sugar industry package. We have set up the management investment companies to attract venture capital and we are bringing down the high National Party protection of secondary industry which so thrived under Mr Anthony and the present Leader of the National Party. Do honourable members remember when Mr Anthony came back from the 1977 Tokyo round? His proudest boast was that not one bit of protection dropped for secondary industry. No doubt the honourable member for Parkes was pretty worried about that but he does not seem to say much about that here now. The reality is that we are giving emphasis to all our industries; we are not just sitting back and trying to parrot some stupid old business that everyone likes to hear, regardless of the facts of the matter. Mr HUNT —Now that we have the Minister for Primary Industries and Energy going, I would like to direct a question to him. Will the Minister indicate when he intends to visit Japan for talks on the new beef marketing arrangements for the four years beginning on 1 April 1988 in view of the strong pressures and efforts already mounted by the United States to increase further its share of quota and non-quota markets in that country, obviously at our expense? Will the Minister ensure that the Prime Minister also becomes directly involved at the highest Jap- anese level on this occasion, especially in view of the lesson the Government should have learned from the unfortunate outcome from the 1983-84 negotiations? Mr KERIN —I will be in Japan on the eighteenth, nineteenth and twentieth of this month speaking with Japanese Ministers. The Minister for Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries, Minister Kato, replied to my recent letter on this whole question. With the election of a new Prime Minister in Japan it is expected that I will be dealing with a different Minister. Negotiations and discussions with, and provision of technical papers to, the Japanese are advancing well. Today I met with the Australian Meat and Live-stock Corporation, the Australian Meat Exporters Federal Council and the Cattle Council of Australia to discuss with industry the approach we will take in Japan, leading up to the renegotiation of the quotas. I also point out-and this is common knowledge-that the additional quota of 37,000 tonnes of meat to Japan indicates very clearly that there is a capacity for greater exports to Japan. I will reinforce that fact while I am there. Mr KENT —Can the Treasurer tell the House how it was possible to bring down a balanced Budget in such a short period after inheriting a $10 billion deficit four years ago? Mr KEATING —Madam Speaker, this question is without notice. Mr Donald Cameron —Madam Speaker, I raise a point of order. If a question is based on a false premise in the first place, is it allowable? Madam SPEAKER —The honourable member will resume his seat. He does not have a point of order. Mr KEATING —The answer, in short, is: good management. Nevertheless, it is a very timely question because I can remind the House of the enormous adjustments which Australia has made in terms of its fundamental economic position. Mr Beale —You ransacked the Reserve Bank. Mr KEATING —Here he is-the voice from the oil fields, his oiliness himself. The fact is that in this country all of the major parameters of economic policy went adrift in the early 1980s, up to the recession of 1982-83. With that, of course, came the deterioration in our fiscal policy and in our external accounts. This Government has had to live through the recession of 1982-83, a terms of trade collapse, a currency collapse and now a stock market collapse. Australia has been progressing through that period and adjusting its external position because of very swift action on the part of the Government. In making remedial changes to fiscal policy, we have sought to do so fairly-not to penalise unfairly the ordinary wage and salary earner at the expense of others, but to share the burden of restraint equitably. I think it is that equitable burden of restraint which has made the process of adjustment acceptable to the broad Australian electorate. The fact is that the Government has, principally by cutting recurrent outlays, which have carried the burden-- Mr Tuckey —By putting up taxes. Mr KEATING —Putting up taxes! We cut the former Treasurer's top marginal rate of 60 per cent to 49 per cent and the 46 per cent rate to 40 per cent. The Opposition had the opportunity of doing that by using the oil revenues from Bass Strait, but it chose not to do so. Instead, it spent the revenue. One of the reasons why the external accounts were so heavily in deficit in the early 1980s was that there was a consumption boom. The fact is that the Government, principally by relying on reductions to recurrent outlays and by a sensible and equitable broadening of the tax base with the introduction of a capital gains tax, fringe benefits tax and other changes to the tax system, has now given Australia the chance to have a decent fiscal policy, that is, a decent, secure tax system with the conceptual holes plugged so that we do not have this major haemorrhaging of the base and, of course, a return to the psychology of compliance so that, for the first time in a long period, people are paying their fair share of tax. We have seen an improvement in the tax base plus the Government's exercise of discipline over itself and the States in terms of outlays. Outlays have declined by minus 2.4 per cent in real terms this year following an 0.8 per cent decline last year-the only two consecutive years of reductions in the 35 years that the Commonwealth has been keeping the data. It is because of that kind of discipline that we have seen restraint on outlays meeting, as it has, the growth in the tax base resulting from the sensible but equitable and fair changes that the Government has introduced. In other words, the Government has reduced this disastrous fiscal inheritance from the former Government's Budget deficit of 4 1/2 per cent of gross domestic product, or nearly $10,000m, to a deficit approaching zero simply by doing the hard work of going through, month by month, the line items of Commonwealth expenditure in its expenditure review and budgetary processes. It is because of that line by line assessment of outlays that the Government has been able to pare back programs and very substantially repair Australia's fiscal position. Every time I mention the $10,000m deficit the Leader of the Opposition froths at the mouth. I refer him to the letter prepared by the Treasury under the stewardship of his now spokesman for finance and member of the Senate, which puts the $10,000m up in shining lights. I have tabled that letter on a number of occasions. I keep going over this, because it is true. Over five Budgets we have brought the deficit back to zero. Restraint with equity and with fairness is our game as all the changes on the outlays and the tax side will attest. So it is a very timely question from my colleague. I remind the House again of the good sense and rectitude, and the sympathy, shown by this side of the House. We have been sympathetic in our changes, in contrast to the fiscal recklessness of the coalition. Madam SPEAKER —For the information of honourable members I present a schedule showing Government responses to House of Representatives and Joint Committee reports for the period 8 May 1987 to 29 October 1987. Copies of the schedule are being made available to honourable members, and it will be incorporated in Hansard. The schedule read as follows- Committee Reports...3 November 1987 REPRESENTATIVES 1879 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES AND JOINT COMMITTEE REPORTS Government Responses for the period 8 May 1987 to 29 October 1987 and Outstanding Responses to Reports presented from 1980 Title of report Date Presented Date of Response Response within time specified (a) Aboriginal Affairs (House, Standing)- Return to country-The aboriginal homelands movement in Australia ... 14.5.87 (c) (c) Aboriginal Education (House, Select) ... 26.11.85 nrtd(b) No Aircraft Noise (House, Select) ... 28.11.85 nrtd(b) No Australian Capital Territory (Joint, Standing)- Hospitality in the ACT ... 25.11.86 14.5.87 No Metropolitan Canberra ... 28.5.87 (c) (c) Broadcasting of Parliamentary Proceedings (Joint, Standing)- Televising and radio broadcasting of both Houses of Parliament and their committees ... 4.6.86 nrtd(b) No Provision of sound and vision services in the new Parliament House ... 14.5.87 (c) (c) Environment and Conservation (House, Standing)- Environmental Protection-Adequacy of Legislative and Administrative Arrangements-Second Report ... 27.10.81 nrtd(b) No(d) Hazardous chemicals First Report ... 29.4.82 nrtd(b) No(d) Second Report ... 9.12.82 nrtd(b) -(d) Protection of the Greater Daintree ... 24.8.84 nrtd(b) No Protection of Bungle Bungle ... 28.3.85 26.5.87 No Protection of the Great Barrier Reef ... 12.11.85 1.6.87 No New South Wales World Heritage properties Commonwealth/State administrative arrangements ... 26.11.85 nrtd(b) No Namadgi National Park ... 14.10.86 nrtd No Ranger Uranium-Water Management System ... 16.10.86 nrtd No Fiscal measures and the achievement of environmental objectives 19.2.87 nrtd No Expenditure (House, Standing)- Control of prohibited immigration by the Department of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs ... 13.11.85 nrtd(b) No The Darling Harbour fiasco ... 27.11.85 nrtd(b) No Civil Coastal surveillance Co-ordination ... 3.6.86 27.5.87 No Meteorological Services ... 3.6.86 nrtd(b) No Commonwealth Assistance to the Arts ... 18.9.86 28.5.87 No Telecom's zonal and charging policies in rural and remote areas ... 20.11.86 (k) No Review of the Auditor-General's efficiency audit report into construction project management practised by the Department of Housing and Construction ... 23.3.87 (g) No Foreign Affairs and Defence (Joint, Standing)- Australia and the Philippines ... 20.11.86 nrtd No Disarmament and Arms Control in the Nuclear Age ... 25.11.86 nrtd(h) No A Visit to Papua New Guinea ... 27.11.86 nrtd No New Parliament House (Joint, Standing)- Precincts of the new Parliament House and the Parliamentary zone ... 28.11.85 nrtd(b) No Report relating to the Parliamentary Zone Development Plan and proposed works in the Parliamentary Zone ... 2.4.87 (j) (j) Parliamentary Privilege (Joint, Standing) ... 3.10.84 (i) No Procedure (House, Standing)- Alternative opportunities for Members to concisely address the House (First) ... 23.5.85 15.9.87(e) - Days and hours of sitting and the effective use of the time of the House (Second) ... 29.5.86 15.9.87 No The standing orders and practices which govern the conduct of Question Time (Third) ... 27.11.86 nrtd No Publications (Joint, Standing)- Review of the cost and distribution of the Parliamentary Papers Series ... 26.11.86 nrtd No Transport Safety (House, Standing)(f)- Sports aviation safety ... 24.2.87 nrtd No Notes: nrtd-no response to date (a) the time specified by Government is now 3 months from the presentation of the report-S.Deb. (24.8.83) 141. (b) the Government reported progress in the preparation of responses on 18.2.87. (c) the 3 month period for response has not expired. The dissolution period between 34th and 35th Parliaments has been excluded from calculation of response period. (d) the Government said its commitment to more prompt responses does not apply to reports presented in previous Parliaments-S.Deb. (15.12.83) 3853. (e) response included in response to committee's second report presented on 15.9.87. (f) includes reports of the former Road Safety Committee. (g) Interim response on 2.4.87. (h) Interim response on 17.3.87. (i) Legislation introduced by Presiding Officers (7.10.86, 19.3.87), supported by Government and subsequently passed both Houses. Proposed resolutions tabled in each House. No further action taken to date on resolutions. (j) The recommendations contained in this report were agreed to by resolution of both Houses of Parliament subsequent to the tabling of the report. (k) Interim response on 1.5.87. Sources: Unless otherwise indicated, Votes and Proceedings of the House of Representatives. Mr LIONEL BOWEN(Kingsford-Smith-Attorney-General) —For the information of honourable members, I present the annual report of the Corporate Affairs Commission for 1986-87. Mr KERIN(Werriwa-Minister for Primary Industries and Energy) —Pursuant to section 38 of the Australian Wine and Brandy Corporation Act 1980 and section 63h of the Audit Act 1901, I present the annual report and financial statements of the Australian Wine and Brandy Corporation, together with the Auditor-General's report for 1986-87. Mr KERIN(Werriwa-Minister for Primary Industries and Energy) —For the information of honourable members, I present the resolutions of the 127th meeting of the Australian Agricultural Council held in Sydney on 14 August 1987. For the information of honourable members, I also present the resolutions of the 126th (special) meeting of the Australian Agricultural Council held in Canberra on 5 June 1987. Motion (by Mr Young) proposed: That the House take note of the papers. Debate (on motion by Mr Fife) adjourned. Mr PETER MORRIS(Shortland-Minister for Resources) —For the information of honourable members, I present the annual report of the Snowy Mountains Council for 1986-87. Mr PETER MORRIS(Shortland-Minister for Resources) —For the information of honourable members I present the annual report of the Australian Capital Territory Surveyors Board for 1986-87. Mr PETER MORRIS(Shortland-Minister for Resources) —For the information of honourable members I present the annual report of the Australian Capital Territory Architects Board for 1986-87. Madam SPEAKER —I present the following report of the Joint Standing Committee on the New Parliament House: Report on proposed work in the parliamentary zone; commencement column monument. Ordered that the report be printed. 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 —I do. Madam SPEAKER —He may proceed. Mr HOWARD —During Question Time the Treasurer (Mr Keating), as is his wont on many occasions, misrepresented the fiscal record of the former Government. I say to the Treasurer again that every time he does that, because it represents a misleading of Parliament, the Opposition will correct him. I point out, by way of explanation and in verification of my claim to have been misrepresented because he referred to me by name, that the average increase in government taxation on a per annum basis during the years of the Fraser Government was 3.3 per cent. As a percentage of gross domestic product (GDP), under the Fraser Government taxation collections were 23 per cent. Under the Hawke Government they have been 24.2 per cent. Last year they reached 24.8 per cent. Commonwealth outlays under the Fraser Government rose by 2.1 per cent in real terms. Under the Hawke Government they have risen by-- Mr Cunningham —On a point of order-- Mr HOWARD —No, because it is true you are going to hear it again and again. Madam SPEAKER —Order! The Leader of the Opposition will resume his seat. Mr Cunningham —Under the Standing Orders, in a personal explanation an honourable member may explain the way in which he has been misrepresented. I believe the Leader of the Opposition is debating issues rather than making a personal explanation. Madam SPEAKER —Order! The Chair is listening carefully to the Leader of the Opposition. Mr HOWARD —I repeat that Commonwealth outlays rose by 2.1 per cent per annum in real terms during the seven years of the Fraser Government. They have risen 3.8 per cent in real terms under the Hawke Government. Now they constitute 29.7 per cent of GDP against an average of 27.1 per cent under the Fraser Government. The last deficit of the Fraser Government was $4.4 billion. The first deficit of the Hawke Government was almost $8 billion. Those opposite are the fiscal vandals of all time. Madam SPEAKER —Order! The Leader of Opposition has finished his personal explanation. He will resume his seat. Mr HOLDING(Melbourne Ports-Minister for Employment Services and Youth Affairs) —I claim to be misrepresented in the Hansard report of yesterday. Madam SPEAKER —The Minister may proceed. Mr HOLDING —During the debate on the matter of public importance the honourable member for Braddon (Mr Miles) made the following statement: Does the House remember the 1983 resolution of the previous Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, the present Minister for Employment Services and Youth Affairs (Mr Holding), which raised the hopes of Aboriginal people, but which lapsed and now gathers dust in the Table Office? Does the House remember national land rights? The Government broke bipartisanship and introduced a confrontationist model, only to abandon it when the Western Australian Labor Government looked like being defeated. I seek to correct the record. Any reading of the 1983 resolution will show that it was an endeavour to produce a consensus position and a statement by the Parliament in respect of the rights of Aboriginal people. After discussion with the then shadow Minister and members of the Opposition who were on the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs, it was perfectly clear that even simple assertions about the `prior occupation of this continent by Aboriginal people' would be a matter of contest and would lead to a divisive debate. That left the Government and me in the position that to proceed with the resolution on those terms would not have produced a statement by the Parliament but a statement by the Government. In those circumstances, given the position of the Opposition, it was felt that a consensus resolution was not possible. The national land rights model was not proceeded with for no other reason than an undertaking given by me to the Aboriginal leadership. In discussions I indicated that if that concept did not have the support of the Aboriginal people it would not proceed. It was made perfectly clear by the representatives of the National Aboriginal Conference and the land councils that they were not prepared to support that model. Accordingly, it was not proceeded with. Madam SPEAKER —I remind all members of the House that personal explanations are getting way beyond the bounds of personal explanations. I suggest they tighten them up in future. That refers to both sides of the House. The Clerk —Petitions have been lodged for presentation as follows and copies will be referred to the appropriate Ministers: To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned 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 Beale,Mr Halverson,Mr Kent and Mr Macphee. 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 (electron 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 Ian Cameron and Mr Sciacca. To the Speaker and the Members of the House of Representatives in the Parliament assembled. The petition of certain citizens respectfully showeth that: The Hawke Labor Government's ID Card proposal is the most far reaching and intrusive piece of Australian legislation yet introduced, and that on all the evidence available, it will not tackle in the most cost-efficient and effective manner tax and social security fraud. Your petitioners humbly pray that the House of Representatives, in Parliament assembled, urge the Government to: Reject Labor's ID Card proposal to prevent a gross waste of taxpayers' money and a significant infringement of civil liberties. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Cadman,Mr Cobb,Dr Harry Edwards and Mr Shack. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in the Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of the Lyne Electorate respectfully showeth that: The Hawke Labor Government's ID Card proposal is the most far reaching and intrusive piece of Australian Legislation ever, and that on all the evidence available will not tackle in the most cost-efficient manner tax and social security fraud. Your petitioners humbly pray that the House of Representatives, in Parliament assembled, urge the Government to: Reject Labor's ID Card proposal to prevent a gross waste of taxpayer's money and a significant infringement of civil liberties. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Cowan. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in the Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned Australian citizens shows that: An ID Card numbering system for all Australians would give future governments tremendous power to collect sensitive information and use it against us. Criminal elements could benefit by forging cards and documents needed to obtain them, or by illegally accessing the data in the system. The dangers are much greater than with current systems such as Medicare, as the Australia Card number could link so many different confidential records. The cost to government and private enterprise of implementing the ID Card would be enormous, outweighing any gains. Tax cheats can be stopped more effectively by better checks in the present system. Your petitioners therefore pray that you will reject the Australia Card Bill. As in duty bound your petitioners will ever pray. by Mrs Kelly. To the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in the Parliament assembled, your humble petitioners showeth: 1. The proposed Australia Card will have a dramatic impact on the lives of all Australians. 2. Therefore your petitioners request a national referendum on the Australia Card Bill before the proposal is re-submitted to Parliament. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Halverson,Mr Hunt,Mr Rocher and Mr Ruddock. The Honourable, the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives of the Commonwealth of Australia in Parliament assembled. The humble Petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth concern: About the evil caused by the fact that x-rated videos with their depiction of unnatural sex and often horrible violence, are allowed to circulate around Australia from Canberra. And your petitioners, therefore humbly pray that such circulation be prevented. The laws regarding obscenity in the media should also be revived and enforced. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Ian Cameron and Mr Martin. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned expresses concern that some scientists in Australia are intent on undertaking destructive experimentation on human embryos. This subject was examined exhaustively by the 1985-86 Senate Select Committee on Senator Harradine's Human Embryo Experimentation Bill which received 270 submissions and more than 2,000 pages of evidence. The report of the Senate Committee recommended in October 1986 that the Commonwealth Government make unlawful any destructive experiment which frustrated the development of the human embryo. Your petitioners therefore request the House of Representatives and the Government of the Commonwealth of Australia to: Implement without delay the major recommendation of the Senate Select Committee to outlaw destructive experimentations on human embryos. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Ian Cameron and Mr Ruddock. To the honourable the Speaker and members of Parliament assembled. The humble petition of these electors showeth that as: In Australia, tobacco kills about four times as many people as the total killed by drink, drugs, murder, suicide, road accidents, rail accidents, air accidents, poisoning, drowning, fires, snakes, lightning, and every other known cause of accidental death all put together. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that you will prove your worth with effectual action against the promotion of tobacco. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Kerr and Mr Tickner. To the Honourable the Speaker and members of the House of Representatives in the Parliament assembled. We, the undersigned, wish to register our opposition to the recent introduction of the administrative charge for higher education students because: 1. The annual administration charge will inevitably restrict access to higher education for a range of disadvantaged groups, particularly women, rural dwellers and some low income earners. 2. Students will be deterred from study because of the probable escalation in the charge in future Budgets, prohibiting students ability to plan the long term costs of their education. 3. The charge is ill-conceived and unfairly penalises part-time students, age pensioners and Austudy/Abstudy beneficiaries-who, in many cases have to wait for months for reimbursement of the charge-amongst others. 4. The imposition of the charge is contrary to the education provisions of the ALP/ACTU Accord and ALP policy which states that the party ``will maintain the provision of free tertiary education''. Your petitioners therefore pray that the annual administrative charge for higher education students be immediately withdrawn and that subsequent funding shortfalls be met from general Government revenue. Your petitioners, as in duty bound, shall ever humbly pray. by Mr Baldwin. To the Honourable the Speaker and members of the House of Representatives assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: That we strenuously object to the proposal that many Post Office agencies are to be closed. They provide a network of offices with postal and agency services to residential areas and small communities. They serve a community need and we would be seriously inconvenienced if forced to travel further to purchase postal items or collect parcels. It would be an unnecessary expense particularly for pensioners without their own transport. We maintain that the purpose of Post Offices should be to serve the public for the variety of services they offer. They are a community centre particularly in country areas and if necessary they should be subsidised to retain them. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the House should take all possible steps to prevent the closure of Post Office agencies and that the network should be extended, with the agency services they offer expanded. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Cadman. To the honourable the Speaker and members of the House of Representatives. The petition of the undersigned respectfully showeth that the Fringe Benefits Tax is an iniquitous and unjust impost which will further damage the Australian economy and further increase costs to employers. The Tax will: (1) further increase the level of unemployment; (2) increase the administrative costs and overheads for business and Government; (3) particularly disadvantage small businesses and farmers; and (4) act as a disincentive to those who are the most productive and skilled; and we the undersigned call upon the Government to immediately repeal the Fringe Benefits Tax. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Cadman. To the Honourable the Speaker and members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. This petition of undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth that we strongly oppose the introduction of the `Australia Card' or any other form of National Identification Numbering System. We believe 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 Ian Cameron. To the Honourable the Speaker and members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned citizens, respectfully showeth: That the proposed introduction of compulsory identification cards should be reconsidered and rejected because the proposal: Is not a cost-effective method of reducing tax evasion and social security fraud, and to the contrary, in the form proposed will facilitate such evasion and fraud, Will constitute an unwarranted infringement of individual privacy by the aggregation of a wide variety of personal information of a private matter, Will cause a further large and costly growth in the bureaucracy and burden on the tax payer, and Cannot be guaranteed against misuse for purposes other than for which their introduction is stated to be intended. And your petitioners humbly pray that the problems which identification cards are intended to reduce should be attacked by other more effective methods. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Cobb. To the Honourable the Speaker and members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: That the proposed introduction of compulsory identification cards should not be considered any further, and in the event of it coming again before the parliament it should be rejected because: We do not accept the concept of an ID card as necessary to control social security fraud or tax evasion, It would be an unwarranted infringement of individual privacy and our democratic society, in particular because it being required to work, operate a bank account, enter hospital or enter into any transaction, It would cause a further large and costly growth in the bureaucracy and burden on tax payers, It cannot be guaranteed that the aggregated private information would be not be misused for other purposes, The people of Australia should be fully informed and consulted in a referendum before legislation for any such change with such wide-ranging effect is considered, and We call upon the Government to cease immediately any endeavour to introduce this invasion upon our lives. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Cobb. To the Honourable the Speaker and members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned shows that the petitioners are concerned the the Minister for Health proposes to delete from the Medical Benefits Schedule those item numbers covering the treatment of sun-damaged skin and warts by specialists. They fear that those patients suffering chronically from these problems cannot always be treated successfully by a general practitioner. They protest that they will be financially disadvantaged. They also realise that their problems require early detection and expert treatment, if the petitioners are not to be exposed to increased risk of skin and other cancers. Your petitioners request that the House of Representatives, in Parliament assembled, should recognise our concern and permit the abovementioned items in the medical schedule to be reinstated. 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 humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully shows: We are concerned that- (a) the proposed changes in legislation to unemployment benefit to young people adds to the already ill-conceived and over-bureaucratic welfare system and (b) the abolition of CEP and the inadequacy of other training programs and (c) cuts in funding for education, public housing and other welfare areas mean that young peoples needs are being neglected by the Government. Your petitioners therefore pray that- the Commonwealth Government immediately takes steps to (a) establish an anti-poverty level of income for all young people regardless of whether they are in training, retraining, education, employment or unemployment. The first step in achieving this is the full reinstatement of unemployment benefit for sixteen and seventeen year olds with automatic indexation linked to CPI increases. (b) increase educational opportunities for all young people. The first step in achieving this would be to create 120,000 new places in higher and further education. This would make up for the 100,000 people turned away from TAFE courses and 20,000 people from universities and CAEs this year. (c) establish a long term job creation program. The creation of 53,100 jobs for those young people who have been unemployed over 12 months is required immediately. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mrs Darling. 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 sheweth 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 Mrs Darling. To the Honourable the Speaker and members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of certain citizens of Australia shows- We object to the proposal of Telecom to charge for each three minutes of a local call, as we feel this would disadvantage the elderly and people who are unable to leave their homes. The telephone is often the only contact relatives can have to check on the safety and well-being of those they care for. The inordinate time span which elapses between connection to a business premises and speaking, as the caller holds the line or is transferred between departments, would also disadvantage subscribers who can ill afford it. Your petitioners therefore pray that Telecom abandons the proposal to time charge local telephone calls as we believe that the charges Telecom makes at the moment are quite adequate. by Mrs Darling. To the Honourable the Speaker and members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully sayeth. Your petitioners humbly pray that your honourable House direct that the existing 4 (C4) zoning on the Kurnell Peninsula, in New South Wales, be removed and that this be replaced by a zoning more appropriate to the unique ecology of the area and to the historical significance of the Kurnell Peninsula, being the birthplace of the nation. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Dobie. 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 object to the proposal that the Post Office at Gymea Bay be closed. The Post Office serves a community need and we would be seriously inconvenienced by having to travel to another centre for our postal requirements, or even to collect registered letters and parcels, cash Pension cheques and transact banking. Many of us are pensioners and the cost of such travel would be an unnecessary imposition. The nearest Post Office is 2.3 kms away with no convenient transport. We maintain that the purpose of the Post Offices should be to serve the public for the variety of services they offer, and that they should not be closed merely to save money or help Australia Post make a profit. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the House should take all possible steps to prevent the closure of Gymea Bay Post Office. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Dobie. To the Honourable the Speaker and members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. We, the undersigned citizens, respectfully showeth: That we are totally opposed to the introduction of the Government's Identity Card; That this form of national and compulsory identification will be intrusive, costly for taxpayers and business and will not be effective in combating the growing problems of tax evasion, illegal immigrants or social security; That we call upon the Government to improve management systems within the Australian Tax Office and other Departments to crack down on tax evasion and fraudulent practices. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Tim Fischer. 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. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia sheweth that whereas: 1. They are completely satisfied with the design of the existing Australian National Flag. 2. They are aware it properly reflects the immutable characteristics of Australia, namely: (a) The Union Jack, itself the creation of three Christian Crosses, represents the Nation's historical origin and the source of its language and law; (b) The Southern Cross on an azure blue background signifying its geographical location on this planet Earth; (c) The large star depicting the advent of Federation in 1901. 3. They know the Flag has been a source of inspiration to generations of Australians in peace and war. 4. They recall that millions of native-born Australians and newcomers to these shores from other parts of the world have become united under its proud symbolism. 5. They are certain that any change to the Flag will produce division in the Australian community. Your petitioners therefore pray that your honourable House will: Propose and pass a motion that ``the existing Australian National Flag be changed only with the approval of the Nation as expressed in a Referendum''. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Macphee. To the Honourable the Speaker and the Honourable members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia sheweth that whereas: They are completely satisfied with the design of the existing Australian National Flag. Your petitioners therefore pray that your honourable House will: Give a speedy passage to the Flags Act Amendment Bill which provides that the Australian National Flag can only be changed by a Referendum. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Macphee. To the Honourable the Speaker and members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. We, the undersigned citizens, respectfully showeth: That we are totally opposed to the introduction of the Labor Government's Identity Card. We consider that this form of national and compulsory identification will be intrusive, costly for taxpayers and business and will not be effective in combating the growing problems of tax evasion, illegal immigrants or social security. We therefore ask the House to take action to prevent the implementation of this legislation. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr McVeigh. To the Honourable Speaker and members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully sheweth that: The decision by the Department of Defence to close down the Macksville Sub-section of 41 Battalion, Australia Army Reserve, is of grave concern to the unit members and citizens of the surrounding districts. The decision to direct unit members to Coffs Harbour, some 60 km distant, would impose sufficient hardship to prevent many continuing in the reserve and be a major deterrent to potential members. Your petitioners humbly pray that the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled urge the Parliament to: Intervene to stop the proposed closure and sale of land at Wallace Street, Macksville, and initiate action to have a permanent Depot built on the Army's Macksville land. 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: The Government by persisting with the Australia Card Bill has wilfully rejected the advice and recommendations of the Parliament of the Commonwealth of Australia's `Joint Select Committee on an Australia Card' which unequivocally rejected the Government's proposal in these words: `The majority believes the creation of a new bureaucracy of 2000 public servants within the HIC [Health Insurance Commission], with the sole task of identifying every man, woman and child in Australia, is a wasteful exercise which will not address the problems of tax evasion and social security fraud but will provide the mechanism by which the very fabric of our society will be irreversibly altered, opening the way for the greatest attack on the privacy of individuals as the `Identity Bureau' identifies, monitors, and updates information on every person in Australia.' (Report, 4.55, page 148) Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Government now withdraw the Bill as being contrary to the Common Law and traditional freedoms we have hitherto enjoyed in Australia, and should the Bill be nevertheless re-introduced, that the members of the House without regard for party should unanimously reject the Australia Card Bill as being contrary to our personal liberties and the national interest. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Rocher. To the Honourable the Speaker and members of the House of Representatives of the Parliament of Australia assembled. We, the undersigned, being appalled that the Government has set no penalty for the possession of child pornography, and has set no penalty for importing unclassified child pornography, do ask that Parliament urgently legislate to: Make the importation of child pornography, and the possession of child pornography, and all tapes and goods banned by Customs, to be a criminal offence, with deterrent penalties, and Close the Customs barriers to pornography in the A.C.T., in respect of X rated videos, (and ER) and end the shameful Canberra trade, and the Mafia connections. Because 98 per cent of Australians in other States have banned X rated videos . . . Because the trade is still flourishing, and its availability escalates sexual crime . . . Because importers of child pornography face only a fine for lying . . . Because child pornography pedlars are safe if they cross a border, and cannot be extradited for a summary offence . . . Because anyone can have these tapes in their possession for private use . . . Because the Government does not intervene in that. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that you will give this matter earnest consideration, and your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Rocher. To the Honourable the Speaker and members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The 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. We, the undersigned, call on the Federal Government to give notice to terminate the lease of the US base at Pine Gap before October 1986. We believe that in the interests of world peace and the Australian people, this lease should be terminated and the base closed because Pine Gap is a spy base and a war base: Since it was opened in 1969, it has eavesdropped on Australian telephone and telex communications. Information obtained in this way was used by the CIA to destabilise the Whitlam Government in late 1975. It provides communications facilities for CIA activity in countries throughout the world, much of which is connected with overthrowing other country's governments. Last year it became clear Pine Gap was spying on Greece. The electronic and photographic information its satellites receive is used to select nuclear targets in the territory of the Soviet Union and its allies. Many US military activities short of nuclear war are also co-ordinated by Pine Gap. These include the war against Vietnam and the invasion of Lebanon by US marines in 1984. Pine Gap spends only a tiny percentage of its time monitoring arms control agreements, and even then the data gathered is so top-secret Australia has no access to it. Pine Gap's role will be expanded under Reagan's Star Wars scheme to extend the arms race to outer space, threatening the existence of our planet. by Mr Tickner. To the Honourable the Speaker and the Members of the House of Representatives of the Commonwealth in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: That they oppose the construction of any additional nuclear reactor at the Australian Atomic Energy establishment at Lucas Heights in N.S.W., or any site within Australia. Your petitioners therefore pray that the Government of Australia will not construct an additional nuclear reactor at Lucas Heights or within Australia. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Tickner. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth- That the number of hours of English language tuition for migrants and refugees has been reduced in South Australia. Your Petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs re-instate English language tuition hours for migrants and refugees to their previous levels. Your Petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Young. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Richmond electorate respectfully showeth that: 1. We the undersigned are totally opposed to the introduction of a $2.00 fee on prescription drugs for pensioners; 2. The impact of such a fee will be particularly felt by the chronically ill elderly who will be faced with a $2.00 burden with the purchase of each Pharmaceutical Benefit Scheme drug; Your petitioners humbly pray that the House of Representatives, in Parliament assembled, urge the Government to: Ensure that prescription drugs continue to be provided to the pensioner population without the $2.00 fee on each prescription. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Blunt. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Richmond electorate respectfully showeth that: The Hawke Labor Government's Industrial Relations Bill will increase industrial disputation, bankrupt companies, and give the union movement total and absolute power over the Australian community. Your petitioners humbly pray that the House of Representatives, in Parliament assembled, urge the Government to: Reject Labor's Industrial Relations Bill to save Australia from the actions of militant unions and give our economy a chance of recovering. 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 Maranoa respectfully showeth that: Any proposals to time local telephone calls gravely concerns all country people. Isolation and communication was the second biggest problems facing rural women according to the ``Survey of Rural Women'' questionnaire and any attempt at timing local calls will add to this problem, not decrease it. Your petitioners humbly pray that the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled, urge the Parliament to: Ensure that Telecom do not proceed with the timing of local telephone calls. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Ian Cameron. Petitions received. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) -Madam Speaker has received a letter from the honourable member for Richmond (Mr Blunt) proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion, namely: Labor's inefficient and wasteful child care policy. 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 BLUNT(Richmond)(4.00) —Child care is a very important issue. Some people may say in the context of the current financial crisis that it perhaps is not important, but let me assure honourable members that to those Australian families who need child care and who rely on child care it is very important. It is also very important to the proceedings of this Parliament because it illustrates just about every fault that besets this Government. It illustrates its administrative incompetence in the way it runs the child care system in Australia. In this area we see example after example of the administrative failings of the Hawke Labor Government which gives the lie to the myth that this is supposed to be the best government since the war. I propose to go through, in some detail, the administrative arrangements and the faults that exist within that administration for child care. Then I propose to illustrate to the House and to those people listening how those administrative failures, inconsistencies, inequities and inefficiencies translate into a gross waste of public funds. It is not just those on this side of the House who have found fault with the Government's child-care policy-it began some time ago. A former Minister for Community Services, Senator Grimes, used to talk about gold-plated child care for the privileged few and no access for the majority. A more recent criticism was made by the well-known Minister for Finance, Senator Walsh, who said that the greatest mistake that was ever made was to take child care out of the private sector. We know what happened to Senator Walsh-he was hauled up in front of the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) and told that he was not to talk any more. Someone else made a similar statement the other day-no less a person than the head of the Government's Business Regulation Review Unit, one Dr Moran. In a very extensive speech, Dr Moran said that private child care was more efficient and more cost-effective than public child care. I will be quoting extensively from his speech later in my remarks. I inform the House that Dr Moran has also been gagged because this Government does not like a public debate on policy issues. He has not been allowed to make any further comment after, in the eyes of the Government, his notorious speech. One of the things that Dr Moran said was that if one tries to extend the Government's current system of child care-the current system only covers 17 per cent of people in need-it would have a recurrent expenditure of $1.7 billion a year and would require $2 billion a year in capital funding. Now we know why former Senator Grimes referred to gold-plated child care for the privileged few and no access for the people in need. As I said, it is not just people on this side of the House who are critical of the Government's child care policy; a lot of other people are critical of it too. The criticism arises, firstly, because of cost. It is irrefutable that private child care is cheaper. It costs about $60 a week in the private sector for child care and the average of community-based government sponsored child care is $113 a week. We can quote from the Government's own report, a report prepared by Touche Ross and Co., management consultants, about the cost of child care. It found that the average cost of child care was $106 a week in Tasmania; $119 a week in Western Australia; $107 a week in South Australia; $111 a week in Victoria; and $121 a week in New South Wales. New South Wales is high because of the attitude of the New South Wales Government and we will come to that in terms of regulations later. But perhaps more importantly, in terms of access, we should have a good hard look at what the inefficiency of this system means. Private child care is about $7 a day cheaper than public child care. If the 38,900 community care places were shifted to the private sector, there would be 20,000 new child care places overnight, if the Government recognises that its policy does not work. I believe that to Australian families who are looking for child care that is important. The Minister for Aboriginal Affairs (Mr Hand) in Question Time today said, `We are going to review the policy. We will do something about it in the future'. He is wasting $70m a year. The other problem we have is a question of inconsistency. This Government is busy talking about privatising Australian Airlines and selling off Qantas Airways Ltd because it cannot afford the capital contributions to allow those two public enterprises to expand. Yet this Government has a child care policy that proposes to provide the capital requirements for child care centres. If the Government cannot afford to fund two airlines, how can it afford to fund the capital requirements of child care in Australia? The Left may be happy to win the token issue of child care and let the other two issues go downstream, but it is not rational and it is not consistent. The other matter that is fundamentally very important-it illustrates the inefficiency of this Government-is the Government's inability to manage the system. Touche Ross, which prepared a report into child care in Australia, has said some fairly damning things about the way this Government runs community-based child care. I would like to quote briefly from that report. It is available; it was given to the Government last year. I hope that the Minister has read the report and will do something about it. Point 6 in the findings of the report states: There was no evidence to indicate child care centres incorporated into the regular financial reports any forecast for the remainder of the year. Point 7 states: Accrual accounting was not used generally which led to significant misunderstandings of the current financial position. It is referring to the child care centres. Point 8 continues: No standards exist for the preparation of financial reports for the committee of management. It is stated in point 9: No standards exist for the preparation of the annual actual financial results for the Office of Child Care. That is directly under the responsibility of the Minister. Point 10 of the findings states: No effective system is operational in the Office of Child Care to ensure annual financial reports are received and reviewed. The Office does not even check to see whether the money it hands out is spent effectively. Point 11 continues: The Office of Child Care does not have the level of resources, skills or experience allocated to the regular fiscal review, advice and support for child care centres. I think that is an absolutely gross dereliction of duty on behalf of the previous Minister and the present Minister. For the Minister to get up in this House today and say that he will look at the situation is unacceptable because this Government has been in office for four years. I was talking about the other problems existing under this Government because of its inability to administer the business of government properly. What the Government has done is to cave in to trade union demands. In the same report to which I referred earlier, the management consultants, Touche Ross, go through the regulations affecting child care State by State. I draw the Minister's attention specifically to one classic statement which I shall read from the report: We believe there is scope for cost containment without compromising standards of care; The consultants are saying that if the Government does something about the inconsistent and excessive regulations that exist within the States, there is scope for cost containment. The consultants go further and talk about the impact of trade unions on child care in Australia. Of course, this Government is a government of the trade unions. It does not move a finger without talking to Simon Crean or Bill Kelty. Touche Ross highlighted this, but very politely, in the report when it stated: the present ratio of qualified staff to unqualified staff is higher than would appear necessary. That is the result of a trade union demand, aided and abetted by Government regulation. Touche Ross stated further: Local government sponsorship in Victoria imposed significant additional costs . . . What happened there? Local government unions got hold of child care and costs went through the roof. Touche Ross stated: hours of operation beyond ten per day and weeks of operation beyond 48 involve significant additional staff costs; That is just a euphemism for saying that the unions are ripping the guts out of the system with their penalty rates. They are the problems of the Australian economy. Those are the problems the Government has institutionalised in its system of child care in Australia. It is about time the Government did something about it. Of course, there is another fundamental problem that runs right through the Government's welfare system. The Government cannot target welfare. The Director of the Government's own Business Regulation Review Unit has been critical of that. Basically, he said that fee relief assists only 17 per cent of those designated most in need. Again, we have a situation where the Government is spending money on so-called welfare projects that are not helping the people in need. The Government is perpetuating the system. It is creating middle class welfare and creating poverty traps. It is about time that this Government, which professes to understand welfare, did something to clean up the system, not only in terms of income support but also in terms of program delivery. I would like to quote a little from what Dr Moran said in his Press release: The difficulty with free or heavily subsidised services is how to prevent wasteful usage. The price system does this economically and in a way that all can understand. If we replace it by something else, it requires administration on the basis of a system of rules which often give rise to the sort of inequities and poverty traps which such a system seeks to combat. Moreover, it is often difficult to ensure that measures targeted towards the poor don't end up subsidising the more affluent. I think that highlights the problems that exist- Ms Deborah Brennan in supporting the program has been quoted as estimating that one third of the children are from families with incomes above $32,000- one-third of kids in the Government's child care system come from families with incomes over $32,000 a year- and another third fall within the range of $14,000-32,000! I do not think those families are in need of welfare support in the way the Government intends. What we have is a totally misdirected subsidy. We are subsidising centres and not subsidising parents. Honourable members know that that is exactly the problem. The appropriate thing is to go through and translate these administrative ineptitudes and incompetences into practical administration to see how the taxpayers' funds are wasted under this Government's system of child care. To cite one example in New South Wales, we have a private child care centre that currently has 29 places. It could easily expand to 60 places with no cost to the taxpayer. However, this Government is funding a community based child care system just down the road to the tune of $400,000. The annual interest and depreciation on that amount will be $64,000, recurrent funding will be $51,000, the average annual fee relief will be $72,000 and the parents will have to pay $107,000. Total annual running costs are in the order of $294,000. A private centre which would charge $60 a week could be operating for $125,000 per annum or 57 per cent cheaper. The Government will not have a bar of it. That is a gross waste of money. It is about time this Government recognised that, got away from its potty politics and started an equitable and efficient system of child care. We have exactly the same system in South Australia. We have the example of a private centre with 40 child care places operating at a cost of $64,000. Just around the corner is a comparable centre which was set up for $323,000. In Western Australia there is an example of how the design of such centres can go crazy. I instance the case of a centre that was set up at great cost which has 40 child care places and 58 internal doors. I do not quite know what those kids do all day; probably, they go in and out the doors. However, in that child care centre there are 58 internal doors and 40 child care places. What those children do I do not know. Perhaps the centre is some sort of amusement park. In Queensland we have one centre which is funded by the Government which has 65 places and 23 staff. I repeat: it has 65 child care places and 23 staff-17 full time-which gives a ratio of one staff member to three children. The regulations require one staff member to eight children. That centre still generates a surplus of $40,000 a year. My goodness; how efficient is the subsidy system in operation there? We also have some other examples of how the system goes crazy. For example, one council in Victoria sought funding to establish three kindergartens. The council built one and then found out that there were only 11 kids interested in going to it. That shows exactly how carefully this Government is looking at its payment of subsidies to people who are interested in setting up such centres. What we have is a program designed to benefit the people involved in the delivery of this program and the welfare that goes with it rather than providing a service to those families that are in desperate need of child care. As a classic example of how the welfare professionals are taking over this sector, I instance the case at one centre which has a director, a program co-ordinator, a senior child care person, a mothercraft nurse and three juniors to look after 35 children. If that is not a classic example of the welfare bureaucracy going mad and this Government turning a blind eye to it, I do not know what is. In another child care centre in Queensland there are three staff to look after one baby. If the baby were at home it would have only one mother and perhaps a father at home at some stage to look after it. However, if that baby is put into a government funded child care centre it gets three staff members to look after it. The same centre has eight staff looking after 20 older children. What sort of care ratio is that? As a comparison internationally, in West Germany the child care ratio is 1:25. What the situation really comes down to is that this Government has lost control of the child care area. It is a sop to the left wing of the Labor Party. Rather than making sure that we have the efficient and effective child care services desperately needed by Australian families and making sure they are delivered at the lowest possible cost to the Australian taxpayer, we have a system designed to pander to the ideological needs of the left wing and the militant people who are pushing the left wing around without addressing the real question of why we provide child care and what the objective of that child care service is. The Government has aided and abetted the setting up of this system. It has done nothing to review it. It has received a major report from a respected group of management consultants that made a long list of recommendations as to what should be done to clean up the system to get rid of the inefficiencies and to make sure that the taxpayers get value for money. The Government has sat on its hands for over 12 months. The Government should act now. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) -Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr HAND(Melbourne-Minister for Aboriginal Affairs)(4.15) —I think that most people listening to the broadcast would agree with me that that was a pathetic argument put forward by the shadow Minister, the honourable member for Richmond (Mr Blunt), which was on a par with his normal performance in this place. If one cares to read his long list of appearances in this chamber, one will see that they are all of the same ilk. They are all about putting down any service that attempts to help those in need. Every time he comes into this chamber in his capacity as shadow Minister dealing with social welfare issues he attacks any service that deals with those in need. The honourable member talked about Senator Walsh and Dr Moran. I would have thought that my answer to him in Question Time was quite clear. I implied that people are entitled to make comments as often as they like. This is a free and democratic society. I have not spoken to Senator Walsh or Dr Moran about their comments. As far I am concerned, there is a process within the Government for making decisions and that process will be adhered to. If the honourable member has any questions of Senator Walsh or Dr Moran, he should address those questions directly to them. I notice that the honourable member has a copy of Dr Moran's speech, from which he read at great length. I make it clear that I do not agree with most of that speech. The Government is committed to a child care service which addresses the area of need. It is interesting to note that the shadow Minister's thrust was about the private child care sector. Our view about that is that it does not address areas of need. The private sector is in it for a quid. There is nothing necessarily wrong with that, but the point about it is that the private sector does not look after the underprivileged and in the main does not take children under two. That is not a service which addresses child care. It is a selective service which, if we move to that area and concentrated on that area, would disenfranchise large sections of our community. That is what we are on about. Our policy is directed to people in need. It is clear from our record how successful we have been. I ask people to reflect on this: in 1972, the Liberal Party of Australia introduced a child care policy, and we supported it. It went out of office, and we expanded on the policy. When we came into office the next time round, there were 46,000 places. By the end of 1988, there will be 110,000 places. At that rapid rate of increase, given that we shall be on this side for a long time, I expect that the Government will be able to meet the needs of all people seeking child care services. Our record clearly speaks for itself and shows us to be a government committed to child care services that are fair and accessible to people. The point to make about the 46,000 places that we inherited when we came into office is that the overwhelming majority of those places were created by a Labor government. We know the record of the Fraser-Anthony-Howard- Sinclair-led Government. It downscaled child care to a degree where the people of Australia, I guess, supported us. This neglect in a very important areas was one of the major reasons why they elected us. Another thing to remember-and Opposition members might not know this because some of them may not have experienced it-is that factory workers, people like myself before I came here-- Mrs Sullivan —Do not be glib, Gerry. You said that members over here-- Mr HAND —I am not being glib. I would never be glib to you, Kathy; you know that. I am suggesting that some people over there may not understand that factory workers are not able to afford high cost services and that, therefore, profit-making enterprises such as private enterprise-run places would exclude those people, particularly single people. Mr Blunt —They are $7 a day cheaper. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) -Order! The honourable member for Richmond has already participated in the debate and he shall not continue to do so, except at the appropriate time. Mr HAND —Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. It ought to be clearly understood once and for all that our policy is about people. What you are promoting is a system which you know and for political purposes, those opposite have come in here today because they have nothing else to talk about. They are not game to raise the economic issues. They have not asked an economic question for two weeks. Mr Blunt —What about the research? Mr HAND —I will come to the research in a moment. The honourable member for Richmond talked about a report that was 12 months old and asked when the Government was going to act on it. The facts are that that report, which was about high cost centres, has been acted upon, so the honourable member is out of date again. It is just the same when he argues against the Minister for Social Security (Mr Howe). All his facts are normally wrong and his letters to the editor are always based on inaccurate comment and facts-and he knows it. Mr Blunt —Yours are based on ideology, not even logic. Mr HAND —Do not get so upset. I am trying to be gentle with the honourable gentleman. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —I warn the honourable member for Richmond. Mr HAND —That is right. Warn him, because he is a pain. Mr Blunt —I rise on a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. I find that remark offensive, and I require the Minister to withdraw it, without qualification. Mr HAND —I will withdraw that you are a pain. Are those the words that I have to withdraw? Mr Blunt —That is not the way that offensive remarks are withdrawn in this chamber, under the Standing Orders. Mr HAND —Do you want me to withdraw that you are a pain? Are those the words? I withdraw the words that you are a pain. The shadow spokesman is from the National Party of Australia, but I remind him to address himself to the Liberal Party policy, which, in a document dealing with the Liberal Party's policy on women, says quite clearly that the Liberal Party will maintain Commonwealth funding for child care services. What we are saying here is that the shadow Minister seems to be at odds with the commitment given to the people of Australian by the Liberal Party that it would maintain child care services. I am sure that the people of Australia at the last election-- Mr Blunt —It will provide 20,000 more places. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! If the honourable member for Richmond interjects again, I will name him. I have drawn his attention to this on a number of occasions. We heard from him, we are hearing from the Minister and we shall hear from other people. We will not have a debate across the chamber. Mr HAND —Thank you for your protection, Mr Deputy Speaker. It is difficult to make a contribution. I sat in silence, trying to grapple with the points made by the honourable member, but obviously he is finding what I am saying offensive and is reacting in a very childish way. Let me now return to the remarks made by the shadow Minister about the need to move child care into the private sector. He talked about the high cost of the government scheme and the costs incurred by unions and the cost increases in a whole range of areas. The point of the matter is that one of the major reasons why the private sector is able to come in at a figure of $60-he knows this, but did not say this-is that it does not supply the same sort of service to the community as that provided by the government scheme. For example, in his own State, fewer than 5 per cent of private centres are prepared to take under-twos. The honourable member will agree that it takes more people to look after a number of children under two than it does to look after children around five years of age. That is a cost incurred by the government-funded centres. The honourable member also talked about the cost of the operation of these centres. One of the reasons why the cost is greater is that they stay open longer and therefore they service for a longer time during the day. I am sure that he will agree that that automatically increases the cost, quite legitimately. The private sector does not make these provisions in its service. It does not service the needs of the community. The private sector suits some people, but it is geared to making a profit and therefore, as in all cases, the private sector does not go into areas where it will make a loss. I do not blame it for that. Those in the private sector would not be able to operate if they had to move into areas where they made a loss. So the Government is required to meet the needs of the underprivileged in our society. I refer to such people as sole parents who do shift work, Aboriginal people, and migrant parents and children who require specialist services. But they want to move straight into a privately operated bonanza, where they can rip off and hold captive the poor and needy in our society. Mr Donald Cameron —Rack off. Mr HAND —It is of no use the honourable member saying that. That is an unparliamentary term if ever there was one. Mr Donald Cameron —What, rip off? Mr HAND —What the honourable member just said. I heard what he said; I hope the people of Australia heard it. It was outrageous. Mr Donald Cameron —It was Julian Beale, not me. Mr HAND —If it was Julian Beale, I hope that the constituents of Deakin are listening to the debate and not attending the Melbourne Cup. I hope they heard that comment made by the honourable member. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! Honourable members on both sides of the House should cease interjecting. The Minister should be heard in silence. Mr HAND —I am trying to respond as best I can to the points made by the shadow Minister. The honourable member seemed to attack the trade union movement, which we have come to expect from him. No substance. He referred also to Bill Kelty of the Australian Council of Trade Unions and its President, Simon Crean, but again there was no substance to his attack. He quoted from a report that is 12 months out of date. The report deals with high cost centres, and it has been acted upon by the Government. So two major thrusts of the honourable member's argument have been knocked over straight away. It is difficult to pad out my speech for 15 minutes in response to the argument put forward by the honourable member because he did not have one. He did not have a single argument to talk about in terms of what he would do if ever the coalition parties got to this side of the Parliament. God help us if they do. It is highly unlikely that they will, because the people of Australia are now aware that the coalition parties propose to smash the child care system and hand child care services over to operators who are in the field to make a quid. Some people in the private hospital system will not accept certain types of patients. That is the philosophy that motivates members opposite in the area of child care. However, one particular Opposition member has an outstanding record of speaking out on child care services. The comments I have heard her make in this place have my full support. I hope she does not associate herself with the National Party shadow Minister. The honourable member for Moncrieff (Mrs Sullivan) is smiling, so obviously she agrees with me. The Commonwealth Government invests a significant amount in child care services. In 1986-87 it invested $175m; in 1987-88 it will invest $235m. The shadow Minister goes on about waste. I suggest that he talk to the 110,000 people who benefit from child care services and tell them that the money being spent on those services is wasteful. I dare him to do that, because the response of those people will be clear and direct. The Liberal and National parties are out of touch in respect of child care. The honourable member's electorate provides a good example of why the proposition he puts forward is not in the interests of Australian families, particularly single parent families. Of the six commercial centres in his electorate, none is large enough to come within the scope of the State licensing regulations; none, therefore, needs to employ qualified staff. That is the situation in the honourable member's electorate. On the other hand, all of the community-based services are large enough to require qualified staff. In addition, extra staff, such as an Aboriginal children's service worker, are employed. The honourable member clearly knows nothing about child care, even in his own electorate. The facts speak for themselves. I commenced my remarks by saying that the honourable member is preoccupied with any Government initiative that attempts to alleviate the problems of the poor and the underprivileged. The honourable member's whole purpose in this place, when he comes into combat with the Minister for Social Security or any other Minister in this place, is to knock over any assistance that is remotely earmarked for the poor. The Government is committed to providing a service, holding the sorts of reviews to which the honourable member referred, rectifying the problems identified and acting on them. No doubt we will discover further problems and we will act on those. At the end of 1988 long day care places will total 40,785; family day care centres, 38,859; occasional care, 3,662; and outside school hours care, 26,676. So, by the end of 1988 this Government will have created a total of 109,982 child care places. That is why the people of Australia give us their support. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The Minister's time has expired. Mr DONALD CAMERON(Moreton)(4.30) —The comments of the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs (Mr Hand) caused some excitement on the Government benches, but close examination of his remarks reveals that he has said very little to rebut the attack mounted by the honourable member for Richmond (Mr Blunt), the shadow Minister for Community Services. All the Minister could do was accuse the private sector of indulging in rip-offs and say that those in the private sector who operate in this field are in it for a quid. Mr Hand —They are. Mr DONALD CAMERON —The Minister confirms what he has said. I challenge him to name the private centres that have starved children in their care, refused to change their nappies or their clothes, or refused to put on staff. Mr Hand —Mr Deputy Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Mr DONALD CAMERON —I am not asking the Minister to do it now. He has already made his contribution to the debate. Sit down. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member for Moreton will resume his seat. Mr Hand —As the person responsible for child care services, I take offence at the remark that children at government centres are being starved. I find that very offensive. It is an outrageous claim for the honourable member to make. If he had any decency he would withdraw it because he knows it to be incorrect. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! There is no point of order. Mr DONALD CAMERON —I wish the Minister would clear the wax out of his ears, because I was asking him to name the private centres that indulge in those practices. I did not say that government centres did that. Perhaps that explains why the Minister failed to grasp the points made in the speech of the shadow Minister. The Minister does not understand this aspect of this portfolio. The Minister is shutting his mind to what the dogs are barking. Everybody who has observed what is going on is saying to the Minister that public child care services are too costly to administer and that there is a more efficient way of doing things. We on this side of the House are about providing the most efficient means of administering those services and a means by which more child care services can be provided at the same cost. The Minister said that by the end of next year the Government will be providing 110,000 places. Does the Minister agree with that? He acknowledges that that is correct. I thank the Minister. If the Government continues on its present course, the cost of providing those places will blow the Budget. The Minister accused the shadow Minister of bringing forward old information. One could not find more up to date information than the report brought down on 17 October 1987 by the Hawke Government's Business Regulation Review Unit. That report is only two weeks old. It says all those things that were said in the Touche Ross report. That inquiry was established by the Government's own department to examine what is going on in the provision of child care services. The Minister should open his mind to these matters. He has closed his mind to everything but his own ideological approach. His preference for these government supplied services is costing this country money. If the Government were able to provide the present government sponsored 39,000 child care places at the same cost as the private sector is able to provide child care places, instantaneously it could provide 20,000 additional places with no additional cost to the taxpayer. Mr Hand —That is a false premise, and you know it. It is false arithmetic. Mr DONALD CAMERON —It is not a false premise. The Government's own appointed unit reports that, for instance, New South Wales, the State with the highest cost for staff, is presently in the midst of proposing regulations which will increase costs by 56 per cent to 70 per cent. That, in itself, has been judged a counter- productive move, reducing welfare and forcing parents into arrangements which do not meet their circumstances. The Government's own man and its own unit made these observations. We are asking the Government to realise that it is not providing a service in the most efficient manner possible. In order for people to understand better the way government regulations can affect the cost of providing services we have only to turn to nursing home subsidies. In Tasmania, ordinary care patients receive $38 a day from the Government towards the cost of a nursing home. In Queensland, the cost is $40 a day; in South Australia, $42; in Western Australia, $51; in Victoria, $59; and in New South Wales, $46. The point I am making is that the local government regulations applicable to government sponsored centres have the effect of causing a difference in costs. The costs of providing health care or nursing home care in the various States are different because of regulations, and the same applies to child care. The cost of child care is so expensive under the government umbrella because of the effect of the regulations. According to both reports which have been presented to the Government in the last 12 months, the additional staff and the staff ratios which exist in these centres are increasing the price and the eventual cost. The Government has a policy of providing for a child over three years of age a subsidy of $11 a week and, for children under three years of age, a subsidy of $16 a week. If the cost of the regulations and the cost of the staff ratios are higher in the market-place it means that the consumers will have to foot the bill. The people the Government is supposedly trying to assist will be squeezed out of the system. If the Minister reads the reports which are available to him he will see that they show that the really poor people are being squeezed out of the system. If the Government introduced a voucher system, gave people a voucher to the value of the subsidy that it is prepared to pay now and let them shop around, that in itself would have the effect-- Mr Howard —But that is giving the people a choice. You mustn't do that. Mr DONALD CAMERON —As the Leader of the Opposition has said, it would provide people with a choice, but it would also cause existing service centres to examine what they are doing and aim to curtail costs. The Minister, in his policy, which he is so proud of, has opened his cheque book and said, `Go your hardest. We do not care how much it costs'. By adopting that approach he is squeezing out a lot of people who are now on the waiting lists which exist in various places. While the Minister was speaking, the honourable member for Moncrieff (Mrs Sullivan) mentioned to me that 3,000 single parents and widowed people on the Gold Coast cannot get their children into a centre. Yet this Minister stands up here and tries to force feed us with statements that everything that the Government is doing is going so well and efficiently. All we ask is for the Government to change direction because the system which it currently has in place is expensive and it will not provide all the services that are needed in the community. Finally, if the Government keeps going down this road without examining the situation, the poor people who have to top up the Government subsidy will be forced to pay more and more to meet the difference in the cost between the government supplement and what it costs to run these various centres. The Government should smarten up and listen to what the honourable member for Richmond said because he made a number of very pertinent points which bear examination. Ms FATIN(Brand)(4.40) —I hope that the men and women around the States and Territories of this country have listened to this debate as closely as I have. If they have I think they will be both astonished and appalled at the standard of argument that has come from honourable members on the other side of this chamber. This child care debate and the development of child care programs in Australia have been around this community for 15 years. If the standard of argument and debate is of the level we have just heard from the Opposition I am appalled, and I am sure that the men and women who are listening to this debate are also. Let me briefly address a few of the remarks made by the honourable member for Moreton (Mr Donald Cameron). He talked about 20,000 more places being moved from the government child care centres into the private sector. I simply ask him: Where would they go, who would get them and how would they get that service? I will address that matter shortly. The honourable member for Moreton also talked about local government regulations making child care more expensive. I think he really meant to say that government regulations made it more expensive, or that was his view. I also suggest that, when he talked about the report by Dr Alan Moran, he was really talking about a speech made last week in New South Wales that was reported in the Sydney Morning Herald and has been getting coverage in the last few days. Mr Donald Cameron —That is a report. Ms FATIN —It is not a report; it is a speech. The honourable member for Richmond (Mr Blunt) suggested that it is irrefutable that private child care is cheaper. That is not the case. He went on to talk about average costs. If he averages the cost of the services supplied by the Federal Government he will find that the children's services are not just child care but also out of school care, holiday care and care for special children. When he averages that he may find that they are more expensive, but they certainly service many more children than do the private child care centres. The honourable member for Richmond also stated that the Government does not check the money that is handed to child care centres to see whether it is spent correctly. That is an offence and a slur on all the people working in child care centres in Australia. Those of us who have had any dealings with the men and women who work in those centres would also be offended. The honourable member for Richmond talked about regulation and referred to regulation as mentioned by Dr Moran. I, too, have read Dr Moran's speech and I, too, disagree totally, as did the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs (Mr Hand), with Dr Moran, when he talks about regulation, wants so little regulation that there would be very few, if any, trained child care workers and very little supervision in child care centres, and the market would determine where child care centres were established. I reject, as did the Minister, those suggestions from Dr Moran. I suggest that regulation is absolutely essential in child care because surely that equals safety and quality and it means trained staff. People should not come into this place and suggest that, when our children go into child care centres, they should not have the best possible care. I support the statement of the Minister that there is a place in the child care field for private child care centres but that the centres must make a profit. That is true. Undoubtedly, they have their place in the whole provision of services, but these centres around Australia are providing a service for well-off families. If they were not operating to make a profit that would be foolish indeed. Anyone in private enterprise surely is there to make profit. Many of us in this debate-all of us on this side-do not want to see any of the child care dollars go into private child care because they are scarce dollars, they are dollars that should go into our program that is being targeted to all those in need. The matter of public importance today is: Labor's inefficient and wasteful child care policy. It is difficult if not impossible to compare the efficiency of a program offering the comprehensive, targeted government services with a limited service looking by necessity at profit making. I also address myself to the notion that child care expenditure is wasteful. Child care is wasteful only if it is not necessary. We on this side of the House reject that the Government's policy is wasteful because we know that in every State and Territory of Australia there are hundreds and thousands of families which have been using child care and which are looking for child care and which consider that the whole issue relating to child care and children's services is of vital importance to them and to our community. So I reject out of hand the assertion that the Labor Government's child care program and policy are inefficient and wasteful: we are into high quality, affordable and needs based child care. In the few moments that I have left I wish to say a few things about some of the statistics that are used in this debate. For the interest of honourable members on the opposite side of the House, over 85 per cent of the children's services programs delivered by this Government offer fee relief assistance and they go to families with incomes under $32,000 a year. Ms McHugh —Combined incomes. Ms FATIN —Yes. That is where two members of the family are in the work force and both are out struggling to make ends meet and they have child care for their children. Some 85 per cent of recipients of our child services programs earn less than $32,000 a year, and I might add a very high proportion of the recipients-- Mr Cadman —Each! Mr Hand —Did you hear that? Ms FATIN —Yes, I heard that. What nonsense! I would like to comment just very briefly on a figure that is often used by people who would say that the Federal Government's caring and affordable child care program that we have developed in Australia will be available to only 17 per cent of the children who actually require care. That figure is a nonsense because people reach that figure by saying that if we take all the children from nought to five years of age who have mother and father in the work force or who have a single parent and give them child care it would result in a cost to the Government of around $1.3 billion a year. They extrapolate that argument then to say that if we provided child care for every child in Australia from zero to five years of age it would cost us $3 billion a year. That is an absolute nonsense. No one has ever said that this or any government should supply child care for every child in this country. Many children are at home with their parents on maternity or paternity leave or in other children's services such as pre-schools and some have a parent working at night and the other in the day so there is still one parent caring for the child. The debate has centred around this nonsense figure of 17 per cent. The true figure of the number of children for whom we are providing child care is estimated at 50 per cent of those whose parents are looking for child care in this country. The Government supplies centre-based child care, family day child care, out of school hours care, vacation care, occasional care and special services for handicapped, Aboriginal and migrant children because we care. We are supplying that good, high quality care for the parents who have to be in the work force, who want to be in the work force and who want to give their children good quality child care. That is what we are about on this side of the House. We are not about supplying wasteful and inefficient child care as we have been accused of today. I would like the Opposition to go away and come back with better arguments next time when it is debating child care in this House. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) -Order! The debate is concluded. Bill returned from the Senate with a request. Ordered that the request be taken into consideration in Committee of the Whole House at the next sitting. The following Bills were returned from the Senate without amendment or requests: Commonwealth Borrowing Levy Collection Bill 1987 Primary Industry Bank Repeal Bill 1987 Mr WEST(Cunningham-Minister for Administrative Services)(4.51) —I move: That, in accordance with the provisions of the Public Works Committee Act 1969, the following proposed work be referred to the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works for consideration and report: Fitout of accommodation for the Department of Administrative Services, Chatswood, New South Wales. The Government recently announced its intention to sell the Sydney Commonwealth Centre at Chifley Square and relocate its occupants to accommodation on the fringe of the Sydney central business district or alternatively to major suburban centres. It has also become necessary due to the owners of Australia Square declining to renew leases on portion of that building to vacate that accommodation in stages commencing on 31 December 1987. Staff from this accommodation are also to be located on the fringe of the central business district or in a suburban centre. The Department of Administrative Services has now identified some 23,000 square metres of office space in two recently completed buildings at suburban Chatswood, some 18,000 square metres in the Zenith Centre, a portion of which is about to be occupied by elements of the Australian Taxation Office, and some 5,000 square metres in Help Street. The bulk of this accommodation will be taken up by elements of my Department's New South Wales administration. These elements will include: the Construction Group of the new Department of Administrative Services, the Australian Property Group, Corporate Services, Surveying and Mapping Group, Purchasing and Sales Group, Australian Valuation Office, Australian Protective Services and Internal Audit. Provision will also be made for a regional office for the Department of Immigration, Local Government and Ethnic Affairs. The work involved in the fitout is typical of that which is required to allow occupancy of any leased accommodation. It includes: partitions for offices, conference rooms, interview rooms and the like; alterations to services such as power and air-conditioning to suit specific office layouts; minor alterations to ceilings, walls and floor finishes; work stations-the Construction Group in particular has a high requirement for professional-technical and clerical work stations; joinery to public counters and reception areas; appropriate finishes to executive staff and amenities areas, including necessary services; and vertical blinds to all windows. The estimated cost of this work is $8.9m at October 1987 prices. I present brochures depicting both developments and commend this motion to the House. Mr PORTER(Barker)(4.55) —The Minister for Administrative Services (Mr West) has outlined that this reference to the Public Works Committee follows a decision by the Government to move the Sydney office of the Minister's Department from the central business district to Chatswood. Prima facie, it would appear that if cheaper rent is available in the suburbs and there is no reason for departments, such as the Department of Administrative Services, to remain in the city, there is a case to move them out of central business districts. However, there are a number of concerns that I would like to raise in relation to this reference. We understand that 1,200 Commonwealth employees in the existing Commonwealth Centre were to move to the Parramatta Commonwealth Centre, which is nearing completion. Apparently, that plan has now been overtaken by the Budget decision to sell the Chifley Square building and the fact that some of the Australia Square leased office accommodation is not available for renewal. If we go back in time, the proposal was that 1,200 public servants in the Minister's Department were to move from the central business district area to the new Commonwealth building being built at Parramatta. Again, prima facie, that would seem to be a sensible move. Subsequently, the Government made this decision, `We have a Budget deficit that has blown out; we've got to raise some money. We'll flog off the building in the city but, unfortunately, Parramatta isn't ready, so we've got to find alternative leased accommodation'. The Government has found this building on the North Shore which it can occupy. The first question to ask, of course, is: How much will this change of plans cost the taxpayer? The second question is: What will now happen to the Parramatta Commonwealth offices? Who will use those offices? Of course, the third question is: Would money be saved by delaying the sale of the Commonwealth Centre until the Parramatta office is ready, so that the move from the Sydney central business district to the Parramatta office, as was originally planned, could go ahead? These are all legitimate questions which the Opposition raises and which it would have expected to be addressed by the Minister but which have not been addressed. There are other concerns about the particular building that has been chosen by the Government. For example, is the Zenith building the best building to move to if the Department does have to move in a fairly short period? We understand that the Public Service unions claim that there are other North Shore buildings available which the Commonwealth could have leased which would give the Commonwealth a saving of over $5m in the first year. That is a fairly substantial saving if the unions are right. In fact, the works involved here total $8.9m, so the saving that the Public Service unions are talking about relate to the cost of the works that are needed to make the building to which the Department is moving habitable. It is clearly a contentious move. Members of the Department are resisting it. In fact, I understand they are threatening a full-scale strike this week. The House deserves answers to the questions that I have raised. Some have described this undertaking as the biggest leasing deal ever undertaken in Sydney. I do not know whether that is right. Nevertheless, it is a very large deal and the size of the deal reinforces our concern that, prior to moving and prior to finalising this agreement, the Parliament ought to be advised of the cost-effectiveness of this proposal as against the other alternatives that I have raised. Question resolved in the affirmative. Mr WEST(Cunningham-Minister for Administrative Services)(5.00) —I move: That, in accordance with the provisions of the Public Works Committee Act 1969, the following proposed work be referred to the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works for consideration and report: Construction of State Head Office, Australia Post, Prince Alfred Park Centre, 219-241 Cleveland Street, Redfern, New South Wales. This proposal is to reconstruct Australia Post's Prince Alfred Park premises-the former Redfern Mail Exchange-by demolishing the existing building down to the top of the first floor slab and constructing a five-storey office block. The reconstructed premises will provide accommodation for: the Australia Post State head office administration, regional office personnel, a postal training school, an electronic mail acceptance centre, a regional post office, an engineering workshop and car parking facilities. The building will have a gross floor area of 47,000 square metres and will meet the needs of Australia Post until the year 2000. Relocating the New South Wales head office of Australia Post to Prince Alfred Park is the most economic means of satisfying administrative accommodation needs. The limit of cost of the proposed work is $62m, at September 1987 prices. Obviously, the House will be aware that this is a referral motion. The full details of the project will be provided, as the House has often requested, to the Public Works Committee. When it is in a position to report back after its deliberations, we will then be in a position to debate whether the work is expedient. We will put more and appropriate information before the House at that time. I present the plans of the proposed work. I commend to the House the motion to refer the proposed work to the Public Works Committee, as the House has so often requested that this procedure be followed. Mr PORTER(Barker)(5.03) —The proposal outlined by the Government is the conversion of the old Redfern Mail Exchange into an office block for Australia Post. Regrettably, this expenditure of $62m comes after a long and very difficult period for the Redfern Mail Exchange. I think that the construction of the Redfern Mail Exchange was one of the most disastrous decisions any government has undertaken. It was a building that never worked. Some have called it one of the nation's great white elephants. The goal, of course, at the time was to centralise mail sorting. Unfortunately, industrial relations in the facility made it a disaster. In addition, I understand the design of the building did not help. There was delay after delay in mail deliveries, to the extent that Australia Post decided to decentralise mail sorting, to take it out of the Redfern building and put it into the regions. So the building was left with very little use. The Government is now saying, `It was not built to provide suitable accommodation for offices, for which we now want to put it to use. So we'll have to knock it all down, bar the bottom floor, and reconstruct it at a cost of $62m'. If ever there was an example of a reason for construction being referred to the Public Works Committee, this is one. The Redfern Mail Exchange has been an unmitigated disaster. The role of the Public Works Committee and this Parliament is to make sure that it never happens again. The burden on the Public Works Committee is a heavy one. In this instance I would imagine a lot of work will be involved to see whether this proposal is justified. I have never been in the building and I do not know whether it is possible to convert it into offices without knocking the top off it and replacing it with a new building. They are the sorts of questions I would expect the Public Works Committee to ask the Government to ensure that we make the most effective use of a building that has truly been a disaster. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill presented by Mr Holding, and read a first time. Mr HOLDING(Melbourne Ports-Minister for Employment Services and Youth Affairs and Minister Assisting the Treasurer)(5.06) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. The main purpose of this Bill is to amend the Commonwealth Banks Act 1959 so as to promote the more efficient conduct of the operations of the Commonwealth Banking Corporation and its member banks. The Bill also defines more clearly the relationship between the Commonwealth banks and the Government, having regard to the Government's general policy in relation to statutory authorities, and introduces a dividend requirement for the Commonwealth Development Bank. These measures were decided upon following a major review of the Commonwealth Banks Act by the Corporation and the Department of the Treasury. The review identified those areas of the Act which serve to inhibit the efficiency of the operation of the Commonwealth banks and constrain their competitiveness and profitability. I note that major amendments were made to the Act in 1984 to strengthen the capital base of the Commonwealth banks and provide a more efficient organisational structure. These amendments complement those earlier initiatives and will place the Corporation banks in a position where they will be able to more effectively compete in the banking sector. The main provisions of the Bill were foreshadowed in my Press release of 27 October 1987. Among the significant amendments contained in the Bill are amendments which provide for the expansion of the functions and powers of the Commonwealth Bank of Australia and the Commonwealth Savings Bank. The Bill expands the charter of the Commonwealth Bank and the Savings Bank to enable them to provide a wider range of insurance services where the Board is satisfied this is necessary for them to be competitive with other banks. Under the present Act, they are precluded from providing insurance services except in respect of housing insurance for their own customers. The proposed changes will enable the Corporation banks to provide insurance products similar to those now available from other commercial banks. The Bill will also expand the powers of the Commonwealth Bank and the Savings Bank to include a wider range of banking and investment services. The range of powers listed reflects the activities that other banks are now undertaking following the deregulation of the financial system, including trusts, stockbroking, futures and commodities dealings. Under the present Act, the Commonwealth Bank and the Savings Bank have been circumscribed in their capacity to extend the services they may offer. The powers of the Development Bank have also been expanded to reflect the range of activities it is appropriate for the Development Bank to undertake. The overall effect of these changes will be to ensure that the Commonwealth banks will be on an equal footing with the private commercial banks in the range of services they can offer. The review also focused on the role of the Board and management of the banks and their accountability to the Government. Having regard to the Government's policies in relation to statutory authorities, the Bill introduces a requirement for the Board to prepare and submit a corporate plan to the Treasurer. The plan, which will be confidential to the Government, will define the banks' corporate objectives and give an outline of the policies and strategies to be pursued in achieving them. In specifying objectives, the Board will be required to include reference to financial objectives, including the level of profitability and the rate of return on resources. The Bill also provides the Board of the Corporation with a formal role in the determination of a dividend payment by the Commonwealth Bank of Australia and the Savings Bank. Under the arrangements proposed, the Board will recommend a dividend payment to the Commonwealth having regard to the need to achieve a reasonable rate of return on capital and to maintain capital reserves to meet prudential requirements. The Treasurer will be able to accept or vary the recommendation up to the present maximum of 45 per cent of the profits of the banks. In the 1987-88 Budget the Treasurer (Mr Keating) announced that a dividend requirement for the Commonwealth Development Bank is to be introduced. The Government believes that such a requirement is consistent with the Development Bank operating on a commercial basis. In respect of earnings in 1987-88, the Bill provides for an interim dividend of $6.9m to be paid in 1987-88 and a final dividend payment to be paid in 1988-99. Factors to be taken into account in determining the final dividend payment from 1987-88 profits and in subsequent years will be similar to those outlined above for the Commonwealth Bank and the Savings Bank. The Bill will also give the Corporation greater flexibility in staff management through the repeal of those sections of the Act dealing with appointments, promotions, tenure of office and discipline of staff. These changes to the Act are consistent with the Government's recent initiatives in seeking to improve the efficiency of the public sector by reviewing work practices. At the same time, however, the Bill includes a new provision to ensure that all appointments, promotions or transfers by the Corporation are made having regard to the application of the merit principle. This will require the Corporation to make appointments, promotions or transfers in accordance with procedures that preclude patronage and favouritism and take into account the attributes of applicants to undertake the duties of a position. The Bill also makes transitional provisions to preserve any rights an officer may have when the amendments to conditions of service come into effect. The Bill includes other minor legislative changes which will remove unnecessary administrative procedures and further improve the efficiency of operation and competitiveness of the Commonwealth banks. These amendments include the repeal of part VI of the Act, which sets out arrangements under which the Commonwealth Bank and the Savings Bank may make housing loans available. Such provisions are no longer necessary as both banks have the requisite powers to make housing loans under other sections of the Act. The repeal of this part will also serve to enhance the flexibility available to the Commonwealth Bank and the Savings Bank in developing innovative packages to assist home buyers and will ensure that the Commonwealth banks are on an equal footing with other banks in the range of home lending facilities they can offer. The Bill also repeals that section of the present Act which requires oversight by the Treasurer of the Development Bank's borrowing activities. Now that the Development Bank is operating on a fully commercial basis this requirement is no longer appropriate. In terms of the financial impact of this Bill, the introduction of a dividend requirement for the Development Bank will result in payment of $6.9m to the Commonwealth in the 1987-88 financial year and the Commonwealth should benefit from dividend payments from the Development Bank in future years. Improvements in the competitiveness of the Commonwealth banks arising from this package of amendments should enhance profitability and give rise to increased dividend payments in future years. I commend this Bill to the House and in so doing I present the explanatory memorandum to this Bill. Debate (on motion by Mr Lloyd) adjourned. Debate resumed from 18 September, on motion by Mr Barry Jones: That the Bill be now read a second time. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Ronald Edwards) —Is it the wish of the House to debate this Bill concurrently with the Horticultural Research and Development Corporation Bill, the Horticultural Policy Council Bill, the Horticultural Levy Bill, the Horticultural Levy Collection Bill, the Horticultural Export Charge Bill, the Horticultural Export Charge Collection Bill and the Australian Horticultural Corporation (Transitional Provisions and Consequential Amendments) Bill? There being no objection, the Chair will allow that course to be followed. Mr KERIN(Werriwa-Minister for Primary Industries and Energy)(5.15) —I wish to give notice of certain amendments to be made to four of the eight horticultural Bills before the House. These arise from discussions with representatives of horticultural industry organisations. The main change relates to the deletion of various provisions in the Australian Horticultural Corporation Bill 1987 and the Horticultural Research and Development Corporation Bill 1987 for the appointment of deputies on the boards of the corporations, their selection committees and the product group committees of the Australian Horticultural Corporation (AHC). This procedure is in line with the current application of policies for primary industry statutory marketing authorities and research agencies where emphasis is placed on appointments being made on the basis of the best people available. I propose also to amend the relevant clauses in the AHC and the HRDC Bills dealing with the keeping of separate accounts for the different products to provide that regulations can be introduced to cover the disbursement of any unspent funds provided by an industry should it withdraw from either or both corporations. This is to ensure that the funds would not be used by the corporations for the benefit of other industries. Finally, the industry representations made to me have expressed concern that no industry consultation provisions were made in the current levy and export charge Bills in the process of fixing levies and export charges destined for purposes other than the AHC and the Horticultural Research and Development Corporation. Prior industry consultation would have happened as a matter of standard practice, but I agree with the representatives that that aspect should be covered by legislation. Mr LLOYD(Murray)(5.16) —This legislation creates three new corporations, facilities or structures to assist the development and export of Australian horticultural products. The major organisation is the Australian Horticultural Corporation (AHC), which is the statutory marketing authority, the Horticultural Industry Policy Council and the Horticultural Research and Development Corporation (HRDC). Basically these structures replace the Australian Apple and Pear Corporation, and I refer particularly to the statutory marketing authority. The combination of these three organisations is similar to that of the other statutory marketing authorities put in place by amending legislation in the past few years, with one interesting exception. Yesterday in debate on the Australian Meat and Livestock Corporation legislation we discussed a series of equal employment opportunity clauses. Either tonight or, more likely, tomorrow, we will be debating some changes to wheat legislation, which also includes some equal employment opportunity clauses. Perhaps someone can point them out if I have missed them, but I cannot find any in this legislation. That raises an interesting question as to the bona fides of the Government and what it professes. Also it adds to the argument the Opposition has been putting forward that those sorts of clauses have no place in this type of legislation. The horticultural industry is made up of a diverse series of industries. There are different calculations as to how many different segments there are. It is estimated that up to 40 industries and up to 120 organisations at regional, State and Federal level represent those different types of industries. Horticulture has been a significant exporter for Australia for many years, with the traditional exports of fresh apples and pears and canned deciduous fruit. My area was probably the major exporter of those fruits. The entry of the United Kingdom into the European Economic Community meant a decline in the export of canned fruit and fresh apples and pears. Perhaps the only one of those traditional horticultural industries that has persisted has been the fresh pear sector. Once again, pears are produced in my area. In tonnage, it is probably the most significant fruit exporting region in Australia. I commend the continuing ability of the growers in the Goulburn Valley to produce the finest European style eating pear in the world-the packham. However, we are talking about some exciting new possibilities for horticultural exports-even for apples, the export of which has declined so dramatically. I believe apples suffered, as did many other horticultural and pasture varieties, from the lack of plant variety rights legislation in this country. At last it appears that is being addressed. In addition, in my area-and I presume in other horticultural areas in the temperate climate zone-we are not only talking now about the export of European-style pears but also we are rapidly developing areas of nashi pears, an Asian type of pear which I consider equally delicious and which is more naturally accepted by the people of South East Asia. At long last citrus products appear to have some very good potential for export. I commend also the continuing ability of the deciduous canned fruit industry to maintain significant exports with the development of better packaging and marketing arrangements. Of course, that does not include all the new exciting possibilities for table grapes, kiwi fruit, berries and a whole plethora of tropical fruit varieties. In regard to vegetables, onions are already a significant export, as is lettuce and a range of other vegetable products, particularly to South East Asia and the Pacific. We have a third category, that being nursery products-cut flowers and so on. Everyone in the horticultural industry agrees that there is potential, but there are problems. There is need for greater co-ordination, co- operation, promotion, quality control, freight arrangements and so on. The Australian Horticultural Growers Council, the industry body, has worked commendably as an umbrella organisation in a difficult situation to bring these things together to try to define some policy. It has proposed the need for something similar to the Policy Council which is to be set up under this legislation, and for greater concentration on research and promotion. Meanwhile, the Government has committed itself to the introduction of an umbrella horticultural corporation. I commend the Minister for Primary Industries and Energy (Mr Kerin) and the Government for seriously addressing a way to overcome some of these problems and to promote horticulture both locally and for export. By having an umbrella-type organisation it will be easier to admit other horticultural industries which may not be part of the initial corporation. The entry requirement would be less costly for smaller industries. That concept ran into considerable opposition from within the industry. It was seen to be too embracing. It was considered by the industry to have elements of compulsion. A number of horticultural industries, rightly or wrongly, were quite satisfied with their present status and did not want to become part of this larger corporation. In the face of this sort of opposition the Government backed off. The new corporation will have voluntary admission plus some special incentives-some in industry would call them bribes-to encourage people to join. The major one is the provision of $5.85m over five years to reduce or defray some of the administrative costs that will be incurred by the Australian Horticultural Corporation. There is $1.9m for the Policy Council and a matching grant of $1.25m for research operations. The $1.25m would be made available by the Government, irrespective of whether or not the corporation system was in operation, if those industries obtained agreement with the Government for special research levies. The industry reaction to the development of this proposal has been quite interesting. First of all, there are those industries strongly in favour-and I acknowledge that they are strongly in favour such as the apple and pear industry. However, in a way that industry is having a bet each way because I understand it has also received an assurance from the Minister that if it does not like the more umbrella-type corporation it will receive the approval of the Minister to withdraw from the Corporation, withdraw its funds from the Corporation and have its own special or separate corporation-that is the apple and pear-type corporation-back again. The second very significant horticultural industry in this country that is strongly in favour of this proposal is the citrus industry. I certainly acknowledge that there are two very significant, very important and influential horticultural industries that want to be in the Corporation. A second group is watching and waiting and a number of its members may join the Corporation once it is in operation. Another group, once it was reassured that it would not be required to join the Corporation, became neutral in its attitude and wished it well. Another group believes that the Corporation concept was not the right way to go. It initially opposed the general principle of the legislation. I take it that its opposition now is directed more to detail and it has assisted with some drafting improvements. The Minister has already given notice that he will accept some of these drafting improvements. I commend those organisations for adopting a constructive attitude. They include the Committee of Direction of Fruit Marketing in Queensland. It is an expert and important organisation. I believe it has played a constructive role in determining amendments to improve this legislation. To my knowledge all horticultural industries support the Horticultural Policy Council and the Horticultural Research and Development Corporation but not the provisions dealing with membership of the Policy Council. I will refer to that at a later stage. The Australian Horticultural Growers Council comprises industry organisations that are in favour of the Corporation and the other three groups which have been referred to all the way through this debate. In seeking to improve the legislation it initially put 16 separate issues to the Minister and it awaits the Minister's response in this debate today. However, I understand that the Minister is going overseas and may not be here to reply to the debate. I do not criticise that at all, but I believe it is very important that whoever finally responds for the Government at the closure of the second reading debate should, to the best of his or her ability, give the assurances which the industry in general wishes to have from the Government in relation to unresolved matters of concern. One matter of concern is the fixing of maximum rates of levy for products not covered by the Australian Bureau of Statistics. I understand that there are some difficulties in having something other than the particular formula that has been suggested. The industry is still waiting for an answer on that. The Minister has indicated that one amendment will ensure that any unused levy funds for a particular industry which may withdraw from the Corporation will be safe for that industry. This refers particularly to the apple and pear industries, which have $1m sitting in the Australian Apple and Pear Corporation at present. The Minister has answered the problem about the procedure for the appointment of deputies. But how sure can the industry be about the Government matching voluntary industry research contributions? The industry is waiting for an answer on that. The industry believes that there is a need for additional industry sector representatives on the Horticultural Policy Council. I support that view and will be moving an amendment in committee to that effect. There is a problem with promotion and double levying. There should be a way of putting back into the States from which levies are obtained, if not all the money raised in those States, some proportion of it, particularly when it comes to domestic promotion. This is a matter of concern. Some States believe that they are already well engaged in promotion activities-I refer here to the Committee of Direction in Queensland-and do not want to see themselves in a double levy situation. I acknowledge that it should not be a requirement for whatever is raised in a State to be spent in that State when we are talking about a national attitude to an industry, but I believe there is a reasonable argument for returning at least some of the levy so as to reduce the size of the levy at the State level. The next problem is the reservation of a proportion of the Government's contribution to administrative expenses. Honourable members should remember that that is the $5.85m over five years. The industry is interested in two aspects. First of all, in case there may be later entrants to the scheme, the apple, pear and citrus industries should not take all that assistance for administration. I am not sure whether that is the view of the apple, pear and citrus industries; nevertheless, it is the view of others. There is also a view that the $5.85m should also provide assistance for those who do not join the Corporation but want to avail themselves of the consultancy or fee for service arrangements. That is another area about which the industry is waiting to hear. A more difficult problem is the question of the definition of an eligible industry body and how an industry-other than the apple, pear and citrus industries-is included in the Corporation. The legislation is very vague as to how one actually joins the Corporation. As far as I and the drafting people downstairs can see, there are no clauses which outline the steps to be followed if one wants to join the Corporation. There is merely a vague reference to the Minister determining whether an industry that wishes to join is the eligible industry for that particular variety of fruit, vegetables or whatever it may be. Agreement is then reached on a levy, which is part of the Corporation process. That levy is then gazetted, it is introduced by regulation and that industry is in the Corporation. It seems to me to be too vague a way for the admission of new members. I believe that legitimate concern has been expressed that, although admission to the Corporation is voluntary-I accept that-there are ways in which a significant segment of an industry or a group which would consider itself to be quite a different industry may be forced into the Corporation against its will and forced to pay the levy-subject to the possibility of the use of trading powers, licensing and so forth-if it is classed as being only part of a larger body which is considered by the Minister to be the eligible industry body. The floriculture people in Western Australia are worried that they could be considered part of a larger group-I am using this only as an example-consisting of nurserymen and others. It would be quite proper for those others to say that they want to be in the Corporation and yet the floriculture people do not see themselves as being part of that industry at all. They are quite a separate horticultural industry and yet they may be forced in against their will. This legislation does not include any provision to allow a dispute with an eligible industry body to be referred to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal. Because of that problem I will be moving an amendment on behalf of the Opposition in committee to restrict the membership of the Horticultural Corporation to the apple, pear and citrus industries. That is not a negative attitude to the Corporation but I believe it is an essential safeguard. Further admissions to the Corporation would then be by legislative amendment rather than by regulation. I believe that is a perfectly appropriate and acceptable way and certainly would not restrict the ability of other industries to join the Corporation. Those are the specific questions to which we would like answers. I hope that whoever is replying for the Government, if it is not the Minister for Primary Industries and Energy, can answer those questions. Mr Tim Fischer —Comprehensively. Mr LLOYD —I thank the honourable member. If this cannot be done we will have to review our attitude to moving further amendments when the legislation is before the Senate in order to cover those legitimate concerns. There are a few other questions as well which have been put to me by a number of other industry sections. The first of these matters is a general concern relating to the use of the trading power and the export licence power of the Corporation because they are very restrictive mechanisms. One could argue that under extreme circumstances such power is necessary. I do not disagree with that. However, I do not believe that that is something that should be generally in place because I believe that the private sector should be left to do the actual trading. I understand-I would like confirmation of this because it is important-that the procedure is that the Minister, on request from an industry, will allocate that power and instruct the Corporation in writing either to utilise its trading power or its export licence power. As someone who comes from the major fresh fruit exporting part of Australia I hope that we do not get into quite the same situation we had in the past in relation to the fresh apple and pear export licences. I believe that it is possible to be too restrictive. However, I acknowledge that anyone who has a licence to export should have the capability to do the job properly in order to ensure that what is exported is to the benefit of Australia, not to the disadvantage of Australia and its image as an exporting country. I hope that any talk about State quotas is forgotten completely because when one looks at where the exports come from in Australia one sees that it is absurd to have some sort of formula in relation to the States. Another concern relates to the 65-year age limit for membership of some of the horticultural councils or corporate bodies. This matter has been put to me by one or two people who said that they were not sure how definite this restriction was. I think that some clarification of that age limit is necessary because I think that is a fair concern. I refer also to the assurance given to me-which I would like repeated in the course of this debate-that if a horticultural industry does not wish to participate in the Corporation or, for that matter, participate separately in the Research and Development Corporation, that it will still be able to obtain the matching research funds through, I think it is called, the special rural research fund. In other words, I would like an assurance that that is not being used as any sort of lever to force a horticultural industry to become part of the structure we are talking about in the debate here today. There is a general concern also as to the right way or the best way to assist horticulture in Australia. Today we are really talking about a structure. The success of that structure will depend very much on the personnel who are chosen. There is some industry scepticism in regard to that. I will quote from the very recent Industries Assistance Commission (IAC) report entitled Draft Report on Fresh Fruit and Fruit Products in relation to this matter. The Commission stated: The Commission can see a number of practical reasons as well as good economic reasons which suggest that there are likely to be few benefits from having an organisation to cover the heterogeneous horticultural industries. Nonetheless, if the AHC is to be established then, in the Commission's views, its role should be limited to a few, clearly defined areas. I think that report highlights the different views-I think legitimate and genuine views-on the relative values of having an umbrella organisation with some associated problems concerning bureaucracies, regulations and so forth and the flexibility associated with allowing entrepreneurial ability, particularly with some of the new types of horticulture, to act without restriction while the Government provides assistance with exports in a different way. I must say that I take note of the IAC but I would be less than honest if I did not indicate that in the wheat debate which is to take place later in this place I will not be agreeing with the IAC or necessarily commending it for its comments. However, I still think that that is a valid point the IAC makes. I believe that what the industry and I are concerned about is that the Government has focused its attention for horticultural assistance on this package of legislation. Certainly there has been a long gestation period in regard to these matters and I can understand that there is some frustration. I refer also to the push by the Government-which I fully support also-in regard to the Cairns group and the need to get freer agricultural trade in the world. However, I think that the Government falsely believes that somehow or other it is doing something to assist horticulture and, in particular, that it is doing something to assist horticultural exports. That is not true. I am saying that here and now there are some very important responsibilities and requirements about which the Government needs to do more in order to assist horticultural exports. That is quite aside from matters relating to the Australian Horticultural Corporation, the Cairns group and the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade negotiations, et cetera. One of the most important of the here and now requirements, in relation to which the Government should be giving higher priority, is bilateral access and bilateral trade arrangements so that there can be better access for our horticultural products to quite a range of other countries. That problem falls into two categories. Firstly there is the problem of quarantine. Sometimes that quarantine problem is genuine. I acknowledge that the Government has given some assistance in this regard, however more needs to be done to provide assistance to overcome these genuine quarantine problems. Sometimes the quarantine problems are not so genuine however. In those cases, it is a matter for negotiation. There are also other trade barriers that need to be tackled as well. These need to be tackled harder than they are being tackled at present. Once again, in reference to my own area, I mention Canada and the present formulation of a free trade agreement with the United States. That has the potential for quite an impact on our horticultural trade. Canned fruit could be quite seriously affected. Wine could be quite seriously affected. Apples and table grapes will be banned from export to Canada for the next season unless there is some break through in regard to the difficulties we are facing at present with Canada. I believe that that is one example of where higher priority should be given to a problem of the here and now. The second problem relates to quality assistance. I refer to the problems faced by people at the receiving end of the export process. I refer to the waterfront, shipping and air freight problems which are the biggest negative factors in relation to the quality of exports. They are the biggest negative factors for people involved in horticulture at present. Many very good growers in my area have completely turned their backs on exporting because of the frustration they have faced over the years. For example, we have the disastrous situation of William's Bon Chietien pears arriving in Europe in a condition which was disastrous both for the individual exporters and for the status of Australia. People automatically blame the growers. It is not the growers fault. The shipping companies which operate from this country, in particular those which operate certain routes to Europe and South East Asia, are providing old, unsuitable and unreliable containers which cannot maintain the critical temperature control necessary for those horticultural products. Also the contracts so far have not been good enough to provide any sort of guarantee of a contractual arrangement satisfactory to the exporters. There is a need for quite an investment in new, controlled atmosphere containers. To me that is the single biggest here and now problem facing horticulture in this country. I believe that the Government should be putting far greater pressure on the shipping companies and, for that matter, should be doing something about the problems on the waterfront that hold up these perishable goods. The Government should ensure that we have a good start and encouraging conditions for such exports. I will now move the amendment standing in my name: 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 is of the opinion that there are other more positive and less regulatory ways by which the Government can encourage and assist the horticultural industries''. The honourable member for Wannon (Mr Hawker) will second that amendment. I also give notice of the other amendments to be moved in the committee debate restricting membership of the Corporation to the apple, pear and citrus industries and increasing the grower membership of the Policy Council from five to seven. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Ronald Edwards) —Is the amendment seconded? Mr Hawker —Mr Deputy Speaker, I second the amendment. Mr SIMMONS(Calare)(5.45) —It is indeed a pleasure this afternoon to be able to participate in this debate on a whole package of proposals dealing with the Australian horticultural industry, an industry that is, and has great potential to be more so, a significant contributor to export income. Certainly, an important factor that we need to take into consideration at the present time is the need to increase our export performance. In its whole approach to reform of the statutory marketing authorities, the Government has had this key objective in mind. As a Government we consider that effective and innovative marketing holds one of the essential keys to success and better economic performance by the farm sector. Most importantly, we need to recognise that we must produce produce that is required and demanded by consumers. Moreover, we need to fine tune our products for specific markets. Quality and standards must be emphasised. Development of new markets and products is obviously a major challenge that any Government faces, and it offers an important means by which growth in this industry can be accelerated. I am privileged to represent one of the great horticultural areas of Australia, in that the Bathurst and Orange regions of the central tablelands of New South Wales are very important districts for apple and pear production. A great many other products, including cherries, are also grown in this district and, together with the other important economic base in that area, they contribute quite significantly to the total amount of export income that is available to this country. While there has been, as acknowledged by the honourable member for Murray (Mr Lloyd) in his comments this afternoon, some concern and reservations expressed from time to time by those involved in the horticultural industry, it would be fair to say that, by and large, this initiative of the Government is welcome. I note that, even in the remarks of the honourable member for Murray in foreshadowing and moving his amendments this afternoon, he did not express any great reluctance to accept the concept of a horticultural corporation. His concern seemed to be more about specific elements of that package. I have before me a copy of an article from the Land newspaper of 20 August this year in which some of these mixed feelings and reservations were demonstrated by a number of people throughout the State. I noticed that a couple of quite prominent orchardists in my electorate have some fairly forthright things to say about the need for the Australian Horticultural Corporation (AHC). I have had the opportunity to communicate with a number of individual growers in my electorate and I hope to alleviate some of the concerns that they have expressed about this approach by the Government. I think that, on explanation, many of them have been quite satisfied with the approach that has been adopted by the Government. Some have suggested that funding will be a major problem because of the large number of horticultural products, and others have suggested that, because it costs $700,000 a year to run the Apple and Pear Corporation, insufficient funds will be set aside for the administration of the Australian Horticultural Corporation for the first five years. I do not necessarily accept that but I think that, as a Government, we need to take on board those concerns by individual growers and by grower organisations and, if necessary, to fine tune our thinking on that as we move into this new phase. I am encouraged by one other aspect that was mentioned in that article by a leading New South Wales floriculturalist, a Mr Ben Swane from Swane's Nurseries at Dural and Narromine in New South Wales, in supporting the Australian Horticultural Corporation. I am encouraged, given the comments of the honourable member for Murray specifically relating to the inclusion of floriculture in the Australian Horticultural Corporation proposals, by the fact that Mr Swane says: . . . someone had to put some organisation into the horticulture industry, and because no one else seemed to be prepared to do anything, Mr Kerin's idea is as good as any. He went on to say: There will be a lot of problems if we do not get together. A lot of people are still out there laying railway tracks of different gauges. There is a lot of truth in what Mr Swane said. There are a lot of people who from time to time go about their ways with a great deal of concern for their industry. But at times one needs to take a co-ordinated approach to any industry, and horticulture is no different. In some remarks that I made in this chamber last week in relation to another Bill dealing with statutory marketing authorities, I made the comment that, up until the last couple of years, some of the statutory marketing authorities seemed to have some sort of identity crisis and they were not quite sure whether their accountability was to Parliament, the Government or to the industry itself. To some extent, the fact that the Government has moved towards a flexible approach to statutory marketing authorities has removed a great deal of that uncertainty. As a further step in improving statutory marketing authorities, we propose, in a comprehensive reform of marketing arrangements for the horticultural industry, to make sure that the Australian horticultural industry is part of that total approach to the statutory marketing authorities. We have not had the greatest record when it has come to operating in both our traditional and some of our more recent horticultural markets in recent years. We, as a Government, believe that this is mainly due to the unco-ordinated approach that I have mentioned, particularly when it relates to export sales and taking into account the lack of an appropriate marketing infrastructure for most fresh produce and, to some extent, inadequate quality control, market research and promotion. These are all elements of the approach that the Government is including when it comes to the Australian Horticultural Corporation Bill. It is worth while reflecting on some of the other aspects of the Bills before the House. I note that the apple and pear industry, through a vote of the Australian Apple and Pear Growers Association and the citrus industry, through the decisions of the Australian Citrus Growers Federation, have opted to join the Australian Horticultural Corporation. I congratulate both those organisations on what I believe is a well judged decision to be included in this new organisation. We know that other industries have been considering their place in the future. There is often uncertainty and people want to see just how a new body is operating; so there is, to some extent, a reservation of judgment, wanting to sit back and see how the rest of the industry gets along before they decide to include themselves. While I am encouraged by the decision of these two organisations to join the AHC, I believe that, within a short space of time, they will be followed by other organisations. I think they will appreciate the way in which the Government has approached this whole question of marketing authorities, because we are living in an age when we cannot sit back and hope to produce a crop of apples, pears or anything else, run them down to the nearest port, load them with a `she'll be right Jack' attitude and sit back and think that the world owes us a favour. In recent years we have come to realise that the world does not owe us any great favours. We cannot assume that the world will continue to buy our produce willy-nilly as it has done for years. It is in this regard that the marketing elements of the new Australian Horticultural Corporation will be important. The honourable member for Murray mentioned some of the obvious problems that we, as an island continent, encounter in marketing our agricultural products. We have encountered problems with shipping our produce from Australian ports, both in the quality of the vessels used and the types of containers used. The flare-ups that occur on the waterfront from time to time certainly do not help Australia's reputation overseas. Some encouraging and innovative initiatives have been taken with the assistance of the unions, management and the community generally. I refer in passing to the action of the Port Kembla harbour task force which in recent years has made a positive contribution. For the first time the people of Port Kembla have come to appreciate the difficulties faced by farmers in the western part of New South Wales. People who in the past have adopted a negative attitude towards Australian unionism in particular have been willing to inspect these areas first-hand. Earlier this year I was fortunate enough to participate in a conference held at Orange Agricultural College. That conference provided an opportunity for two major former protagonists to get together and share some of their experiences. If the Australian Horticultural Corporation plays a role in promoting that sort of goodwill in the community, it will be very welcome, because we must acknowledge that we are facing great difficulties in the export of our primary products. With your indulgence, Mr Deputy Speaker, might I touch upon another related matter. Although it is not concerned with the export aspect of the Australian Horticultural Corporation it is a matter of some concern to me. In July last year I visited the Flemington markets in Sydney in order to examine the methods of marketing our domestic fruit. I made that visit following representations by growers in the Orange district. I had heard all sorts of horrific stories about the marketing approach adopted at the Flemington markets. It came as no surprise to me when a recent edition of the Australian Broadcasting Corporation program Countrywide brought to light some of the problems encountered at the Flemington markets. Shortly before that I was told by an Orange orchardist that the price of fruit at the Sydney markets had dropped to about $3 a case, while the price being paid for fruit in stores had remained consistently high. That orchardist went on to say that her fruit is sold in Sydney by an agent, but that the agent does not have to produce to her a bill of sale or to indicate how much was paid for her fruit. She said that a retail grocer to whom she had spoken the week before said that he had never paid less than $20 for a box of cherries in the previous season. But this particular orchardist was receiving less than $5 a box. Those instances relate specifically to the marketing of domestic products in New South Wales, but I expect the same situation applies in many other States. What I experienced from watching the operations of the Flemington markets for a few hours and what I heard first-hand from other people have ramifications for the Commonwealth's revenue base. There is no question in my mind that all sorts of underhand deals are being entered into in the marketing of our domestic horticultural products. As a result, the Commonwealth's revenue base is suffering greatly. A number of honourable members wish to make a contribution to this debate, so I do not propose to take up any further time of the House, except to commend the Minister for Primary Industries and Energy (Mr Kerin) for the initiatives that he has continued to implement in reforming the statutory marketing authorities. Although reservations have been expressed about the Government's approach, I am sure that in time, given the fact that many corporations have been operating successfully for some time now, the Australian Horticultural Corporation will receive a response similar to that received by the red meat marketing authority, the Australian Wool Corporation, and a whole host of other marketing authorities that have been reformed in such an important way. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Hon. J. D. M. Dobie) —I call the honourable member for Wakefield. Mr ANDREW(Wakefield)(6.01) —Mr Deputy Speaker, it is an honour to have the opportunity to participate in this debate while you are occupying the chair. This is the first occasion on which I have participated in a debate under your stewardship. I congratulate you on your elevation to that office. I wish to take up one or two points made by the honourable member for Calare (Mr Simmons). He referred briefly to Australia's domestic market and in particular the Flemington markets. Although this matter is not directly related to the Australian Horticultural Corporation Bill, the concern expressed by the honourable member for Calare has been expressed also by South Australian fruit growers who have been concerned about similar price mark-ups under the South Australian fruit marketing system. The United Farmers and Stockowners of South Australia Incorporated at present is undertaking a survey of that marketing system to establish whether there is any foundation to the criticisms that have been made about the marketing of fresh fruit around Australia. I largely echo the sentiments expressed by the honourable member for Calare. I turn my attention now to the Bills before the House, in particular the Australian Horticultural Corporation Bill. I know that these Bills are of particular interest to you, Mr Deputy Speaker, because of your involvement with the Royal Agricultural Society of New South Wales and the Royal Horticultural Society of New South Wales. I welcome the opportunity to advance in my contribution to this debate the point of view of horticultural bodies throughout Australia. When I was preparing my speech for this debate I was amused to find a quotation in which someone had suggested that `agriculture made life possible and horticulture made life worth while'. By repeating that quote I am not being derogatory in any way of the essential and primary role played by agriculturalists around Australia. In fact, not one of us could survive if primary producers did not play the key role of producing the essential food we eat and most of the cloth we need to clothe us. There has been a particular focus on the essential role of agriculture and in that focusing horticulture has largely been ignored. It has been too easy for us to see horticultural production in Australia in purely domestic terms-purely in terms of the vegetables that are placed on our dinner plates in cooked or salad form, or the fruit that we eat. It has been too easy for us to fail to recognise the impact that horticulture has had on this nation's export earnings. One could say that the fruit and vegetable industry in Australia, particularly in the context of these Bills, has been a Cinderella industry. I was interested to discover that the primary production industries covered by these Bills make up the fourth largest primary production segment of total agricultural production in Australia: horticulture is the fourth largest primary producer. In 1985-86 the gross value of our horticultural products-I am referring to fruit and vegetables alone and ignoring floriculture and nursery stocks-was $1.7 billion. The export earnings from horticulture generally, that is, the fruit and vegetable industries in Australia, exceeded $550m in the 1986-87 financial year. The industries covered by the legislation before the House are industries of real significance and they have a real impact on our balance of payments deficit. Furthermore, they are industries that play a key role in generating employment within the Australian community. There are about 35,000 producers of fruit and vegetables in Australia. Most of those people employ someone on-farm. The Bureau of Agricultural Economics (BAE) has calculated that 61,000 people are employed in the growing of fruit and vegetables in Australia. If we consider that the BAE thinks it is perfectly legitimate to calculate that there is a 3 : 1 ratio in the employment of off-farm to on-farm employees we have 200,000 or up to a quarter of a million Australians who owe their livelihoods to the existence of the fruit and vegetable industries. As has been said by the speakers who have preceded me in this debate, these industries are characterised by their diversity. Probably 170 different horticultural, viticultural and nursery products are available for Australians to buy. This sort of complexity and this sort of diversity makes it very difficult for any one of these industries to have a single goal in mind, particularly in the marketing area. We should add to this the additional diversity and complexity provided by the employment in so many of these industries of people of ethnic origin. Migrants who have come to Australia are now largely involved in owning the properties and in producing the fruit and vegetables that make up the Australian horticultural industry. We get an impression of just how diverse this industry is when we appreciate that a number of different products are involved, a variety of people from different socio-economic and cultural backgrounds are involved and, in addition, the people involved in the industry are scattered around six States of the Commonwealth where, legislatively, effectively they might as well be in six different countries. This diversity has made it very difficult for any one of the products covered by the legislation or likely to be covered by the legislation before the House to have the impact on the market-place that the growers of fruit and vegetables would want. As has been said by the honourable member for Calare, and as was said earlier by the honourable member for Murray (Mr Lloyd), the fruit and vegetable industries of Australia have enormous export potential. Anyone in this chamber who represents horticultural industries or has been involved in horticultural industries would be acutely aware of the rapid growth in exports that has occurred in key horticultural areas. I am conscious in my electorate of the rapid growth that has occurred in the rockmelon market into Japan and the rapid growth in the table grape market that has occurred into the Asian outlets, to name but two products. The Minister for Primary Industries and Energy (Mr Kerin) referred earlier to the fact that there had been a 38 per cent increase in horticultural exports across Australia. The legislation before the House has been introduced by the Government with the intention of bringing together all these diverse industries and helping to co-ordinate them in order to maximise especially the opportunities that they have to penetrate export markets. It is something of a sobering fact to realise that, in the two industries that have already indicated their enthusiasm for this legislation-that is, the citrus industry and the pome fruit industry-there are probably 60 brands of citrus currently finding their way either on to Australia's domestic market or overseas markets, and it has been calculated that there are 40 different packers, using different brands, putting apples and pears on to Australian domestic and overseas markets. The tragedy of that is that while it might be tolerable, but little more, to have this occurring on the domestic scene, there can be little doubt that, on the overseas scene, buyers simply see Australian sellers coming, pick them off one at a time and slowly chip them down to what becomes a scarcely economic price. So the task of the legislation currently before the House is to provide some sort of umbrella, some sort of co-ordination, in what has been a very diversified industry-diversified by the personalities who make it up and by the number of products involved in the production cycle. I think the concept of an umbrella body has other advantages. It provides those growers who have been unable to penetrate export markets with a particular product that would be attractive in such a market with the opportunity to be brought together by an umbrella organisation to ensure that not only the freight is co-ordinated but also the market is aware that there will be the continuity of supply that is so important in keeping export markets alive. It does not take much to imagine a grower choosing to go, for example, into a market where there is a demand for organically grown fruit or, in what has been a topical issue, where there might be a demand for fruit that is entirely free of a particular line of pesticide. The opportunity that that grower would have to put quality products on to an export market will be enhanced by a corporation that can give its imprimatur to his claim that his product has particular characteristics. Effectively, in the horticultural industry we are seeking what has largely been achieved in the wool industry, with something like a woolmark for horticulture, so that some measure of quality control on Australia's horticultural exports can be guaranteed. I was alarmed to discover some comments in a report concerning the sort of fruit being supplied to markets particularly in the United Kingdom (UK). The gentleman who wrote the report said: The out-turn of Australian Williams pears was terrible. A little later in his report, which is dated this year, he said: The out-turn of Australian onions was very bad in many places. In another spot in the report he said: The out-turn of Australian Packham pears was variable, as indicated by the variation in prices. I am sad to say that he said later: The out-turn of Australian apples was also variable. I wish I did not have to go on, but he also said: The out-turn of Australian citrus in Europe up to the present time has been reasonably good but the out-turn of Australian citrus in Jedda has not been particularly good. The first shipment had levels of rot and mould which resulted in a claim being made for $109,000 in compensation. Reports like this simply serve to ruin all that has been done by Australian horticulturalists in the past to develop some sort of horticultural market. What is sought is an umbrella organisation that demands at least minimum standards, and places its mark of quality on the products that meet those standards to ensure that in markets that are developed the purchaser will know that what he gets is top-notch Australian produce. But it would be wrong for me to stand here and suggest either that the legislation before the House can solve the problems I have outlined or, alternatively, that all of the problems are grower-based or packing shed-based. This has already been alluded to by the honourable member for Murray and, I am sorry to say, it was partially avoided by the honourable member for Calare. But we cannot escape the fact that many of the problems facing horticultural products from Australia in overseas markets result from the way that same produce is handled on the wharf. I have stood in the Spittlefields Market in the UK and watched people unpack Australian apples that were square because of the way the cartons had been dropped from the boat on to the fork lift pallets. I watched while the fork lift drivers left the pallets of cartonised apples standing in the rain. Honourable members can imagine that, after a few hours in the rain in the UK, that bottom carton-- Mr Lloyd —You would have soggy square apples. Mr ANDREW —We would have soggy square apples and apples with very unusual shapes, but still bearing the Australian brand. We need some sort of imprimatur that says what we will have Australian produce overseas that is quality produce. The legislation before the House proposes to set up some sort of umbrella organisation which will cover the horticultural industry in three areas. First-much of the debate has been focused on this-it sets up the Australian Horticultural Corporation. It proposes to set up, secondly, a Horticultural Policy Council and, thirdly, the Horticultural Research and Development Corporation. There has been very little controversy about the Horticultural Research and Development Corporation Bill because it follows a practice that has been established in other primary production industries. An amount of $1.25m has been set aside over the next five years to facilitate the establishment of the Research and Development Corporation. The proposal to set up the Horticultural Policy Council has attracted very little criticism from industry because most of the industry is anxious that there be some sort of co-ordination in what is done in horticulture around Australia. As the honourable member for Murray has said, the only area of criticism here has been the concern that individual horticulturalists have expressed that they be adequately represented on the Policy Council. Only last night Mr Brian Clarke, who is the President of the Potato Growers of Australia and who is a constituent of mine, was pleading the case of the potato industry, given the impact it has on the vegetable production in Australia, to have a berth on this Policy Council. Mr Lloyd —The single most important vegetable industry. Mr ANDREW —As the honourable member for Murray has interjected, in his assessment the potato industry is the single most important vegetable industry in Australia. The area of particular focus and the area of mild controversy in the House this afternoon is the funding of the Australian Horticultural Corporation. A number of concerns have been expressed about the Corporation. In my hand I have a synopsis on the Corporation prepared by the Australian Citrus Growers Federation in which it focuses on what it sees as the Corporation's particular advantage. Mr Cope from the Federation has written to his members and I shall quote a few selected segments of his letter. Of the Australian Horticultural Corporation, he said: . . . its prime objective being to assist Australian horticultural industries achieve their full potential in overseas markets . . . The functions of the Corporation are to promote Australian horticultural products . . . The Bill provides the Corporation with powers to operate along commercial lines. It is at that point that we find some difficulty with the interpretation of the Bill by some other horticultural industries. There are those, particularly the Australian Nurserymen's Association Ltd who are anxious that the facility to operate along commercial lines and to be a marketing organisation ought to be used but very warily by the Corporation. Mr Cope went on to explain, as people familiar with the legislation will know, that the Corporation will consist of nine members, six of whom will be nominated by a selection committee which will have been appointed earlier by the Minister. Mr Deputy Speaker, as you will know, there is some anxiety in horticultural industries about ensuring adequate representation on the Horticultural Corporation. The honourable member for Murray has addressed this point and foreshadowed amendments which focus on that issue. I have heard people say, `After all, only 25 per cent of Australia's horticultural producers are interested in this legislation'. I have to say, without being uncharitable, that that is arrant nonsense. It is true that at this time only apple and pear growers and citrus growers have indicated their commitment to this umbrella organisation; but to suggest that the other 75 per cent of horticultural producers in Australia have no interest in this legislation or are opposed to it is quite wrong. The vast majority of that other 75 per cent are sitting on the fence and when the Corporation is up and running they will then assess whether to join it. One need think only of the vast range of horticultural crops which could use this Corporation to advantage to appreciate the number of people who are keeping their options open. Consider the dried fruit people, who have their own corporation and therefore have no immediate interest in this issue but who may be interested at the point at which their own corporation is terminated. Consider the canned fruit people, those who are in nut production, those who are producing exotic fruits and those involved in the production of avocados. Any one of those groups could make use of the legislation currently before the House when they see that it provides them with unique marketing opportunities. I have suggested that the legislation before the House, as the honourable member for Murray has said, has a number of flaws that we ought to be aware of. It is not the sort of legislation that the Opposition would have introduced but it is better than nothing. It ought to be considered in precisely the same context as are the crops that it intends to promote: this legislation should be seen as a seedling which is about to be planted. We have to see whether in the next five years this legislation and the proposals it embraces bear fruit. If the seedling that we plant this afternoon fails in the next five years to bear fruit we in the Opposition will feel compelled to uproot it. But it is our wish that it bear fruit and solve some of the problems that are currently facing the Australian horticultural industry. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Hon. J. D. M. Dobie) —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr MILDREN(Ballarat)(6.21) —I listened with great interest to the comments that were made by the previous speakers and in particular the honourable member for Wakefield (Mr Andrew), who always makes a considered and thoughtful contribution to debates in this House. I hope that he takes care to read the legislation very thoroughly and also to ensure that he is conscious of its intent. Not only is it not an objectionable package of legislation but also it is, of course, legislation which has been developed in consultation with all sectors of the horticultural industry. He made the point that, whilst only a relatively small section of the industry will be represented at the outset on the Australian Horticultural Corporation (AHC), all sectors have been involved and, no doubt, they are very interested. It is a great pity that so many sectors in the industry do sit on the fence. There is so much more to be gained by co-operating at this stage. The Minister for Primary Industries and Energy (Mr Kerin) has stressed all along that the industry really is paramount, that the decisions that are taken within the structure of the Corporation, the Horticultural Policy Council and the Horticultural Research and Development Corporation will be taken only with the co-operation of all sectors of the industry. I recognise that we are probably dealing with a fairly conservative industry but we are living in times in which opportunities cannot be allowed to pass by. We are not living in a cloud-cuckoo-land era when the world is going to wait for us to wake up to ourselves. There are limited opportunities and we must grasp those opportunities while they are available. Not only that, but we are going to have to go out and make our own opportunities. That, of course, is probably one of the major considerations that lie behind the restructuring of the primary industry marketing authorities. I think all members would be aware of that by this stage. The potato industry represents 40 per cent of the vegetable sector and at no stage would its representation on the Policy Council be precluded. It concerns me that people say they need to be represented. They have access. They would certainly be heard. It is a pity that people make that statement, that no one has ever asked them. I stress that, within the membership of the Corporation, participation is voluntary. That is one of the essential characteristics of the restructuring of the marketing authority. No horticultural industry will be forced to become a member of the Corporation. Participation can take two forms. Any national horticultural industry electing to do so may agree to levy itself and become a full-blown member, or it may agree to use the Corporation on a fee-for-service basis. I reiterate: no industry will be forced to join. The shape and form of the new institutions follow the Government's policy of restructuring all of the statutory marketing authorities. In the document entitled, `Reform of Commonwealth Primary Industry Statutory Marketing Authorities', which was released in January 1986, the Government indicated that it wanted to ensure that the bodies were commercially independent and composed of people selected for their appropriate skills. It is a marketing body; it is not a representative body. I would have thought that all those who were concerned with good business would want to ensure that that would be the way in which a marketing body would be structured. It is of great importance for all to realise that, at the board level, members should be possessed of the skills and the expertise that are essential to the development and extension of export activities, and to be the link between the manufacturers and the growers. In keeping with the need to encourage growers to become more conscious of market needs, the Australian Horticultural Corporation will provide information to assist them to develop the necessary link between market and production. As I said, at all levels, the interests of each industry section will be paramount. It must be stressed that no action on behalf of the industry will be taken unless there is general support from the industry sector. At this stage, only two industry sectors of the horticultural industry have indicated a direct willingness to join the AHC. This has occurred following very extensive consultation with all sectors of the industry. Apart from the apple and pear industry and the Australian Citrus Growers Federation, no other body has indicated that it will join at the outset. That does not mean that there are not some who have indicated an actual interest in joining, perhaps, down the line. Certainly, only two at this stage have indicated that they will join at the outset. In regard to the canned fruits industry, the statutory marketing powers of the Australian Canned Fruits Corporation will be extended for one more year, to December 1988. The Corporation will be dissolved in 1989. The Australian Dried Fruits Corporation will be reviewed at a later date, and the question of its merger with the AHC will be deferred until 1988. One of the concerns of sectors of the horticultural industry is the question of autonomy in regard to marketing of their products. It is the intention of the Government that the Corporation become funded by the industry. The Minister has stated clearly that: . . . the consultation and accountability requirements of the Bill will ensure that proper pressures are extended for its cost efficient and effective performance. The Government has also recognised that, to begin with, the AHC will require seeding funds. Therefore, $5.85m over five years has been allocated to get the program under way. In all, $9m will be made available over five years for the Australian Horticultural Research and Development Corporation and the Horticultural Policy Council. It has been a long haul to get the bodies established, so it is pleasing to see that these Bills have been introduced. There can be no justification for leaving these very important industries outside the framework of reform that has formed the Government's policy for all other sectors of primary industry. Sitting suspended from 6.29 to 8 p.m. Mr MILDREN —As I was indicating before dinner, the establishment of these horticultural bodies has been a long time coming. It gives me a considerable satisfaction to know that the restructuring of the horticultural marketing authorities is now taking place. They join the other commodity sectors in having their statutory marketing authorities restructured. At a time when we are trying to ensure that Australian business is well placed to take advantage of what market opportunities there are it is appropriate that this body be placed on the same business basis as the other bodies. There is no justification for leaving these important industries outside the framework of reform. It has been the Government's policy to establish the AHC election. As the Minister for Primary Industry has constantly reiterated, we have a crying need to encourage all of our primary industries to be best placed to upgrade their effectiveness as contributors to the Australian economy. It is just not satisfactory to treat primary industry as though somehow its contribution to the economy has peaked. We recognise that from time to time primary industry goes through rough times. We realise that in the last few years it has gone through very rough times because of the policies and practices of the United States of America, the European Economic Community and the Japanese in particular. Bearing this in mind we still have to work not only to maintain and to improve our position but also, through the expert and aggressive marketing, to find new markets and to pursue the value added possibilities in the commodities already produced. I believe these arrangements are being made in a climate that is not devoid of hope. Certainly, in the last couple of years we have had rough times, but the climate is not devoid of hope. The action of the then Minister for Trade, the present Minister for Employment, Education and Training (Mr Dawkins), and the Cairns group has given us some opportunity to have primary industry put on the agenda at the next round of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade discussions. We have to be somewhat far-sighted and not simply look at what might have occurred in the last few years or what might be the situation at present. We must recognise that there are some glimmers of hope. While difficulties exist there are also some factors which give us advantages. For instance, there is expected to be a reduced rate of cost increases in the industry and in this coming year that would probably be in the vicinity of 3 per cent. This is a vast improvement on the 11 per cent increase in the last year of the Fraser Government. Hopefully, the continued easing of interest rates will also help the rural sector. But the increased competitiveness of our primary industries in the export environment, as a result of the floating of the dollar, makes other actions of the Government that we are discussing today of great interest to the rural community. I would have thought that all sectors of the horticultural industry would have been supportive of those measures that would enhance the capacity of their sector to expand their exports and to improve their domestic commercial operations. I would like to comment on the potato industry, vis-a-vis, the establishment of the Australian Horticultural Corporation. As you would be aware, Madam Speaker, the decision to disband the National Potato Panel and the National Vegetable Panel has not met with the approval of the industry. The National Potato Panel was formed in 1975 to provide a forum for discussion of industry problems and requirements, making industry submissions and acting as a focal point in which co-operative activity with other industry sectors could be developed. It also provided a focus for liaison with government. While the Minister has decided to disband the panel, it is unfortunate that this decision has taken place at the same time as discussions are centred on the establishment of the AHC. I am sure that this is not the appropriate climate to establish the AHC if we are encouraging the potato industry to look sympathetically at the need to join the AHC. Obviously, there will be a continuing need to develop dialogue with the industry if the growers and processors are to embrace the opportunities that are offered by being a member industry of the AHC. The national body-and I assume this is the Potato Growers of Australia; there are a number of bodies associated with this industry-must agree to join the AHC and to strike a levy. It is important that if it is to become a member it must make the decision; nobody else can make the decision for it. This can be legislated only by way of regulation which itself must be passed by the Senate. So at all stages nobody is forcing the industry to make its decision to become a member of the AHC. I believe that the industry ought to look very earnestly at the opportunities that would be available if it joined the AHC. I emphasise that the industry, through its national body, decides these matters. The Minister cannot and, in fact, does not wish to take unilateral action to force an industry sector to join the AHC. On examination it would appear that it is not in the best interests of the potato industry to remain outside the AHC. As I indicated at the outset, given the significance of the potato industry, representing as it does 40 per cent of the vegetable industry in this country, it would probably be able to gain membership of the AHC in its own right, which would ensure that it was having a say in the development of horticultural policy. The services of the AHC as they are put in place should enhance the competitiveness and the marketing opportunities of the sectors of the industry which join it. Another matter that is of concern not only to the potato industry but also to other horticultural industry sectors is the potential that the AHC might have to interfere with the freedom of the industry to control its own marketing arrangements. I want to make it clear that the Minister has written into the legislation specific safeguards against this occurring. The potato industry comprises 40 per cent of the vegetable industry and in certain localities it contributes very significantly to the economic welfare not only of the farmers and their families but also of the economy and the extended local community. This is nowhere, I believe, more clearly evident than it is in the central highlands region of Victoria, particularly the region surrounding my city of Ballarat. From an area of 4,400 hectares between 120,000 to 130,000 tonnes of potatoes are produced, representing approximately $16m to $24m to the local economy. That is a very significant contribution. The processors, McCain Australia Pty Ltd, process 80,000 tonnes of these potatoes. Approximately 300 families are involved directly on the farms with an average of two to three per family working the farm. At the processing and packing end another 300 to 400 people are involved. Regionally, this is an important industry. The honourable member for Wannon (Mr Hawker) also has part of the western Victorian potato industry in his electorate. I am sure he shares that view. Although the Ballarat potato industry is exporting 400 tonnes of seed potatoes and 400 tonnes of fresh potatoes, I believe there is a great opportunity to expand this. I am quite concerned that there is still an untouched potential for exporting this product throughout the South Pacific. Currently our exports go to Papua New Guinea and to Fiji. I believe there is also a great opportunity to export them to Asia. That is a suitable supporting role the AHC would play. The honourable member for McMillan (Mr Cunningham) is a man who knows his spuds. I believe there is some concern within the industry about the continuing control that the industry itself would exercise over its own activities should it opt to join the AHC. I reiterate that at all stages the Minister is concerned to ensure that action will not take place without the co-operation of the national bodies of the industry. For example, should the Board propose to increase the levy for a particular horticultural industry member of the AHC it must report accurately to the Minister the industry's position. Likewise, the industry will also have direct access to the Minister and beyond that to members of parliament who have the final responsibility of approving changes in levy rates. It has to be understood that the AHC is required to act in the best interests of the industry but must be responsive to it within the scope of its charter. This applies also to the marketing powers. The Corporation cannot use the private marketing of the industry. This applies both to export and domestic marketing. Of course, should industry so desire, it can call upon that section of the Bill that would enable the AHC to buy and sell horticultural products and may enter into contracts concerning transport and insurance. I repeat: the non-intrusive and non-coercive nature of this legislation is one of its major features. Madam SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr HAWKER(Wannon)(8.12) —It is interesting to follow the honourable member for Ballarat (Mr Mildren). I detect a certain naivete when he starts talking about farmers and farmers' attitudes to government instrumentalities. I noted with amusement some of his comments. I suppose that is not unusual amongst members of the Australian Labor Party because many of them have great difficulty understanding the farmers of Australia. I noted also his comments about the Government's economic performance. I suggest that they were dominated more by wishful thinking than by any substance or reality. These eight Bills relating to the horticulture industry are an interesting collection of Bills designed to assist the horticulture industry to develop in particular its potential for export. All honourable members would like to see horticulture exports expand dramatically. Tonight I should like to talk a bit about that and about some of the specifics of the Bills. In an interesting speech to the National Agricultural Outlook Conference earlier this year, Mr Kenneth Blashki, the Executive Director of Jet-Pak International Pty Ltd, one of the most successful fresh vegetable exporters in the country and one that has won export awards on numerous occasions, opened his address with one of the most telling comments I have read about the horticulture industry for a long time. He said: The potential for Australian horticultural exports is indescribably large. That is an optimistic note to start on and it shows that, if it can find the key, the industry has enormous potential. As Mr Blashki has described, the potential is indescribably large. The horticulture industry generates revenue of the order of $2 billion, of which of the order of $400m is in exports. No doubt there is enormous potential for increasing those exports, particularly of fresh fruit and vegetables. I believe it is an opportunity Australia ought to be able to capitalise on. Other countries in the southern hemisphere have managed to tap some of these northern hemisphere markets. They are enormous. There are markets in the northern Pacific region and plenty in the countries of Europe. Given the right marketing technique, I have no doubt we can break into them in a big way. It is interesting to note that the growth in the industry has already been dramatic. Another paper delivered to the Outlook Conference shows that the growth of these horticulture industries in the past two years has been very significant. For example, the figures for 1985-86 for some of these horticultural commodities show that the growth figures are indeed startling. If we compare those figures with the figures for the year before, we see an increase in fresh fruit of 43.6 per cent; in fresh or chilled vegetables, 32.7 per cent; in flowers, 33.2 per cent; in dried fruit, 25.3 per cent, although dried fruit will not be involved directly in these Bills for at least another year; in canned and bottled fruit, 26.8 per cent; and in canned and bottled vegetables, 59.1 per cent. Another increase which is very encouraging from the point of view of the citrus industry is the production increase in fruit juice of 56.7 per cent. As the citrus industry is becoming directly involved in the Horticultural Corporation, it shows there is great growth for this industry. As I said, there is great potential for growth for this industry, but there are some handicaps. Before I get on to the handicaps I should like to talk about our efforts so far in penetrating some of these northern markets. They are disappointing. We supply less than one per cent of Hong Kong and Japanese orange import markets. We supply only one per cent of the Canadian import market. Though we supply 16 per cent of Hong Kong's onion imports, we supply only one per cent of Malaysia's. France imports 52,000 tonnes of avocadoes a year and we supply virtually none of them. Enormous markets exist. It is just a matter of unlocking that potential for Australian exporters. I have no doubt we can make very healthy inroads into those markets. One of the major problems we have with exports, as the honourable member for Wakefield (Mr Andrew) has already drawn attention to in his eloquent speech, is that most of the produce leaves Australia in very good condition but, because of incorrect post-harvest treatment, inadequate and poor packaging, delays in shipping or malfunctions of refrigeration in transit, we have a high and expensive incidence of outturn disasters, as they are described. This affects not only our returns but also our reputations as suppliers. Our reputation bears upon the prices we can demand. That statement was taken from the address given to the Outlook Conference by Miss Higgs, the Manager for Food and Basic Products of the Australian Trade Commission. That tells us some of the problems the horticultural industry is facing. They are some of the problems the honourable member for Murray (Mr Lloyd) alluded to in his address earlier this evening. We have to ask whether this set of Bills establishing the Horticulture Corporation addresses some of these problems. Members of the Opposition hope that they will, but we do not rate it higher than that. We are concerned with the way the Government has gone about it. As the honourable member for Murray outlined, the Government has set up some very vague legislation. Despite the fact there are eight Bills in this legislation-and they are very complex Bills-they are still very vague about what they intend to do for the horticulture industry. The aim to set up an Australian Horticulture Corporation is a worthy one and it certainly has some major players involved already-it is going to take over the role of the Apple and Pear Corporation. I would endorse some of the aims mentioned by the Minister for Primary Industries and Energy (Mr Kerin) in his second reading speech when he said: The principal object of the AHC is to assist Australian horticultural industries to achieve their full potential in overseas markets. As I pointed out, we have hardly scratched the surface. The Minister went on to say about the Corporation: In particular it will be able to undertake domestic promotion activities on behalf of horticultural industries and, in this respect, will continue to handle the extensive domestic promotion relating to apples and pears. As I said, the apple and pear industry is one of the major horticultural industries moving straight into the Corporation. The Minister went on in his speech to talk about export trading powers which, exercised sensibly, could contribute significantly to improving our performance, but these powers must also be exercised with a degree of care. The Minister went on to say: These powers are, however, subject to the written approval of the Minister and the Government is firmly of the view that they would be applied only in circumstances where there is general support from the relevant industry. I highlight that point because I think it is important that the Minister define what he means there-first of all, what he means by `relevant industry', and then what he means by `general support'. I hope that in the summing up the Minister, or whoever will be summing up for him, will take those points on board and look into giving us a clear definition, because if there is one problem with this legislation it is that it fails to define clearly where we are going. I would like to highlight some of the concerns of the Opposition. I suppose they could be summed up with the question: Will these Bills achieve what it is claimed they will achieve? The Minister has emphasised that there is a certain degree of flexibility in the legislation. Obviously there has to be because of the enormous diversity of horticultural industries that could be involved if the Corporation proves to be successful. I say `could' because there are two obvious ones in there at the moment; there may be others at a later stage. While it is obvious that this flexibility is needed, it is important that the Corporation not be so flexible that it cannot stand on its own two feet. We do have some concerns in this regard. We were very interested to receive a letter, which has been circulated to all honourable members, from the Australian Apple and Pear Growers Association. This letter describes assurances the Minister had given to the Association, which I very quickly list: The right to withdraw from the AHC if the apple and pear industry found the AHC unsuitable. The right to have a specific Statutory Marketing Authority (SMA) if we withdraw. The continuation of the existing system where by the industry determines its levy. Participation of the AAPGA in selection committees for the AHC Board, specific product group and the Horticultural Research and Development Corporation (HRDC). Consultation between the AHC and the AAPGA on a regular basis. Consultation between the AHC and the AAPGA in the formulation of operational plans. The right for apple and pear growers to determine the percentage of their levy to be contributed to research. If the Minister is prepared to meet all those assurances one wonders just how far he is prepared to go on this flexibility. It may well work out that all these assurances were necessary to get the co-operation of the Association and the growers but, equally, I just wonder where the Minister does stand on some of these things because he really has appeared to want to be all things to all people on this occasion. I will very briefly touch on the Horticultural Research and Development Corporation. As one who has always been very keen to encourage increased research in primary industries, I welcome this development and the legislation that sets up this Corporation. I have no doubt that plant variety rights will be of assistance to the horticultural industries but on its own plant variety rights will not be sufficient, I believe, to develop their full potential. I will give a couple of examples of some of the developments that have occurred overseas recently which show that we really can go a lot further towards improving the quality and diversity of our products. I understand that in Israel tomatoes are being developed that will have a shelf life of approximately a month. Also, Israel has developed asparagus that can grow in saline water and may ultimately be able to be grown in sea water. These are the sorts of developments that could be achieved by proper research. They also show that other countries are a long way ahead of us in some areas. I think we have a lot to catch up. On the question of shelf life, I hope that a balanced view will be taken on the application of irradiation in the horticultural industry because, properly researched, there may be-I emphasise, there may be-potential for using that further. The other matter I would like to touch on very briefly is the problem that affects the quality of our exports; that is, the inability of many of our exporters to get reliable access to transport, particularly air transport. Again Mr Blashki, in the excellent address that I referred to earlier, emphasised the point that in the export of fresh fruit and vegetables, or fresh horticultural products, speed is critical; it is the critical element in the marketing process. Our sea and air shipment facilities can hardly be described as adequate to meet the needs of our export market, let alone cope with any large scale increase. There is obviously a bottleneck there and I hope the Government will be addressing this very serious point. I am rather interested to see the Minister for Land Transport and Infrastructure Support (Mr Duncan) in the chamber. I hope his portfolio responsibilities do not restrict him to just what happens within the nation because there is a crying need for an improvement in some of our transport overseas as well. Mr Duncan —Hear, hear! Mr HAWKER —I am glad to see that he endorses what I have said. In conclusion, I again point out the concerns of the Opposition. The legislation does seem to be rather vague in relation to the Australian Horticultural Corporation. It does have very worthy aims, and the views that the Minister highlighted in his second reading speech would be supported by all honourable members. There is a very mixed reaction within the horticultural industry itself but, as the honourable member for Wakefield has pointed out, this ought to be kept in perspective. I think the big question we are all asking now is: Will the Corporation succeed in its aims? The Opposition will be watching very closely to see how the Corporation performs and will be very quick to review its performance when we get the opportunity in the not too distant future. But I again emphasise that this industry has enormous potential to increase our exports. There are almost unlimited markets from the Australian perspective where we could move in with reliable supplies of good quality fresh horticultural products, particularly fruit and vegetables, especially in the northern hemisphere, in both the northern Pacific region and the European region. With the right transport facilities I have no doubt that we could penetrate those markets and they would make a very significant contribution to our balance of payments problems, which is something that I am sure could be welcomed by all Australians. Mr COURTICE(Hinkler)(8.27) —The horticultural Bills honour a long-standing commitment by the Government to improve the export and research capacity of this important industry. The Minister for Primary Industries and Energy (Mr Kerin) laid the foundation for these Bills with his economic and rural policy statement of April 1986 and the reform of Commonwealth primary industry statutory marketing authorities of January 1986. The Government has provided support for the establishment of the Australian Horticultural Corporation, a horticultural rural industry research fund and a Horticultural Industry Policy Council. The industry employs more than 60,000 people Australia-wide. My own electorate is making a significant contribution to the industry, particularly with plants and cut flowers. Madam Speaker, I am quite sure that you and everyone in the House would be aware of the importance of Bundaberg in regard to tomatoes and particularly rockmelons. It is leading Australia in this field. I commend also the work being done in Bundaberg by Mr Eric Bauer. Mr Bauer is involved in the nursery industry and he believes that plant variety rights legislation will be a boon not only to his industry in general but to the exporting of his product. In passing, I hope that the applications for patenting of nursery products can be handled soon. Nurserymen like Mr Bauer have waited years for this type of legislation and, as honourable members can appreciate, they are keen to get on with the job. I mentioned in the House the other evening the case of the Pennyroyal Herb Farm and Bundaberg seedlings. Ian and Di Walters have carved out a very successful enterprise in this industry. At present $7m worth of herbs is being imported into Australia. I think it would be great if we could turn that around and not only reduce that deficit in imports but also start to become an exporter of those commodities. These local experiences are representative of what is occurring throughout the nation in the horticultural industry. In 1984-85 horticulture had a gross value of production of $1.8 billion, making it the fourth largest agricultural industry in Australia. However, horticultural exports, including those in processed form, accounted for less than 15 per cent of the value of production. Australia is increasing efforts to export horticultural products. In 1985-86 exports had increased to over $400m, about 20 per cent of the value of production. The new Horticultural Corporation should assist the industry to develop its full export potential. It will be run by board members with expertise in business, marketing and production. The Corporation will appoint its own staff, including its chief executive. In the past the industry has had an unco-ordinated approach to export sales. It has lacked an appropriate marketing infrastructure for most fresh produce and inadequate quality control for market research and promotion. One of the most critical aspects for any agricultural industry, particularly in exports, is the need for adequate research funding. Only by adequate research will our products be up to the latest technology and the latest product style. By any definition, the horticultural industry has been underinvested in research. The Horticultural Research and Development Corporation will identify areas of research and development that are relevant to the needs of the industries. I believe it will improve the efficiency and effectiveness of research and will encourage more effective use of the resources and skills available in the community. Producers will have a voice at the strategic level in the operation of the Corporation. They will be involved in selecting the board. The board will be required to consult with the industry in developing its corporate and annual operating plans. Importantly, the board will be directly accountable to industry organisations. Full participation, which entitles an industry to direct involvement, will entail payment of the levy. Total receipts from charges to fund the research will rise as the number of participating industries increases. The Federal Government will match the expenditure of the industry moneys, based on levies, export charges and eligible voluntary contributions, dollar for dollar, up to a limit of 0.5 per cent of the average annual gross value of production of groups of products. Industries not subject to levies may participate by voluntary contributions. It is recognised, however, that voluntary contributions acceptable for Federal Government matching money will be ineligible for the taxation concessions for research and development under the legislation. The Government's economic and rural policy identified a gap in the rural industry research funds going to research in the horticultural industry. I believe that these Bills fill that research hole. The Minister for Primary Industries and Energy deserves to be commended for his engaging commitment to rural research. The total value of research funding by both industry and government has been increased from $44m in 1982-83 to $69m last financial year. I feel that that recognises the importance of the horticultural industry. This legislation, as well as the plant breeding legislation, has placed the horticultural industry in its most competitive position ever. I would like to acknowledge that it is good to see a recognition of the importance of this industry by honourable members on both sides of the House. It is only by maximising our competitiveness in industries for which there are overseas markets that we will be able to turn around our balance of payments and become a more competitive and stronger nation in the world. I would like to see the export of horticultural products carried out from ports in my electorate, particularly as the horticultural industry has experienced a massive growth in my electorate, especially in Bundaberg. Both the cities of Bundaberg and Gladstone have first rate port facilities. Gladstone is easily capable of handling containerised shipping. Such a development would be a boost to employment in the city as well. It would also give producers within my electorate ease of access to facilities for the export of their product. I believe that Gladstone and Bundaberg would be the local areas for exporting horticultural products from central Queensland. I believe that these Bills should be welcomed by the people of Australia. I commend them to the House. Mr IAN CAMERON(Maranoa)(8.35) —It is my pleasure tonight to speak in the second reading debate on the Australian Horticultural Corporation Bill 1987 and its seven cognate Bills-quite a lengthy package of Bills. These Bills were introduced by the Minister for Primary Industries and Energy (Mr Kerin) on behalf of the Government. Of course, the Australian Horticultural Corporation will replace the existing Australian Apple and Pear Corporation. This is a proposal which the growers of apples and pears in my electorate of Maranoa, particularly around Stanthorpe, are not too keen about. The Queensland section of the Apple and Pear Corporation has opposed the Minister's proposal to take over what it has regarded as a good Apple and Pear Corporation which it considered was doing a reasonable job. It is proposed to replace the Apple and Pear Corporation with a larger corporation called the Australian Horticultural Corporation. The Bills which are the subject of this debate encompass matters such as research and the Horticultural Policy Council. The Horticultural Levy Bill proposes the collection of the industry levies. All the horticultural Bills, of course, are concerned with collecting levies from growers in order to continue to provide the services that such corporations and government bodies are set up to provide. I often wonder whether such organisations are worth while in the long run, but we all seem to want them. Unfortunately, our trade imbalance grows greater by the hour and we still have to get out into the real world and find markets. I know that today the Minister was talking about going to Japan in an attempt to get us a bigger beef quota. I wish him well. That will be very difficult to do this year because of the Japanese imbalance of trade with the United States. We are going to have a hell of a fight. My Whip tells me that I have only 10 minutes in which to speak. It will be difficult for me to say everything in 10 minutes because I have a lot of growers of apples and pears in my electorate. I mention in passing that the granny smith apple was developed at Stanthorpe. I have hundreds of constituents in places like Amiens and Applethorpe. I have hundreds of constituents in the Stanthorpe area who grow stone fruits, vegetables, pears and, in particular, apples. It is a very productive area of my electorate. Of course, the Bills cover the statutory marketing and research of the Australian Horticultural Corporation. The horticultural corporations have been put in place by the Minister since the Australian Labor Party came to government. I guess it is unfortunate for the Minister that in this instance most of the industry seems to be-as primary industries can be-fairly divided on what is needed. At this stage, however, the Bills allow industries to come in only if they wish. They do not have to be part of the Horticultural Corporation. At this stage only the Australian apple and pear industry-some member States, such as Queensland, are opposed to joining the Corporation-and the citrus industry have decided to come on board. A range of other smaller industries are not involved in the Corporation. In a sense, that is probably a pity. However, on the other hand, I always advise industries who may be thinking about coming under the umbrella of government control not to. The only trick in these arrangements is that we have to have legislation in order to collect industry levies. It is the only way in which everybody will contribute. We have to have some sort of law compelling each grower to pay his fair share of the levy that is then used to promote and sell his product. If that were not so we would not need all these corporations. Every primary industry in Australia seems to be covered by some statutory corporation. These are really corporations that are government operated and government run; if we like, it is socialism by the back door. Mr Campbell —Oh, come on! Mr IAN CAMERON —Yes, it is. I am a wheat grower. It is interesting to see that the Industries Assistance Commission has recommended that the wheat industry be freed up. It might be of interest to note that the cotton industry was walloped down to $250 a bale only 18 months ago. All the cotton growers came screaming to me wanting to know why I was not going to government seeking help. I said, `The further you can stay away from Canberra, the better off you will be'. Of course what happened was that, within six months, cotton was selling for $500 a bale and the growers were not interested in setting up any sort of corporation. I say to them that, if they wish to look after themselves, they should levy themselves and do it themselves, but there are always those growers who do not wish to be involved. It is always because of those growers that a statutory law is enacted to force them to contribute a levy, and that is what this is about. Here we have a corporation with which nobody wants to be involved. I am advised by my growers in Queensland that, if the departmental officers sitting over there cared to have a plebiscite among the growers, they would probably get only 10 or 15 per cent support for these Bills. That may improve. It depends on whether the Corporation is efficient and runs itself in a businesslike manner, and can prove to the growers that it is worth while. If that happens, more of the groups producing these products will come on board. There is an amount of money which the Government is expected to contribute dollar for dollar. Over five years, roughly $5.85m is to be spent and there is $1.25m to go on research and development over that five-year period. Of course there will be a levy on the growers involved, but this is money collected. In most cases, it is spent reasonably well, although the growers in Queensland will argue about the fact that the Committee of Direction of Fruit Marketing (COD) is involved in Queensland. For many years the State growers have had a COD in fruit marketing, which has been established at a State level. In most other States they have not established State organisations. My advice to the Minister would be to get the States to set up these organisations at a State level and then to use the Australian Horticultural Corporation as an overall national body to co-ordinate the States. In that way, we would not have the present problem in Queensland, where the growers are paying two sets of levies. They are now being asked to pay a levy to the COD of 0.75c of their gross sales. The Australian body has agreed to join the AHC this year, so the levy which replaces the apple and pear levy, which was 11c, is going to be 12c. They will have to pay a 12c per carton levy to the new Corporation. One can see that their main problem is that they are being asked to pay two levies and they object to this. I do not know how one can get around this system other than by each State having its own State grower organisation and the Corporation being used in a way similar to the system of bodies at a State level with some of the other products that we produce. I have been speaking with Glen Best, one of my constituents who is a stone fruits grower, and the Chairman of the Deciduous Fruit Committee within the COD; Laurie Harvey, who is a representative of the Apple and Pear Growers Association; and Glen Rodgers, a Stanthorpe personality, who is a member of the Apples and Pears Corporation. Those three gentlemen and their different organisations and growers in Maranoa and in the Stanthorpe area are all opposed to this new Corporation. I have met with them on a number of occasions. The last time was some months ago, when they all met with me and told me in no uncertain terms that they want nothing to do with it. However, the Bill has come in and one of the problems that the departmental people and the Minister will have is trying to co-ordinate and get this thing up and running. It is difficult when one does not have all the producers on a national basis on one's side. The other thing that is happening, apart from the duplication of levies, is that other products are produced in the Stanthorpe area. In Queensland, we have grapes, stone fruit and vegetables and most of these areas of production as yet have not indicated that they are prepared to come on board with the Corporation. The big question they ask is what advantage there is in the new Corporation over the old one. Under the old one, the apple and pear growers had their own corporation and felt that they were able to look after their own affairs and run their own business. Now, with this new Corporation, they are being asked to take on board a whole range of different industries in which they have no common interests, and they are finding it much more difficult to be prepared to dump the old Apple and Pear Corporation and come on board in this new horticultural setup. I would also like to mention the fact that quarantine is of great concern to these people. They wish to make it clear to the people in the Department and the Minister, who seems to have left the chamber for the time being, that apples should not be allowed to come in from New Zealand because of the tremendous fire blight problem that there is in that part of the world. Under the free trade arrangements with New Zealand, we have signed an agreement so that it is able to trade with us. But quarantine is placed on apple imports because of fire blight. However, if that disease comes here, we will not be able to export to many other markets. At present, Australia is clear of that blight. The other problem at which the Government should be looking is the shipping problem. It is all very well to talk about exports and what we can and cannot sell, but if we do not have an efficient shipping industry and there are holdups, there will be problems with products that have to be in cold storage, like apples, pears and stone fruits, which are covered by these Bills. These products have to have quick transportation to be able to get to the Near East, Hong Kong or wherever they might be sold. The other problem is that we have been trying to get into the Japanese market for a long while, particularly with our apples and, slowly but surely, after persisting for many years, it seems that we are getting somewhere. I am told by Glen Best that the codlin moth problem is slowly being overcome, and the Japanese are starting to look at taking some of our apples. As yet, they have not but I am sure that it is something that we shall continue to work at. Our trade with Japan is balanced, and I think it is high time that we took some apples to that area. I do not wish to speak any longer on these Bills. There are a number of amendments. My constituents are not all that happy with the concept of this new legislation, although the Opposition is supporting the Bills, while putting some amendments. I am happy to have been able to voice concerns of my constituents here in the House tonight. Because we are not able to talk for our usual length of time, I shall sit down and give the honourable member for Mallee (Mr Peter Fisher) a fair go. Mr CAMPBELL(Kalgoorlie)(8.48) —I find that speaking time has been curtailed tonight, partly, I suspect, on the altar of Ballarat potatoes and partly on the inanity of the honourable member for Maranoa (Mr Ian Cameron). The Australian Horticultural Corporation Bill is an interesting Bill because it demonstrates how concerned the Government is to develop the full potential of the horticultural industry. As the honourable member for Wannon (Mr Hawker) acknowledged, it is an industry with unlimited potential and, quite frankly, in export terms it is not doing particularly well. What the Horticultural Research and Development Corporation Bill does is provide a vehicle for the technical research and development that is necessary if this industry is going to develop well. I do not want to dwell too much on matters that have already been dealt with by honourable members who have spoken, as I do not see the point of continual reiteration. However, there are matters that should be addressed. Although there may be some resistance from the industry to the establishment of this Corporation-that was alluded to by the honourable member for Maranoa-some of the top people in the industry are welcoming the Government's initiative with open arms. I refer to Mr Blashki from Jet-Pak International Pty Ltd, one of the biggest vegetable packing companies in Australia. He has welcomed the Government's initiative, as has Mr Johnson from Fruits Australia. That company, which is situated at Coffs Harbour, is one of the biggest citrus producers in Australia. In fact, it owns the biggest citrus orchard in the Southern Hemisphere and is extremely active in the marketing of our products overseas. That dynamic company is already exporting oranges to Japan and Europe, mandarins to Canada and Europe, table grapes to France and the United Kingdom, avocados to France and early stone fruits to England. This is a potentially large and lucrative market. That company is to be congratulated on the effort that it has put into developing that market. It is noteworthy that a company as dynamic as this wholly supports the Government's initiatives. Other niche markets must be examined. Many of our future exports will be in niche markets which will be too small to warrant their own research and development. Those markets would be much better developed by employing the services of the researchers of the Corporation on a user pays basis. For instance, I believe there will be a large market for cosmetics in South America. The South Americans are the biggest users of cosmetics in the world. Many of the herbs and oils used in natural cosmetics, for which there will be a large market, will be able to be produced in Australia and used to meet the needs of that market. The industry must examine packaging and disease control measures. There is no doubt that the industry has an important part to play in ensuring that all the sorts of diseases that would prevent our fruit from entering other markets are kept under control. To this end the industry must seriously consider adopting the process of food irradiation. I have heard much nonsense spoken in this place about food irradiation. Frankly, it is the only way in which the sterility of many of our fruits and vegetables can be guaranteed. The time will come when our customers will not accept our product unless we first irradiate it. Recently in France a trial was carried out whereby irradiated strawberries were heavily advertised and sold at a 30 per cent premium. They sold very quickly, while the untreated product was left on the shelves. The Australian wild flower market also needs to be developed. There is an enormous market for both dried and fresh wild flowers. Since retiring from the Parliament, former Senator Ron Elstob has become engaged, by accident, in the export of Australian wild flowers to the Middle East. He sends them from South Australia in containers. That is a great initiative from former Senator Elstob. I certainly wish him all the best in that new industry. The domestic dehydrated vegetable market also needs to be examined. Although that product is available, it has never been properly marketed or explored. I believe there is a big market for dehydrated vegetables. Similarly, there is a big market for dried apples and pears. It is my belief that the dried pear is the most palatable of all dried fruits. Dried pears should be available on the market in competition with biscuits. I am sure that the health of all of us would benefit from that. I promised the Government Whip faithfully that I would keep my remarks short. I conclude by saying that I support the legislation. In time to come it will be seen as landmark legislation and will be another testimony to the capability of our very good Minister. Mr TUCKEY(O'Connor)(8.54) —The three operative Bills in this package of legislation, the Australian Horticultural Corporation Bill, the Horticultural Policy Council Bill and the Horticultural Research and Development Corporation Bill, are accompanied by four enabling levy Bills. The purpose of the Bills is singular. It is to disband literally a raft of established representative panels, such as the national vegetable panel, the potato panel and others, and to replace them with a single Australian Horticultural Corporation, with associated research and policy bodies. Concern has been expressed in the industry about this particular move. The existing panels allow for specialist representation and broad membership of them on a State-wide basis. A person from my electorate who is active in these industries said that it is bad enough to live in Western Australia, but it is hopeless to be a processor in Albany with 10 per cent of the market share and having to be represented on this super-panel by a nominee of one of his larger competitors. It is easy to understand why the industry is concerned about the Government's intention with regard to the establishment of this Corporation. There are literally hundreds of aspects to this industry, hundreds of items of production and hundreds of marketing opportunities in this industry. It is felt that all these matters will not be able to be covered by a single corporation of the nature proposed. The establishment of the Corporation has been proposed because of the failure of the Australian Apple and Pear Corporation and the desire of those who participated in its activities to get some change. Change, of course, is needed. Not long ago a friend drew my attention to an inquiry from a Hong Kong businessman who wanted to buy a container of Tasmanian apples. I thought I would be able to make a sale on his behalf and on Australia's behalf. Upon making inquiries I was asked whether this gentleman in Hong Kong had a licence to buy our apples. I told them that he was not trying to sell us apples, that he was trying to buy apples from us. I discovered that a person from Hong Kong wanting to buy a product from Australia, desperate as we are for foreign exchange, must have a licence to do so. Had he not received my assistance I doubt whether he would have his licence yet. I hope that the Corporation will prevent that sort of situation from arising in the future. That is the sort of problem faced by the apple and pear industry. One might ask: If that is the sort of difficulty the industry had with the previous Corporation, what will be so much better about the new one? In the end corporations come down to people, and when people say that a person overseas must have a licence to buy from us, there is not much hope. Horticulture is a hugely diverse industry. When the Minister for Science and Small Business (Mr Barry Jones) introduced the Horticultural Policy Council Bill, he said in his second reading speech: The Government perceives that there is a need to bring together representatives of the widely dispersed, fragmented and diverse horticultural sector into a single body with a capacity to present to government a total sectoral perspective on policy issues. That body, the Council, will be able thoroughly to research and examine issues and areas of concern to the sector. The Minister went on to outline the membership of the Council. He said: Its membership of 15 will consist of an independent Chairperson, five members representing horticultural growers and producers, two members representing processors, one member representing persons engaged in horticultural marketing, two members representing employees, two members representing the Australian Agricultural Council and the Chairperson of the Australian Horticultural Corporation and the Horticultural Research and Development Corporation respectively . . . All members will be appointed by the Minister, but members, other than the Council's Chairperson and the chairpersons of the two corporations, will be nominated for appointment- I emphasise these next words: by relevant bodies, which will be prescribed by regulation. That is the point at which one starts to ask questions. First, how will 15 people adequately represent the industry, as the Minister has described it, and which will be these relevant bodies? Who, out of all the representative groups in Australia, will nominate these Council members who will be the spokespersons for everybody else? That is the concern of the people I have contacted. Will the spokesperson of the processors be a person who has only a 10 per cent market share, or will it be one of the larger competitors? It is pretty obvious that the spokesperson will be one of the larger competitors. Then we come to the opting in proposals, the opting in proposals being that only the apple and pear industry is provided for in this legislation. We understand that the citrus industry also wants to be covered by the legislation. All these industries at some stage in the future will have to decide whether to be covered by this legislation. Which relevant body will opt for all of the independent growers in these diverse industries around Australia? Which body will decide that an individual grower who, through his own initiative has already resolved his marketing, business and research problems will then be obliged to pay a levy? Of course, we are not talking about the wheat industry or the wool industry, which have a much more single design. The Opposition, therefore, requires parliamentary approval before the levy is imposed upon a complete industry by the will of a few. Hence, our amendments state very properly that it is not right to have a process of regulation whereby a few people meet in a back room and call themselves the national council of grape growers or, for that matter, of dried wildflower pickers or growers and say that they want to be involved. Of course, the Government will grab them as it will mean more levies. Mr Kerin —Pickle cutters. Mr TUCKEY —Yes, why not. The point is that only through parliamentary scrutiny at that time can it be established whether a large proportion of all the people involved in the industry wish to be brought under this umbrella and pay the associated levy. That is not what is proposed by this legislation, and I sincerely hope that honourable members on both sides of the House will identify the appropriate measure in this regard to be for the Parliament to decide the matter when we know who these people are who claim to represent others and demand to be brought under this legislation. The Horticultural Research and Development Corporation is to have only six members. Honourable members can imagine how representative that will be. Of course, the recent and, I might add, very belated introduction of plant variety rights was delayed by certain factions in the Australian Labor Party when the Liberal Party of Australia first tried to introduce them. We now have plant variety rights which will provide their own incentive for research. I think it is time that the Government recognised that up-front funding of research through levies has generally been a failure. It certainly has been a failure in the wheat industry. I believe that the only incentive for proper research is for someone at the end to put up the money and take the risk of making a profit through royalties-of course, that is what happens through plant variety rights-rather than to take levies off growers and hand them out to people who frequently do not succeed. We must now ask ourselves whether the growers or, for that matter, the taxpayers will be paying research levies under this legislation and whether growers will also have to pay royalties under plant variety rights. Where will these two roads cross? Will certain levy funded research end up in a private enterprise proposal, with the growers having to pay the royalties anyway? I am for the growers paying the royalties; I am for relieving them of the levies. I think that this is a yesterday proposition that has not worked in the past and that we should not impose it on growers today. These are the sorts of circumstances that we are faced with. Furthermore, people are getting on with the job very well. I want to draw attention to two organisations in my electorate which I think merit recognition in this place and which are clear evidence of organisations that have got on without all this. Firstly, I would like to talk about Australian Flower Farms Ltd, which is established in West Coorow. It has gone to the market-place with some very innovative capital raising arrangements through limited partnerships. On the first occasion, it raised $2.8m and now it has raised an additional $10.4m amongst 300 shareholders. It now has 800 acres of wild flowers, with one million plants under drip irrigation. It has some 20 species of plants and 75 varieties and is currently planting another 220,000 plants on 250 acres. In a quite remote area of my electorate west of the main road it now has 20 permanent staff-a large number of them being farmers from adjoining farms who are having difficulties in these hard times and who are getting an additional cash flow from working there-and up to 10 casuals. That organisation is now picking for eight to nine months of the year. It has an excellent marketing organisation. Provided government regulation does not deny it the access to the air freight that it needs-in other words, the Government should either get Qantas Airways Ltd off its tail or let in some foreign competitors who are prepared to give that organisation the amount of air freight space it needs-the proprietors, Stephen and Neal Peters, tell me that they can get on very well on their own without assistance. I found, in talking to them today, that they have not really had much knowledge of all this, nor would they have very much knowledge of somebody in a capital city deciding to vote them into this proposal. This is the problem we will have if this sort of thing is not put under parliamentary scrutiny. The other organisation I want to mention is just outside my electorate, but the production for its processing comes from my electorate. A group of people collectively took over the Hunts canning and freezing operations and, in August 1985, formed Southern Processors Ltd after the failure of the previous operation. It says a lot for farmers and producers getting together and looking after themselves. Ninety growers out of 300 shareholders have funded this operation. What was a failed industry is now creating a lot of employment in Albany for people who were once working for only a period of the year but who are now working all year round. No doubt a lot of Labor voters are very happy about the initiative of these people who got off their tails and, without government help, established an industry where others had gone broke. It is to their great credit that this year they will harvest 3,000 tonnes of peas, which is a record. I am thrilled to think that such an industry has been established. Great credit goes to fellows like Dick De Pledge and others who got together there and restructured the industry. They have brought in three magnificent pea harvesters which cost them over $1m. They have really upgraded the plant and made it work when others failed. Also in the Albany and Plantagenet region we have seen a magnificent growth in wild flower production. These people are doing it all without the help of the Australian Horticultural Corporation and one wonders why they need to be dragged into this arrangement. If the apple, pear and citrus growers want this arrangement, we have no opposition; but we want to consider carefully anybody else being dragged into it. Mr SHARP(Gilmore)(9.05) —I rise tonight because this legislation deals with an industry which I believe is very important to the future of Australia's economy. I think the horticultural industries have a very bright future indeed and that they can earn for Australia a great deal of extra export income, which, as we all know, is so vitally needed in this day and age when our balance of payments deficit is in such a horrific state. I also rise tonight because the horticultural industries are a very important part of the economy of the electorate of Gilmore, which I represent in this Parliament. Gilmore has a number of industries. The cherry industry in Young is an example. Young is the capital of the cherry industry and has about 1,000 hectares of cherry trees. Victoria has about 360 hectares and South Australia has about 90 hectares. So Young quite obviously is the cherry capital of Australia. In Cowra we also have a large vegetable canning industry-tomatoes, asparagus and so forth-which is owned and operated by Edgells. Of course, it employs about 250 people full time and many more people when the picking season is on. Many other people are associated with the growing of the products and with the associated industries that operate in Cowra. In fact, Cowra depends greatly upon the vegetable industry for its existence. I can go from there to Crookwell, which I believe is the home of the best Australian potato, to the southern highlands district around Bundanoon where stone fruits, strawberries and so on are grown. It is quite obvious that, from my point of view, this legislation will have a great impact on the electorate of Gilmore. It has been the subject of a great deal of debate over the last few months. A few short months ago I was invited to address the annual conference of the Australian Cherry Growers Federation and I got the firm impression that the industry is divided over the merits of an Australian Horticultural Corporation. The industry believes that we could be setting in place another monster to tie the horticultural industries up in red tape which may actually require more and more funds both from the taxpayers and from the industry in order to fund it but which may not achieve the goal of actually increasing production and obtaining export markets for this industry. I think the concerns of the cherry growers are a good example of the concerns that many people in the horticultural industries have. Over the last few years they have turned a fairly sleepy industry into one of the most dynamic, vibrant, businesslike, professional and entrepreneurial horticultural industries in this country today. They have increased the production of cherries dramatically: we produced about 4,500 tonnes of cherries in the last season. Plantings of cherry trees are increasing dramatically, and that is a huge vote of confidence in the industry by the people who operate it. At the same time as they are doing all of this, they are developing an export market for their product where there has been no market before. They are also ensuring that the methods of selling their products overseas are carried out in a most proper fashion. The cherry producers are also spending a large amount of money promoting their product in New South Wales. They are putting $25,000 of their own money towards a scheme, worth a total of $125,000, to promote cherries in that State, in the domestic market. They are going to places such as South East Asia, Europe, the United Kingdom and the Middle East and they are targeting areas such as America and Japan, where they hope to be able to get sales within the next four years. They are establishing these markets and improving their production. They are planting more trees. They have quality control measures in place that ensure that the export product is of the highest quality and that there is no risk that their good reputation in the markets they are establishing will be ruined by unscrupulous traders. They are doing all this without any Australian Horticultural Corporation and they are asking, `Why do we need one of these corporations when we can promote our industry, make it grow and establish export markets? We can do it by ourselves without one of these corporations'. They say that they might actually be disadvantaged by the Australian Horticultural Corporation. But, like most of us in the Opposition, they are prepared to give this Corporation a go because, on the broad scale, there is merit in the legislation. People in the Crookwell district have established over the last umpteen dozen years a very important potato industry. At present Australia has the highest status of disease-free potato seed available in the world. In other words, we have the best potato seed for export of any country. There is a world trade in potato seed of about $90m or 250,000 tonnes per year. At the moment Australia does not export one potato seed and yet we have the highest disease-free status. So I can see opportunities for the Australian Horticultural Corporation to assist that industry because at present the potato industry is not as well organised as the cherry industry. There is an opportunity for the potato growers in Australia to latch on to the Australian Horticultural Corporation, to make use of the skills and the promotional and marketing facilities and the research and development facilities which will be available through this legislation. There are opportunities for that industry to start to go out and to earn export income in the world trade in potato seed. A number of countries purchase potato seeds. India, Japan, Greece, a number of Third World countries, the Philippines and Malaysia are all out there buying potato seed. Australia could fill that market. We could get a large slice of that $90m a year. This legislation gives us the opportunity to enhance our goal of trying to earn export income, which of course Australia very much needs. I want also to take the opportunity to express the concerns of people in my electorate about the Sydney fruit and vegetable markets. I believe that the grower, the consumer and indeed governments are being ripped off in the Sydney fruit and vegetable markets at present. The growers are being ripped off because it is alleged that the true market value is not being passed back to them; the consumer is being ripped off because higher than necessary prices are being charged in the shops around Australia; and governments are being ripped off because there is not the normal amount of revenue raised through the tax system from the people in this industry because a lot of the money earned goes under the counter. People in horticultural industries in the electorate of Gilmore are saying that there is a need for a complete review of these markets in Sydney for the betterment of growers, for the betterment of consumers and for the betterment of the public purse. Those are some of our concerns. I am also compelled to say that the people in Cowra are very concerned about the future of their vegetable industry. The Minister for Primary Industries and Energy (Mr Kerin) was in Cowra, I think earlier this year, and he heard their concerns in relation to the reduction in tariffs. The Government has since introduced legislation which, I believe, in the long term will seriously disadvantage the vegetable industry in Cowra. Jobs will no doubt be lost in Cowra because of that legislation. That, coupled with tariff reductions in the potato industry, is certainly causing concerns in my electorate. At the end of the day I think everybody in my electorate is prepared to give this Australian Horticultural Corporation a go. We in the Opposition are going to monitor its role constantly. We want to ensure that it does not become a bureaucratic monster, something that is going to tie up a very vibrant and growing industry in red tape and stop it from earning those export income dollars that Australia so desperately needs. I put to the House tonight that it may well have been better, rather than to have spent the $9m in the legislation that we have before the House tonight, to have spent more money on Austrade; providing more power, resources and staff within Austrade so that people in our offices around the world are able to report back to our horticultural industries that there are opportunities for them to establish export markets. If we had spent some of this money on Austrade we would have got a far better return for the taxpayer's dollar. We would have established more export markets for Australia and earned more income for us because I think that there are many opportunities out there on the world markets that Australia could capitalise on. We are not doing it at present. I think the greatest example of that was given this week when Austrade missed out on providing sufficient warning time to Australian industry on a $1 billion contract that was available from a Japanese firm. This legislation has merit. We on this side are prepared to give it a go. We will monitor it. We will want to ensure that it does not become a bureaucratic monster. The industries in my electorate want to ensure that that is the case and they want to get on with the job of producing export income for Australia through what is, I believe, one of our most exciting and vibrant industries. Mr PETER FISHER(Mallee)(9.18) —In speaking on this legislation I recognise that the horticultural industries today, with their great diversity of production, their capacity for increased employment and their efficiency of operation, probably offer to Australia one of the greatest opportunities for increasing our export income and, of course, for increasing the well-being of our people. We do have an enormous capacity to produce quality and cheap produce. Nowhere is this more evident than in the electorate I represent and along the Murray Valley region-the Sunraysia, Robinvale and the mid-Murray. With the excellent water, soil, climate and the capacity of its people, we are able to grow almost every product that is available for production, including almonds, avocadoes, citrus, the full range of grapes, including fresh table grapes, dried fruit, wine and, of course, fresh vegetables. This region of Australia produces hundreds of millions of dollars worth of fruit and vegetables annually and the potential to increase this production is enormous. For the many hundreds of horticultural people out there who do not fully understand these Bills, I will read into the record some of the major functions and purposes of them. Of course, the most important aspect of the Bills we are debating tonight is the establishment of the Australian Horticultural Corporation (AHC), which is being established to assist Australian horticultural industries achieve their full potential in overseas markets. This is expected to be done by encouraging and developing the export market for horticultural products through fostering and co-ordinating the activities of exporters, growers and other appropriate organisations or groups. It is necessary to promote Australian horticultural products both in Australia and overseas and to improve the industry's competitiveness by improving the quality, handling, storage, processing and marketing of Australian horticultural products. It is essential that this Corporation operate along commercial lines and that it be able to negotiate transport, product insurance contracts and, of course, disseminate market information. It is also important that charges for services be made and that preparation of generic promotion campaigns can be undertaken. The Corporation is to consist of nine people, comprising the Chairperson, a Government member, the Managing Director of the Corporation and six other members who will be nominated by a selection committee for appointment by the Minister. The selection committee will, in addition to its chairperson, consist of seven persons nominated by levy paying horticultural industries and appointed by the Minister. Participation in the Corporation by horticultural industries that are not currently covered by a statutory marketing authority is voluntary and can be undertaken in two ways. Firstly, formal participation will entail the imposition of a levy for the purposes of assisting the Corporation's activities. Such a levy will not be implemented by the Government unless that course of action was initiated by the relevant industry organisation with the clear support of the industry. Secondly, ad hoc participation will involve the corporation undertaking contract work on a fee for service basis. Funds derived from levies and charges will be maintained in separate accounts for each industry. The Corporation will have to account to each industry in relation to expenditure from these accounts. I point out that, after the first five years, all operating and administrative costs are to be funded by levies from industry and on a fee for service basis. However, during the first five years a total of $5.85m is to be provided by the Commonwealth in addition to industry funding to assist in the Corporation's establishment and early operation. The Government, in introducing the Australian Horticultural Corporation Bill, believes that the Corporation will be the saviour of many horticultural industries. I point out that this Corporation will not work if many of the other issues that are facing primary industry in this country are not tackled as a matter of urgency. Without going into any great detail on this matter, I simply refer to the issues already mentioned by the shadow Minister, the honourable member for Murray (Mr Lloyd), when he talked about the difficulties of transport in this country-the cost of freight, the cost of rail, shipping and air transport-and, of course, the problems in relation to our high domestic cost structure. I also point to the difficulties of container operations throughout the world, quality control, packaging and quarantine. Of course, in many cases there has been in the past a very poor commitment by some of our exporters, who have seen lucrative overseas markets simply as a means of gaining immediate profits. In many cases they have not operated in the best long term interests of the industry. It is absolutely essential, as the honourable member for Gilmore (Mr Sharp) said, that this body not become a cumbersome bureaucratic giant. It has to be flexible and it has to be responsible to its member industries. In my region two industries whose annual meetings I attended this year-the Australian Dried Fruits Association and the Australian Citrus Growers Federation-discussed this Bill with great maturity and with a large amount of information available to them, unlike some of the other smaller horticultural industries which have not been able to obtain information that they require. The Australian Dried Fruits Association determined, because of its professionalism and because of the way in which it has operated in the past, that it did not wish to be part of the Corporation. Of course, the Minister for Primary Industries and Energy (Mr Kerin) has ensured that its wishes may be adhered to. The Australian Citrus Growers Federation, on the other hand, after spending a long time discussing this issue-people were available from the Department of Primary Industries and Energy and other expert groups-determined that it would enter the Corporation. I think it is important to recognise that the timing of this Bill is probably vital for the citrus industry, which knows that it must concentrate at this point on export production. Co-operation, however, will be difficult to obtain across Australia. This, of course, will probably determine how successful the citrus industry's participation in the Corporation will be. At the moment the citrus industry faces a serious economic and marketing challenge, particularly as it goes into the 1990s. We know that, based on current plantings, total citrus production is expected to exceed 800,000 tonnes by 1992-93 which of course is an increase of 23 per cent on the figure for last year's production. The total annual demand for citrus fruit and processed citrus products in Australia, including exports, is the equivalent of approximately 750,000 tonnes. Therefore, it is obvious that the citrus industry will run into an overproduction situation, particularly in oranges, by the early 1990s, unless further growth can be achieved in exports of fresh citrus fruit and citrus juices and in the overall level of citrus consumption in the domestic market. In order to further increase the production of citrus fruits, the industry needs to set clear market distribution targets, with the major challenge being the necessity to increase dramatically the level of fresh citrus exports. These targets should provide for the juice sector to increase its intake by at least 8 per cent, for fresh citrus exports to be lifted by at least 300 per cent-an enormous increase-to 150,000 tonnes, and for the domestic fruit market to be increased by 20 per cent to 240,000 tonnes. I mentioned that this Corporation will not solve any problems unless other issues are tackled. I say to the Government and to the Minister that it was a major blow to the industry when the Government, in August last year, imposed a 10 per cent sales tax on previously exempt fruit juice products. Mr McGauran —Devastating. Mr PETER FISHER —It was a devastating move and it came at a time when the industry, unfortunately, was reeling under the effects of the world price collapse. With high levels of stock and a competitive, sluggish market, the industry has had difficulty in passing on the tax fully to the consumer, thus adding a further financial burden to the industry. The future viability of the citrus industry will depend on its ability, therefore, to move its economic emphasis from the juice processing sector to the fresh fruit sector-particularly the export citrus market. A number of smaller horticultural industries and groups throughout my constituency have asked me for information in relation to how they may or may not participate in the Corporation. This relates particularly to the stone fruit growing industry and the fresh vegetable growing industry. I say to the Minister that I understand that there are two avenues which other industries could consider to raise levies under the AHC provisions. First, activities could be funded through industry-wide compulsory levy arrangements. Such a levy would be implemented by the Government only if that course of action were requested by the peak national industry organisation, with the clear support of the majority of the industry. The second option is that industries without compulsory levy arrangements would be able to draw upon the expertise of the Corporation on a fee for service basis. This provision is to allow for a particular group or sector from an industry which does not have the benefit of full levy arrangements to raise money voluntarily and seek the services of the AHC. In relation to this matter and to either the entry or the exemption of horticultural industries from this legislation, I support fully the amendment to the motion for the second reading that has been moved by the shadow Minister to ensure that further admissions to the AHC are by legislative amendment and not by regulation. I believe that this Corporation will work and will have some significance for some industries, so long as the restrictive practices and the size of the bureaucracy are limited and the people that are selected to represent the industry are as diverse and as expert as possible. Mr KERIN(Werriwa-Minister for Primary Industries and Energy)(9.29) —I thank all honourable members who have contributed to this debate on an industry of enormous complexity which really needs some sort of lead and some sort of direction from the Government basically to do better. The Government, in proposing the Australian Horticultural Corporation (AHC) and this package of legislation, has really attempted to find ways and means of enabling the industries-because there are many-to do better. I particularly thank the honourable member for Calare (Mr Simmons), the honourable member for Ballarat (Mr Mildren), the honourable member for Kalgoorlie (Mr Campbell) with his original contribution, the honourable for Hinkler (Mr Courtice) and honourable members opposite for their contributions. Mr McVeigh —Hey, Clyde, tell him to be fair and thank us, too. Mr KERIN —That is all right; I am quite happy to be charitable about the honourable member and his peculiar contribution. Many people have been seriously concerned about the horticultural industries for a long time. I was particularly taken by the comments of the honourable member for Hinkler. I recall that the last time I was in his electorate I was given a book by the horticultural producers of the Bundaberg area who, for a long time, have been trying to identify the various industries and the best ways that they can help themselves. A common theme in the comments made by honourable members is that many people in this industry, by their own good will, by their own intelligence, by their own efforts, have been able to help themselves. When I was recently in Kununurra I met a man who came from the Bundaberg region. Mr McVeigh —He's a good sugar farmer, too. Mr KERIN —Yes. His name is Rocky Lertz. He is an entrepreneur, one of those resilient farmers who transferred from Bundaberg to Kununurra. There are many interesting people in the whole range of horticultural industries. Some of the flavour and diversity in these industries came out in the comments made by the honourable member for Hinkler. The central fact about the Australian Horticultural Corporation and the Government's efforts in this regard is that we really do have to do it better. We are setting up what is quite a formal structure but I must say that it is not in the Government's mind to bind this up with so many restrictions that so much has to be in black and white and that we will know exactly how this Horticultural Corporation will go. For a long time in this country we have had three horticultural corporations-the Australian Apple and Pear Corporation, the Australian Dried Fruits Corporation, and the Australian Canned Fruits Corporation-which have been quite small corporations and they have served the various purposes of the industry. I admit that in the early stages of the Government's thinking on this, it thought that those three small corporations could be incorporated into the one horticultural corporation. I will not go into all the debate and discussions that have taken place on this issue over the period when the Government first put this concept forward, but I would like seriously to thank those Department officials who have conducted many of the consultations with those industries to try to get to a situation where we can possible do it better. This is not just an experiment. It is a chance for horticultural producers in Australia to do it better. I am not attracted by some of the words of some people who seem to represent suspicion, who do not understand the concepts fully of representation or accountability. Much of the discussion has been about the concept of how flexible this organisation can be and whether levy payers will be bound in or whether the levy will be voluntary, and all the rest of it. Basically, I do not see many of these smaller industries being in a position where they will be levy payers. I really do see that fee for service will be the way many industries will go if the Corporation can serve them well. I see that there will be some freeloaders on the system-so be it. I think the honourable member for Gilmore (Mr Sharp) said that some people can do exporting very well. Yes, that is right-some can, some cannot. The honourable member for Wakefield (Mr Andrew) pointed out quite succinctly that some cannot. To pick up some of the comments of my colleagues, it is essential that we give this a go. There has been much consultation and arising from consultations that I have had with the Australian Horticultural Growers Council, it was decided that some amendments to the legislation should be moved-and they will be moved in the committee stage-and also that a number of undertakings should be given during the second reading debates on the Bills. The comments I make deal with those undertakings which relate mainly to the Australian Horticultural Corporation in the principal Bill. The second reading speech on the Australian Horticultural Corporation Bill comments that the Government is firmly of the view that the trading powers would be applied only in circumstances where there is general support from the relevant industry. Honourable members will also note that the use of the trading powers is subject to the written approval of the Minister, and it is the Government's intention that the Minister will consult closely with the relevant industries before agreeing to the use of the trading powers in any particular set of circumstances. In addition to these firm assurances on the part of the Government, participating industries and those considering participating in the AHC's activities would be assisted if, early in its life, it laid down the principles under which it would engage in trading. These principles could be developed as part of its corporate planning process in which the industries concerned would be involved. I cannot stress too much that the key to the success of this Corporation, the whole idea of whether this is really going to work, will principally depend on the Australian Horticultural Corporation Board. I turn now to export regulations and control. In the second reading speech it is stated that the Government will agree to the making of regulations and ministerial orders in respect of the Australian Horticultural Corporation Bill's export control powers only if it is satisfied that industries would be assisted by them in achieving full export potential and that controls would be in the best interests of an industry. I reiterate that commitment and state further that it is also the Government's intention to consult closely with the relevant industry before particular regulations or orders are introduced. I now deal with domestic promotion and industry research. With respect to the conduct of domestic promotion and industry research, the Government has received representations pointing to the merit of these activities being carried out in conjunction with organisations at the State level. Some organisations, particularly those in Queensland, have gone further and argued that, where there is an agency or other body established at the State level for conducting such activities, money raised from a State by the levy and export charge arrangements should be returned to that State for that agency or body to decide on how best it may be expended. I agree that there are advantages in integrating programs of activities at national and State level, particularly in relation to domestic promotion. The State level activities can take account of local needs while still fitting in with the national programs. There are, however, also clear cost and efficiency advantages in the programs being developed and managed on an overall basis by the national agencies. It is my expectation that, given the merits of an effective blend of State and national activities, the two corporations would early in their lives consider this issue. That consideration could include whether some portion of the levy and export charge proceeds should be passed to appropriately established State, or even district, level organisations for those organisations to decide on and manage some activities, subject to adequate accountability of the funds back to the relevant corporation. The outcome of that consideration could be given in the corporate plans, particularly of the AHC, which under the legislation have to be developed in consultation with participating industries and submitted to me for my approval. Again, I emphasise that this is all about trying to find ways and means to do it better and for the AHC to identify those issues that, from a strategic point of view, from an Australian point of view, from a generic point of view, can be best addressed by such a corporation. Another issue I need to mention is access to government seed money to assist the establishment of the Australian Horticultural Corporation. As mentioned in the second reading speeches on these Bills the Government has earmarked some $5.85m over five years to assist in the establishment of the proposed Australian Horticultural Corporation and of this some $300,000 per annum will be set aside for administrative expenses. While the allocation of that money will be left to the Board of the Corporation to decide, the Government would expect that the Board would ensure that the money would be used for the benefit of all of the participating industries in an equitable manner. This involves not only those participating by way of fee for service in the AHC but also levy paying industries which may join later than the apple and pear and citrus industries. The Government is firmly committed to the extension of equal employment opportunity provisions to Commonwealth statutory authorities. No specific equal employment opportunity (EEO) clauses were included in these Bills because at the outset the number of employees of the corporations will not be large. Specific EEO provisions will apply should the number of employees exceed 40. Another point I should like to mention specifically is the future arrangement between the Australian Special Rural Research Council (ASRRC) and the proposed Horticultural Research and Development Corporation (HRDC). Industries can choose to participate in the HRDC either by way of levy or voluntary contributions-both of which will attract matching government funds-whether or not they join the AHC. Specific guidelines on voluntary contributions will appear in the regulations. Levy contributing industries in the HRDC will be precluded from ASRRC programs and receipt of ASRRC funds except for multi-industry projects or projects deemed to be in the national interest. Participation by all other horticultural industries, segments of horticultural industries or individuals in the ASRRC programs is to be wound down over a five-year period. Beyond that period, there would still need to be a role for ASRRC in addressing requirements for horticultural research for which matching funds are not available. I shall touch briefly on the Opposition's proposed amendments, but first I must stress one other point. That is my use of the word `choose'. A lot of debate in opposition to these Bills has been based on the false premise that there is some compulsion in all of this. There is not. It is all about voluntary arrangements. Turning to the amendments, the Government is opposed to two of the three Opposition amendments. First, we are not willing to restrict the ability of the new institutions to accommodate the challenges faced by all horticultural industries, rather than just those of apples and pears and citrus. The obverse of the industry's and the Opposition's concern that it should be easy for sectors electing to leave the new Corporation to do so is, of course, that it should be easy for new industries electing to do so to join. The Government is therefore unwilling to prescribe a legislative procedure for the entry of additional industries. Concerning the Opposition's general amendment, the Government is of the view that there is no better way to encourage and assist horticultural industries than the one it is adopting in this legislation. An enormous amount of thought and effort has gone into these Bills. The Government makes this judgment on the basis of lengthy consultations and negotiations with various parts of the horticultural industry. While I am on the subject-and I have already paid my compliments to the staff of the Department of Primary Industries and Energy-I should also like to thank the representatives of the various horticultural industries who have engaged in discussions with both my officers and me. The Government does not accept the Opposition's amendment to increase from five to seven the members of the Horticultural Policy Council representing growers and producers but, of course, its mind is open. Honourable members opposite will acknowledge the problems with increasing the size of a representative policy forum such as the proposed Policy Council. To sum up, honourable members will appreciate that the Government has done its utmost to create institutions for the horticultural sector which are flexible enough to encompass the needs of the diverse industries contained within it. Now it has shown also that it was ready to act promptly to incorporate amendments in the Bills on the basis of reasonable argument presented by industry representatives. I commend the Government's initiatives in the horticultural sector and trust that the industry will find ways to make the best use of the framework provided by these Bills. Australia has to handle horticultural exports better. We can. We need the mechanism. The Government believes sincerely that the mech- anism proposed is the best one. Again I commend these Bills to the House and again I thank all honourable members who participated in this debate. I believe there is a lot of commonality on both sides of the House on the need-as I keep emphasising-to do it better. Question put: That the words proposed to be omitted (Mr Lloyd's amendment) stand part of the question. The House divided. (Mr Deputy Speaker-Mr Ronald Edwards) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 76 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 58 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 18 —— Baldwin, P. J. Jenkins, H. A.Beazley, K. C. Johns, G. T.Beddall, D. P. Kelly, R. J.Bilney, G. N. Kent, L.Blanchard, C. A. Kerin, J. C.Blewett, N. Kerr, D. J.Bowen, Lionel Klugman, R. E.Brown, Robert Lamb, A. H. (Teller)Brumby, J. M. Lavarch, M. H.Campbell, G. Lee, M. J.Charles, D. E. Lindsay, E. J.Charlesworth, R. I. McHugh, J.Cleeland, P. R. McLeay, LeoCourtice, B. W. Martin, S. P.Crawford, M. C. Mildren, J. B.Cross, M. D. Milton, P.Cunningham, B. T. (Teller) Morris, AllanDarling, E. E. Morris, PeterDubois, S. C. Mountford, J. G.Duffy, M. J. O'Keefe, N. P.Duncan, P. O'Neil, L. R. T.Fatin, W. F. Price, L. R. S.Fitzgibbon, E. J. Punch, G. F.Free, R. V. Saunderson, J.Gayler, J. Scholes, G. G. D.Gear, G. Sciacca, C.Gorman, R. N. J. Scott, J. L.Grace, E. L. Simmons, D. W.Griffiths, A. G. Snow, J. H.Hand, G. L. Snowdon, W. E.Harvey, E. R. Staples, P. R.Hayden, W. G. Theophanous, A. C.Holding, A. C. Tickner, R. E.Hollis, C. Uren, T.Howe, B. L. West, S. J.Humphreys, B. C. Willis, R.Hurford, C. J. Wright, K. W.Jakobsen, C. A. Young, M. J. Adermann, A. E. Jull, D. F.Aldred, K. J. Katter, R. C.Andrew, J. N. (Teller) Lloyd, B.Beale, J. H. McArthur, F. S.Blunt, C. W. McGauran, P. J.Braithwaite, R. A. MacKellar, M. J. R.Brown, N. A. McVeigh, D. T.Burr, M. A. Macphee, I. M.Cadman, A. G. Miles, C. G.Cameron, Donald Millar, P. C.Cameron, Ewen Nehl, G. B.Cameron, Ian Porter, J. R.Carlton, J. J. Prosser, G. D.Cobb, M. R. Reith, P. K.Connolly, D. M. Rocher, A. C.Cowan, D. B. Ruddock, P. M.Dobie, J. D. M. Shack, P. D.Downer, A. J. G. Sharp, J. R.Edwards, Harry Shipton, R. F.Fife, W. C. Sinclair, I. McC.Fischer, Tim Smith, W. L.Fisher, Peter Spender, J. M.Goodluck, B. J. Sullivan, K. J.Hall, Steele Tuckey, C. W.Halverson, R. G. Webster, A. P.Hawker, D. P. M. White, P. N. D.Hewson, J. Wilson, I. B. C.Hicks, N. J. (Teller) Woods, R. L.Hunt, R. J. D. Wooldridge, M. R. L. Jones, Barry Peacock, A. S.Brown, John Moore, J. C. Question so resolved in the affirmative. Amendment negatived. Original question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. Message from the Administrator recommending appropriation announced. Clauses 1 and 2-by leave-taken together, and agreed to. Clause 3 (Interpretation). Mr LLOYD(Murray)(9.55) —I move: Clause 3, page 2, lines 26 and 27, omit the definition of ``eligible industry body'', substitute the following definition: `` `eligible industry body' means a body representative of the apple and pear or citrus industries;''. I explained in the second reading debate the concern of a number of industries that they may inadvertently be forced to participate in the Australian Horticultural Corporation against their will. I acknowledge and accept the point that the Minister for Primary Industries and Energy (Mr Kerin) has made about membership of the Corporation being voluntary-and I am not trying to dispute that at all-but there is a vagueness in the way in which admission to the Corporation is arranged or structured. I gave an example earlier. Some industries consider themselves to be separate industries but are concerned that they may be included as part of a larger industry which genuinely wants to be part of the Corporation, where as they do not want to be. If admission to the Corporation really comes about by regulation, with the provision of a levy as part of the admission to the Corporation, there is a parliamentary ability to disallow. It seemed to us that a more clear cut and positive way to allow further admission to the Corporation would be by legislative amendment. That would mean that, if any other industries wanted to join, a simple amendment would be required and there would be no need for this legislation. I acknowledge that one of the positive points of this legislation is that it provides an umbrella which gives an opportunity for other industries to come in quickly, easily and simply. If the Minister believes that there is a better way to handle this situation, either by an amendment to a different part of the legislation or by some other means altogether, I know that I and the industry will be quite pleased to listen and, if necessary, to look at it in a different light in the Senate. Mr HAWKER(Wannon)(9.57) —I would like to speak in support of the amendment moved by the honourable member for Murray (Mr Lloyd). I think it is a very sensible amendment. It seeks to make the Horticultural Research and Development Corporation Bill affect only the apple, pear and citrus industries. As has already been announced by the Minister for Primary Industries and Energy (Mr Kerin), these are the only industries that will be going into the Australian Horticultural Corporation to begin with. Others may come in the future. As the honourable member for Murray pointed out, there will always be scope, by legislative amendment, to include other industries. I think this is a very sensible amendment because it would bring to the notice of the Parliament any changes that are being made to the Australian Horticultural Corporation and to the Horticultural Research and Development Corporation. In passing, I will make one quick comment about exports of apples and pears and other horticultural products. It seems to be absolutely absurd that the Government should decide that it will charge exporters for using the Buy Australian logo in its promotion of Australia. While the Minister may say that this does not quite go to the amendment, I think it is a point that the Minister ought to be taking up. Australian exporters should be encouraged to use that logo and it should be offered to them gratis. Quite frankly, when we should be establishing a credible logo and a credible reputation-something that can be recognised overseas-we should not be charging Australian exporters for the use of that logo. This seems to be absolutely absurd. Mr KERIN(Werriwa-Minister for Primary Industries and Energy)(10.00) —In response to the Deputy Leader of the National Party of Australia, the honourable member for Murray (Mr Lloyd), I want to add nothing to my remarks other than to refer to the last part of my second reading speech. Basically, the Government will not accept the Opposition amendment. We think that it is excessively pedantic and tries to set the provisions of these Bills in concrete. The Government wants flexibility in regard to the Australian Horticultural Corporation Bill. The proposed amendment reflects too much suspicion about the Corporation. We want organisations to be able to get membership of the Corporation easily. As I have indicated in my comments, the hard part will be getting these very diverse industries together. In relation to the comments of the honourable member for Wannon (Mr Hawker), I simply say that he really does mistake the views of this Government on statutory marketing authority reform. We want the industries to have boards that represent their marketing interests and that will take commercial, independent decisions. We want organisations that will take decisions from a corporate point of view. Whether we agree with the corporations or not, it is far better for them to take such views than to be mere ciphers for the industries they represent. What we are all about is corporatism and commercial flexibility so that the corporations can make the best decisions in the interests of the industries, rather than being very directly dictated by the industries. The Government rejects the amendment moved by the Deputy Leader of the National Party. Amendment negatived. Clause agreed to. Clauses 4 to 24-by leave-taken together, and agreed to. Clause 25 negatived. Clauses 26 to 49-by leave-taken together, and agreed to. Clause 50 (Accounts and records). Mr KERIN(Werriwa-Minister for Primary Industries and Energy)(10.03) —I move the Government's amendment relating to the keeping of separate accounts, as I outlined in my comments earlier in the debate on the Bills, as follows: (2) Clause 50, page 22, at the end of the clause add the following subclause: ``(3) Where the regulations require the Corporation to keep a separate account in relation to a class of horticultural products, the regulations may make provision in relation to the expenditure of money standing to the credit of the account, including the application of money standing to the credit of the account if, and when, the account ceases to exist.''. Amendment agreed to. Clause, as amended, agreed to. Clauses 51 to 71-by leave-taken together, and agreed to. Clause 72 negatived. Clauses 73 to 96-by leave-taken together, and agreed to. Clause 97 negatived. Clauses 98 to 116-by leave-taken together, and agreed to. Clause 117 negatived. Remainder of Bill-by leave-taken as a whole, and agreed to. Bill, as amended, agreed to. Bill reported with amendments; report-by leave-adopted. Bill (on motion by Mr Kerin)-by leave-read a third time. Consideration resumed from 18 September, 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. Message from the Administrator recommending appropriation announced. 1934 REPRESENTATIVES 3 November 1987...Australian Horticultural Corporation Bill Clauses 1 to 23-by leave-taken together, and agreed to. Clause 24 negatived. Clauses 25 to 48-by leave-taken together, and agreed to. Clause 49 (Separate accounts). Mr KERIN(Werriwa-Minister for Primary Industries and Energy)(10.09) —The amendment to this clause appearing in my name relates to separate accounts. I move: (2) Clause 49, page 22 at the end of the clause add the following subclause: ``(2) Where the regulations require the Corporation to keep a separate account in relation to a class of horticultural products, the regulations may make provision in relation to the expenditure of money standing to the credit of the account, including the application of money standing to the credit of the account if, and when, the account ceases to exist.''. Amendment agreed to. Clause, as amended, agreed to. Clauses 50 to 75-by leave-taken together, and agreed to. Clause 76 negatived. Remainder of Bill-by leave-taken as a whole, and agreed to. Bill reported with amendments; report-by leave-adopted. Bill (on motion by Mr Kerin)-by leave-read a third time. Consideration resumed from 18 September, 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. The Bill. Mr LLOYD(Murray)(10.11) —I move: Clause 9, page 4, line 28, omit ``5'', substitute ``7''. The amendment would increase the number of grower members on the Horticultural Policy Council from five to seven. The Council is to consist of 15 people-five to represent the actual industries, two to represent processors, one to represent persons engaged in the marketing of Australian horticultural products, two nominated by the Australian Agricultural Council, two nominated by the Australian Council of Trade Unions, the Chairperson of the Australian Horticultural Corporation and the Chairperson of the Horticultural Research and Development Corporation. There is strong support in the industry for the Policy Council and I would endorse that support because it will provide an opportunity for the very diverse industry to make progress with a range of issues, such as co-ordination, co-operation, development, promotion and so on, of significance to the industry, but it seems to the Opposition that the membership is unbalanced, because we have all noted in the debate the great range of horticultural industries that there are. To allow only five representatives from that great range of industries is inadequate, particularly when one considers some of the other positions. I put it to the Minister for Primary Industries and Energy (Mr Kerin) that we have not tried to determine whether there should be a reduction in the number or whether we should increase the membership of the Council from 15 to 17, or even, as I have understood it, to 18. Perhaps the Minister would like to confirm whether or not someone from the horticultural exporters is now to be included on the Council and increase its membership to 16. I acknowledge the point that the Minister made earlier that one cannot have too many people, because of all the problems of a bigger group. I put it to the Minister quite strongly and sincerely that there is a very strong case for increasing the number of the grower representatives from five to seven, whether it is seven our of 15, seven out of 16 or seven out of 18. I would prefer it to be seven out of 15, for the reasons that he has advanced about the problems of having too many members. I believe that there is scope to reduce the representatives of other groups by two and increase the grower membership by two. Earlier tonight the honourable member for Wakefield (Mr Andrew) made a point about the potato growers. That is a significant industry in its own right, and the question was whether such industries should have a guarantee of being represented on the Corporation. There was doubt also about some of the smaller and newer industries such as the tropical ones or the temperate ones. The amendment is put sincerely but strongly, and I hope that the Government will reconsider its position. Mr KERIN(Werriwa-Minister for Primary Industries and Energy)(10.14) —This should not be an issue about which the Government would die in the ditch, because I understand totally what the Deputy Leader of the National Party (Mr Lloyd) is saying. The whole question, to use his example, is about whether the potato growers are in or out. If they are not in, we have the problem that the people who are in will simply say that they should be out. I have already made comments about this. To pick up some of his other points, I agree that exporters are very important. All councils are best if they are small. We do not want to set a precedent. Five seems okay at this time. It is necessary to have flexibility at a later stage when more industries may come in, and that would be the time to consider this. I am open and flexible but at this time there is a principle. If the potato growers or rambutan producers or whatever want to get a place in the sun, the time will be when they are in, not when they are out. So the Government opposes the amendment. Amendment negatived. Bill agreed to. Bill reported without amendment. Madam SPEAKER —Order! It being 10.15 p.m., I propose the question: That the House do now adjourn. Mr Kerin-Madam Speaker, I require that the question be put forthwith without debate. Question resolved in the negative. Consideration resumed. Report-by leave-adopted. Bill (on motion by Mr Kerin)-by leave-read a third time. Consideration resumed from 18 September, 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. The Bill. Mr KERIN(Werriwa-Minister for Primary Industries and Energy)(10.17) —I move: Clause 14, page 4, at the end of the clause add the following subclauses: ``(9) The body that, under the regulations, is the eligible industry body for: (a) leviable horticultural products; or (b) a class or subclass of leviable horticultural products; may make recommendations to the Minister in relation to regulations to be made for the purposes of section 10 in relation to those products or products included in that class or subclass, as the case may be. ``(10) Before making regulations for the purposes of section 10, the Governor-General shall take into consideration any relevant recommendation made to the Minister under subsection (9).''. Without going into detail, this amendment is all about consultation, as I indicated in the earlier debate. Amendment agreed to. Bill, as amended, agreed to. Bill reported with an amendment; report-by leave-adopted. Bill (on motion by Mr Kerin)-by leave-read a third time. Consideration from 18 September, 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 Kerin) read a third time. Consideration resumed from 18 September, 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. The Bill. Mr KERIN(Werriwa-Minister for Primary Industries and Energy)(10.20) —I move: Clause 14, page 4, at the end of the clause add the following subclauses: ``(9) The body that, under the regulations, is the eligible industry body for: (a) leviable horticultural products; or (b) a class or subclass of leviable horticultural products; many make recommendations to the Minister in relation to regulations to be made for the purposes of section 10 in relation to those products or products included in that class or subclass, as the case may be. ``(10) Before making regulations for the purposes of section 10, the Governor-General shall take into consideration any relevant recommendation made to the Minister under subsection (9).''. Again the amendment relates to levies and charges. Amendment agreed to. Bill, as amended, agreed to. Bill reported with an amendment; report-by leave-adopted. Bill (on motion by Mr Kerin)-by leave-read a third time. Consideration resumed from 18 September, 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 Kerin) read a third time. Consideration resumed from 18 September, 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. Message from the Administrator recommending appropriation announced. Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith. Bill (on motion by Mr Kerin) read a third time. Motion (by Mr Kerin) proposed: That the House do now adjourn. Mr BRAITHWAITE(Dawson)(10.24) —Today might be known as Black Tuesday because I received telephone calls from two tax agents. Mr Scott —Because you lost on the Melbourne Cup? Mr BRAITHWAITE —I did not win anything on the Melbourne Cup, either. It seems that all of Australia has not won anything under the new system of assessing provisional tax quarterly. The Opposition is not opposed to that system, but it is typical of a government program implemented through the Australian Taxation Office that everything on this black Tuesday has gone wrong. The assessments have been sent out in envelopes that are described as multi-seal, multi-form. Those envelopes look very much like an air letter with perforations on three sides to allow for the removal of the assessment. I am told that the paper on the front of those envelopes is so thin that anybody could read the details inside the unopened envelope. One must question the security measures adopted by the Australian Taxation Office that would allow anyone who picked up the unopened envelope to read all the details of the provisional tax assessment therein. I am told from another source that the process of sending out these assessments has been let out to private tender. I have no objection to private contracting. In fact, the Opposition is on record as being in favour of privatisation. But the Government has decided to privatise an area where security should be maintained. If it is true, as I have heard, that the processing of these assessments is being given out to private tender, that could result in a lack of security. The second aspect of this matter is that the assessments that have been issued today are due to be paid on 1 December. Those subject to provisional tax have always had the opportunity to vary the amount of tax payable if their income should be less than that of the previous year, and if the variation had been too large in favour of the taxpayer, a penalty was imposed. I am told that it will not be until a fortnight from today-that is 16 November-that the forms for varying one's provisional tax assessment will be available to taxpayers. They will then have a fortnight in which to make that variation, if they feel so inclined, before the payment of their assessment is due. It is really stretching things a little not to make available the necessary variation form. Today the National Farmers Federation issued a statement headed `Farmers excluded from quarterly provisional tax'. The statement says that it is great that they have been excluded, and that they have had an assurance from the Australian Taxation Office that they will be required to make only one provisional tax payment each year. I have received complaints today from two tax agents, both of whom say that provisional tax assessments are being issued to primary producers. This has occurred apparently because the computers in the Taxation Office cannot distinguish between primary production income and other income. Primary producers who receive small or large incomes from primary production are receiving provisional tax assessments even though the Government and the Act say that they are not due to receive them. It means that those primary producers who have received an assessment will not be required to vary the amount of the assessment and claim an exemption. The cost of that exercise will be borne by the taxpayer. Different versions are given of the true situation. I understand that another accountant says that the system is that a primary producer who has opted out of primary production but who pays provisional tax on his main income will still receive an assessment. It seems to be an unnecessary additional cost to the Taxation Office and taxpayers to make these provisional tax assessments at this time in haste and without giving consideration to whether such assessments should have been made. The result is that the taxpayer is faced with the additional cost of making a variation of the amount and claiming an exemption. All of this is happening at a time when taxpayers around Australia are probably already busy lodging their returns for the 1986-87 financial year, in respect of which they have been given little relief from the Taxation Office in the past. Madam SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr HOLLIS(Throsby)(10.29) —On Thursday, 22 October of this year, the board of directors of the Broken Hill Proprietary Co. Ltd (BHP) held an historic meeting in Wollongong. It was the first meeting of the board ever to be held in Wollongong-the steel city of Australia. On that very same day, a cargo ship, the SS Bergen Malaya, was discharging in Port Kembla harbour a shipment of some 34,000 tonnes of steel imported from West Germany. The shipment was made up of 16,000 tonnes of stainless steel, 15,000 tonnes of ordinary steel coil and 3,000 tonnes of slab steel. To the best of my knowledge, this particular cargo is but the most recent of six shipments of imported steel discharged at Port Kembla this year-shipments which together comprise something of the order of 160,000 tonnes. BHP, which once made very considerable profits exporting steel, is now compelled to import steel in order to satisfy the Australian domestic market. It is in fact unable to satisfy the needs of its coated products division at Port Kembla-Lysaghts-and its other Port Kembla subsidiary, Tubemakers of Australia, both of which now must import steel to meet their manufacturing requirements. What has gone wrong? Why, you might well ask, Madam Speaker, at a time when the Australian Government is seeking so strenuously to encourage our export trade, has BHP suddenly found itself in a position where it must import steel. And just how strongly committed is BHP to steel making anyway? This is what BHP says. First of all, it admits that BHP Port Kembla has experienced a number of serious delays in commissioning new plant. Secondly, and more significantly, it says that BHP Port Kembla simply does not have the productive capacity to satisfy our domestic market, largely because its No. 4 blast furnace is not up to scratch. For some time now, BHP has been saying that the problem would be solved with the complete rebuilding of this furnace but now it says it cannot afford to spend the required $183m on the rebuilding program-at least not for the next four or five years. Instead, it will spend the lesser sum of $16m on relining the furnace. In the meantime, announced BHP, it will seek to lift productivity by shedding 2,600 jobs. This announcement was made at much the same time that the board of directors was meeting in Wollongong and one of its directors, Mr John Elliott, was proclaiming to the city's people-including its retrenched steel workers and others facing the loss of their jobs in the near future-his taste for Penfolds Grange Hermitage wine, which retails at approximately $45 a bottle. Were BHP to rebuild completely the No. 4 blast furnace, it would be in a position to lift production to such an extent that it could once more satisfy the Australian domestic market and would, moreover, be in a position to regain those vitally important overseas export markets. Just as importantly, it would not then need to get rid of another 2,600 steel workers, whose lost jobs will send further waves of unemployment through the Illawarra district. What would Mr Elliott's advice be to these unemployed? One local newspaper suggested it would be: `Let them drink Grange!'. The predicament in which BHP and our nation now find themselves is in stark contrast to the good old days. In its 1969 annual report, the Managing Director said: On April 13, 1969 it was announced that the Company, through its largest subsidiary, Australian Iron and Steel Proprietary Limited, was ready to proceed with a major new development at Port Kembla which will raise the raw steel capacity at that centre from the present level of 3.7 million tons per annum to about 5.4 million tons per annum and involve the expenditure of more than $150 million. Today, BHP Port Kembla produces something of the order of 3.5 million tons per annum-a significant drop, especially when one considers the advances in steel making technology. Elsewhere in the same report, the Managing Director boasts of `the remarkable contribution that the company makes to the Australian export effort'. `The company', he says, is, `a major exporter of iron and steel products-in fact, relative to production, one of the largest in the world'. In 1969, BHP made a record profit of $37.8m. The following year, 1970, it made an even larger profit of $49.7m-a staggering 32 per cent improvement on the previous year. A significant proportion of that massive increase in profits came from its steel works at Port Kembla-and from the toil of its thousands of steel workers. Today, many of those steelworkers are retrenched and others are facing the loss of their jobs over the next 15 months. Madam SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr HICKS(Riverina-Darling)(10.34) —In just over a week's time, on 11 November, I am sure that many Australians will pause to commemorate the signing of the Armistice for the official ending of the First World War. For some time I have been concerned that Australia's First World War veterans appear to have been almost forgotten and I believe it is imperative that we especially remember them in celebrating the Bicentenary of our nation. Madam Speaker, please excuse me if I state the facts which I know honourable members are well aware of, but I think it is important that I remind those who may have forgotten. The war cost the world dearly but, more particularly, the fledgling group of united colonies known as Australia lost many of what John Masefield described as `the finest body of young men ever brought together in modern times'. At Gallipoli, 8,537 young Anzacs died; 23,000 Australians died in nine weeks in the first battle of the Somme; 38,000 died at Ypres; 10,000 died at Bullecourt, not to mention the casualties at Pozieres, Villers Bretonneux, the Hindenburg Line and on many other battlefields. Of the 330,000 troops who fought 226,000 or 68.5 per cent were casualties which, incidentally, probably constituted the highest rate per capita for any of the allied nations. This era marked one of the very few periods in Australia's history when the population actually decreased. We now face the situation where only about 5,000 of these veterans remain with us and their average age is over 90 years. Over many years we have attended Anzac services and sadly have seen the numbers dwindle. On 26 January next year we proudly celebrate the Bicentenary of the first European settlement in Australia. To me, a date of equal or even greater importance is 25 April 1915 when Australia first became a nation with the storming of the cliffs by our soldiers at what is now known as Anzac Cove. We had, until that time, been a nation in name only. Not until that fateful morning did we become a nation in spirit. The Australians who participated in that and other actions of the First World War set the standards and laid down the traditions that we are all immensely proud of. Their like will never be seen again. They remain truly unique to our nation. Subsequently, Australians in other wars have been expected to live up to those standards and, because of the traditions of their forefathers, have always maintained the respect of the rest of the world-be they friend or enemy. It is interesting to note that many who fought under the Australian flag during the Great War were not born in Australia yet they did not hesitate to fight and die for their adopted country's cause. Unfortunately, many of us who have been willing to accept the traditions and the national ethos set by those men and women have not done enough to care for them, their families or those who carried their battle standards and traditions in subsequent conflicts. Although in the case of our First World War veterans the argument is academic, I believe that in celebrating our Bicentenary a special tribute should be paid to those remaining survivors of the First World War. In doing so we would be honouring the memory of all of the 325,000 comrades who are no longer with us. On Anzac Day 1988 I believe that the Australian Government should pay a special tribute to the survivors of the First World War who have not only served in war but also made an incredible contribution in peacetime. It may not be fitting to present medals or ribbons to surviving veterans because of what could be perceived as an injustice to their now deceased comrades. However, I believe that the Government, through an Act of Parliament, could confer on these survivors a distinctly Australian honour with the same connotation as that title of `unique national treasure' used by other nations. This would be on the understanding that no one would ever be conferred with that honour again. It would be a salutary tribute if the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) or the Governor-General could ceremoniously declare the honour on Anzac Day 1988. We have very little time left to honour these people who are responsible for so much of our nation's heritage and tradition and who are our last link with Australia's first emergence as a proud nation. These people left our shores and took with them only their courage, initiative and mateship, yet through their deeds they bequeathed to us a nation. Mr SCOTT(Hindmarsh)(10.39) —I am indebted to the honourable member for Riverina-Darling (Mr Hicks) because he introduced the topic that I wish to speak on tonight-that is, 11 November. But I wish to speak in the context of the coup on 11 November 1975 that tried to change the electoral democratic system that we have. I want to refer to a document and I think it is proper that it should be recorded in Hansard as it is the voice of the people. This document reflects the results of a poll conducted at polling booths in the Federal electorate of Newcastle regarding the retention of United States of America bases in Australia. That is the connection that my speech has to 11 November. Clearly, the evidence has established that messages from the United States involving the Central Intelligence Agency implicated it in the dismissal of the Whitlam Government. This particular poll was held in conjunction with the Federal election on 11 July 1987 at eight polling booths in the Newcastle electorate and it concerned the US bases at Pine Gap. The ballot paper presented to the citizens read: CITIZEN'S BALLOT The lease on the base at Pine Gap is due to expire on October 19 this year Is it your wish that:- * The lease be terminated?...* * The lease be renewed?...* * The electors be consulted by way of a national referendum?...* Mark with a ??? in the box appropriate to the action you think should be taken. Authorised by:-Newcastle Peace Forum. I think the results, no matter what one's views may be, are worth noting and recording. There were 1,266 votes in favour of the first question, that the lease be terminated. There were 612 votes in favour of renewing the lease. There were 1,186 votes in favour of a referendum. There were 44 informal votes. The total number of votes was 3,108. People who took part in this ballot are entitled to have results recorded in Hansard because I do not think that too much notice was taken of the ballot by the media, probably because there were other events on that day. These kinds of issues are easily swept into those for and those against, those who have fixed views. But I take a lot of comfort from the views reflected by the people who took part in this poll. I was proud to be associated with the recent demonstration in Alice Springs. Several colleagues and I were involved, issued a Press release and spoke to the people there. I was very impressed with the sincerity of those people. It is easy for the Opposition to label them as rent-a-crowd, as people with nothing else to do but to get involved, but if Opposition members had taken the time to be in Alice Springs to meet those people they would have judged the sincerity that was reflected by them. Their backgrounds made it obvious to anyone who had not a fixed position that they were concerned about the future. We too often close our eyes to the issues. I go on to tie in the question of 11 November. I ask honourable members opposite not to take my word for it but just to take time to go to the Parliamentary Library to retrieve the transcript of a 60 Minutes program of 23 May 1982 in which Ray Martin interviewed Christopher Boyce. Christopher Boyce was a young lad who found himself involved with Central Intelligence Agency activities and who disclosed what was going on in that agency. Because time is running short I will read quickly a passage from the transcript. In answer to a question, Christopher Boyce said that there were references-- Madam SPEAKER —Order! I am sorry, time has run out. The honourable member will resume his seat. His time has expired. Mr McGAURAN(Gippsland)(10.44) —The inability of the honourable member for Hindmarsh (Mr Scott) to finish even the first sentence of a quotation seems to me to pithily sum up the pathetic nature of his contribution tonight, and indeed that of the whole Left. There is nothing more upsetting than to see the Left reduced to a small conglomerate of second-rate members of this Parliament. It is pathetic because, like it or not, Madam Speaker, the Left within the Australian Labor Party (ALP) once had a great deal of influence. What influence does the Left now have when the honourable member for Hotham (Mr Kent) at Question Time asks the right wing Treasurer (Mr Keating) how it is that we have managed to get the deficit down so quickly? He put aside entirely the traditional concerns of his supposed constituency. The same honourable member a couple of years ago walked out on the delivery of a Budget when the Treasurer was announcing a token export of uranium. Mr Braithwaite —No self-respect. Mr McGAURAN —No self-respect. The Left is reduced to an irrelevancy within the ALP. The honourable member for La Trobe (Mr Milton) would be shocked by the comments about the effectiveness of him and his colleagues passed by so many of the Ministers who were once supposed to belong to his faction. It is really quite pathetic to see at this late hour the honourable member for Hindmarsh trot out Pine Gap, Christopher Boyce and the Central Intelligence Agency-the same tired old stories belonging to a long gone era. Forget about the accuracy or not of his accusations, he is dwelling in the past. Nothing could highlight more his ineffectiveness, his irrelevance, his patheticness than for him once again, not in the major times of this Parliament but at the very close of it, to raise these matters. Madam Speaker, do not allow me to be distracted from the matter that I really intended to speak about tonight. There was a report in the Sydney Morning Herald today by the rural writer, Peter Fray, which caused me and I would think other members, at least on this side of the House, a great deal of concern. It reported that a secret meeting took place in Sydney late last week between the supposedly newly formed Union of Australian Farmers (UAF) and a ratbag group of left wing unions including the Waterside Workers Federation, the Building Workers Industrial Union, the Australian Railways Union, the Amalgamated Metal Workers Union, the Federated Miscellaneous Workers Union and the Seamen's Union. Can one really imagine a group like that meeting with a supposed union of Australian farmers? I do not know a great deal about the Union of Australian Farmers. It has been formed mostly in New South Wales, although I understand some of its tentacles have spread to Victoria; but I am not aware of those involved. It would concern me tremendously if the Union of Australian Farmers were to be seduced into some sort of alliance with unions such as I have just described. The article by Mr Fray goes on to quote the President of the UAF, Mr David O'Dea, saying that he believed the issue of union-farmer relations was just another example of how the National Farmers Federation had failed the average family farmer. Mr O'Dea seems to want to commence a dialogue. The problem is that he is delving into the realm of the ridiculous if he thinks he can have a dialogue with Mr Tas Bull of the Waterside Workers Federation or Mr John Halfpenny of the Amalgamated Metal Workers Union or with the Building Workers Industrial Union under threat from Norm Gallagher's front men. My point this evening in the adjournment debate is to call upon Mr O'Dea or anybody else involved in that fledgling group, which has been condemned I understand by the major farm organisations, to stay away from those unions. If one sleeps with dogs one gets up with fleas. One cannot do deals with people who want to use and manipulate others and who want to fragment the cause of farmers. There are irreconcilable differences between producers such as farmers who live by the very sweat of their brow and the corrupted left wing unions I have described. Mr Hand —Madam Speaker, I raise a point of order. Mr McGauran —They are corrupt, all right. Madam SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member will sit down and not interrupt when the Chair is running the House. I call the Minister. Mr Hand —Madam Speaker, given that you have sat down the hooligan element I will not pursue it. Mr McGauran —Madam Speaker, what language did the Minister use? Did he use the word `hooligan'? I call upon the Minister to withdraw that remark. Madam SPEAKER —The comment made by the Minister-- Mr Hand —Madam Speaker, on the point of order, if I may: I do not consider my description of his most recent behaviour to be inaccurate. Therefore, I claim that it is not unparliamentary. Madam SPEAKER —The Chair is not interested in the Minister's comments. The comment the Minister made was not unparliamentary. Mr McGauran —On a point of order, Madam Speaker: Are you saying that a member can call another member a hooligan in this House and it is not unparliamentary? Madam SPEAKER —I am saying that his language was not unparliamentary; it may have been unfortunate but it was not unparliamentary. Mr McGauran —Madam Speaker, on a point of order: Are you saying that if a member finds language offensive it is not automatically withdrawn by the member who made the remark? Madam SPEAKER —I am saying that because it is in the Standing Orders. The House gave to the Chair some years ago the right to make the decision as to whether words uttered are unparliamentary. Mr McGauran —And you are telling this chamber that the word `hooligan' is not unparliamentary? Madam SPEAKER —The Minister made an unfortunate remark. Mr McGauran —But not an unparliamentary remark? Madam SPEAKER —Not an unparliamentary remark. Mr McGauran —Allow me to clear it up, Madam Speaker. It was not an unparliamentary remark? Madam SPEAKER —Thank you. I call the honourable member for La Trobe. Mr MILTON(La Trobe)(10.50) —The violation of human rights by the Pinochet military Government in Chile is continuing at an ever increasing rate, as indicated by the Chilean protest groups which, in the past few weeks, have been protesting on the lawns outside Parliament House. Mr McGauran —Here we go, the same old hobby horse. Mr MILTON —It might interest the honourable member for Gippsland do know that, at present, a group is protesting by way of a hunger campaign while he is speaking about irrelevancies. Both the honourable member for Hotham (Mr Kent) and I delivered petitions to the Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade (Mr Hayden) indicating the anguish which the Chilean communities now resident in Australia feel for the oppression which the Chilean people are presently suffering under one of the most oppressive dictatorships in South America. I indicate my support for their protests and the continuing need for the Government to express in the strongest possible terms its condemnation of the Chilean Government and its violation of human rights-in particular, the inhumane practice of eliminating all opposition by detention without trial or simply by abducting opponents so that they become part of the disappeared group. At present there are 3,000 people who have either been detained or who have just disappeared. I would like to quote from a letter sent recently by one group to the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) which illustrates the reign of terror which the Pinochet Government perpetrates in Chile. The letter states: (1) The most relevant case in the last 18 months is the kidnapping, torture and murder of three professionals in Santiago during March 1986. These three people, Jose Manual Parada, Santiago Natino A., and Manuel Guerrero C., were murdered by having their throats cut. Mr Tim Fischer —On a point of order, Madam Speaker: Could the honourable member also speak out about Tibet and Afghanistan? Madam SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member for Farrer should respect the Chair. Mr MILTON —I am quoting from a letter. The letter continues: Two of them were working for the Vicaria de la Solidarida, which under the auspices of the Catholic Church, is working unceasingly for peace, human rights and the return of democracy in Chile. (2) On 4 July 1986, when Chile had a large national protest, one military patrol set alight two students after pouring petrol over them. One of them, Rodrigas Rojas Denegri subsequently died. The other, Carmen Gloria Quitana, was successfully treated for burns to two thirds of her body in Canada. (3) On 7 September 1986, in Santiago, the intelligence service detained, tortured and killed four professionals: Felipe Rivera, an electrician, Gaston Vidaurrazaga, a teacher, Jose Carrasco, an editor and president of a union of Journalists, and Abraham Mus-Katalit, a publisher. (4) On 16 June 1987, the National Intelligence Service killed fifteen people, all of whom were younger than thirty years. Their names are: Ricardo Valenzuela Patrico Acosta Felipe Gonzales Guillermo de la Torre Juan Cardenas Felipe Antinao Santiago Montoya Manuel Valencia Wilson Henriquez Alberto Dias Antonio Guerra Plus four others whose names are not known. (5) At the moment we know that there are at least 600 political prisoners in our country. These prisoners have been accused by the CNI (Central Intelligence Service) and have been imprisoned indefinitely, usually without trial or sentence. They have no legal recourse and little possibility of recovering their freedom, particularly since the legal system in Chile is not impartial or independent. Currently, fifteen political prisoners have been condemned to harsh sentences by military courts because they admitted guilt rather than face further torture by the CNI. A petition has been presented to the Prime Minister calling on our Government to condemn the systematic violation of human rights in Chile and to vote in the United Nations to condemn the Pinochet dictatorship. The petition also asks that all Chilean political prisoners be admitted to Australia as refugees, and for immediate visas for those under sentence of death. It further urges the Government to use its diplomatic channels to persuade the Chilean Government to cease the practice of causing the disappearance of citizens. It also calls for a halt to Australian investment in Chile, an end to diplomatic relations, and the repudiation of the elections to be held in 1989 in Chile, as they will represent the denial of true democracy. I know that our Government is sympathetic to the plight of the Chilean people because I have seen a copy of the letter which the Foreign Minister has written to a number of groups. I hope that support can be given to the Chilean protest movement in Australia, and I hope that all members of this House are aware that these people are on a hunger strike on the lawns, in a tent. I hope that honourable members will at least listen to their case and to the facts of the atrocities which are occurring in Chile every day of the week as the Pinochet regime forces more and more oppression and violence on the people of Chile. Mr ANDREW(Wakefield)(10.55) —I am prompted to rise tonight by a number of remarks by honourable members on both sides of the House which focused attention on November 1975. I would like to draw the attention of the House, rather topically, to November 1975, but not to 11 November 1975; rather, to 4 November 1975, on which date the Melbourne Cup was run that year. I am reminded of this event because last Saturday evening I was invited to attend a dinner that had been convened in honour of a former member for Wakefield, Mr Bert Kelly. I was unaware, until I attended that dinner, that he had chosen the occasion of the running of the Melbourne Cup in 1975, just as the Cup was being called, to call for a quorum in the House. As the Liberal Party of Australia at that stage was in opposition, this forced Government members to enter the House to occupy the Government benches. It did not exactly endear the then member for Wakefield to the Government of the day. In fact, I note that Mr Fred Daly, whose seat does not come immediately to mind; I apologise for that-- Mr N.A. Brown —Grayndler. Mr ANDREW —The former member for Grayndler then chose to use the opportunity to move that the then member for Wakefield be not further heard, so my predecessor bar one was sat down for the rest of the day. I make that point because I seem to have earned a reputation, unfortunately, for calling quorums. I would have thought that the Government would look very kindly on the fact that the present member for Wakefield has not yet been tempted, or had the facility, to call a quorum during the running of the Melbourne Cup. If I may be a little less frivolous for a moment, I was interested to note during that dinner last Saturday, which was arranged by the Young Liberals in South Australia, the tribute paid by Mr Kelly to another former member for Wakefield, Charles Hawker, who had been something of an inspiration to Mr Kelly. I thought it significant that it had been the role that Charles Hawker had played-as you would be aware, Madam Speaker, his portrait now hangs in the gallery outside this chamber-and the example he had set prior to his tragic death which had inspired Mr Kelly to take the stand he took on the question of tariffs and the way in which we dealt with the level of protection that Australian industry should be afforded. Mr Kelly was a Nuffield Scholar in 1951 and also served as Chairman of the Advisory Board of Agriculture in South Australia. During those years, because of his father's involvement on the Tariff Board and the time that he spent talking to agriculturalists around Australia, he took up the cause of soil conservation and introduced contour banking to the mid north of South Australia, which did so much to stop what had previously been an enormous loss of topsoil from that part of the State. A tribute to Mr Kelly was paid by the honourable member for Tangney (Mr Shack); this was followed by comments from a former member of this House, Mr John Hyde. While many honourable members will have been aware of the writings of my predecessor, Mr Kelly, under the columns entitled `The Modest Member' and `The Modest Farmer' and in his books One More Nail and Economics Made Easy, I think I could be forgiven for concluding by referring to the question that he felt had most impact in the House. Honourable members would be conscious of the obsession he had with deregulation. It seemed that on one occasion he felt that the egg industry was about to be excessively regulated. As he was aware that inspectors were about to count the hens on each property that had more than 20 hens, he asked the Minister of the day-and he asked it as a member of the Government-whether the Minister would mind informing him how the inspector was supposed to count the hens on the Kelly property, because most of them lived either in trees or in the header. He reported that that question had a considerable effect, not only on the Minister of the day but also on the then Prime Minister. I am honoured to have an opportunity to serve in the footsteps of a man who remained a prophet unhonoured and whose prophecy proved ultimately to be well founded. Madam SPEAKER —Order! It being 11 p.m., the debate is interrupted. Mr Hand —I require that the debate be extended. Madam SPEAKER —The debate may be extended until 11.10 p.m. Mr HAND(Melbourne-Minister for Aboriginal Affairs)(11.10) —I was not going to rise in the debate but I take the opportunity afforded to me in my position to respond to what I consider to be most unfortunate comments made by the honourable member for Gippsland (Mr McGauran). I want to address some of his comments and the mistake he made in suggesting that farmers and trade unionists should not ever get together. He made some remarks which lead one to no other conclusion than that he believes they should never get together. I take a brief moment to tell the House of my personal experiences in this regard. I was formerly the Secretary of the South Western District Trades and Labour Council in Victoria. Mr Braithwaite —I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. Is it in order for a Minister to respond to a matter that is outside his portfolio responsibilities? Madam SPEAKER —Yes. There is nothing untoward. The Minister may respond to any matter raised in the adjournment debate. Mr HAND —I can assure the honourable member that, had it not been possible for me to do it now, I would have addressed the matter prior to 11 o'clock. I am in no way going to get personal so the honourable member need not rush to the protection of the honourable member for Gippsland. I can recall being approached on a number of occasions by prominent members of the farming community and farmer organisations in the Western District calling on the trade union movement to work with them. There was a particular time when farmers were receiving very low prices for their cattle. They came to the Trades and Labour Council and asked it to join with them in engaging in a blockade of the saleyards and abattoirs. They asked the Council to apply bans to enable them to force the buyers-that is, the people who were manipulating them as primary producers-to pay a more reasonable price. We joined them. We had a series of meetings all around the Western District. I recall attending many farmer organisation meetings and speaking about the needs of farmers and workers. After all, they are interrelated; in a lot of these towns people work in factories that refine the product produced by the farmers. So there is that relationship, that togetherness in terms of their both being able to survive in this very tough world. It is most unfortunate when an honourable member comes in here and makes a fairly emotive speech that does no justice to the farmer organisations in Gippsland which, on occasions, have worked with the Trades and Labour Council in that region to try to get a better society for farmers and workers in that area. The types of comments he made were most unfortunate and I guess showed up a little of his youth and his inexperience in life. I look at the honourable member for Wide Bay (Mr Millar) when I say that because he is a man of great experience. We have talked about each other's past and experiences. I am sure that he would understand exactly what I am saying. That type of comment made by the honourable member for Gippsland does no good to anybody. Those farmers sat down with that Council. Whether it is a big organisation or not is irrelevant; the fact that farmers and unionists can get together is the thing we ought to be considering and perhaps encouraging. Maybe we would have a better society if people sat down more often to talk with each other. I have been to many meetings of farmer organisations which prominent trade union officials from Melbourne have been invited to address. Union officials have addressed the Victorian Farmers Union, the Dairy Farmers Association and a range of other organisations. Those guest speakers come from all the political thoughts within the trade union movement. I can tell honourable members that if they went along and heard those people talking about their problems, they would find that the farmers relate to them. They ask them to come back and talk more about how their product is handled and what happens to it once it leaves the farm gate. So again I say to the honourable member for Gippsland that it does no good coming in here with that emotive language. What he ought to be doing is encouraging people in his electorate to come together more and to understand each other's problems. Perhaps people in his electorate would be willing to do that if he were only to make the effort to try to bring all of our community groups together. Madam SPEAKER —Order! The Minister's time has expired. The Chair has reflected on the expression which the Minister used against the honourable member for Gippsland. While it is not unparliamentary, I do not think that it reflects well on the House. I ask him to withdraw it. Mr Hand —In accordance with your wish, Madam Chair, I will withdraw. I am always willing to please you. Madam SPEAKER —Order! The debate having concluded, the House stands adjourned until 10 a.m. tomorrow. House adjourned at 11.07 p.m. The following notices were given: Mr Howe to present a Bill for an Act relating to social security and veterans' entitlements and other related matters. Mr Humphreys to present a Bill for an Act to amend the Health Insurance Act 1973 and the National Health Act 1953. Dr Blewett to present a Bill for an Act to amend various laws relating to community services and health, and for related purposes. Mr Kerin to present a Bill for an Act to approve an agreement for the amendment of the Agreement entered into between the Prime Minister of the Commonwealth and the Premiers of the States of New South Wales, Victoria and South Australia, with regard to the River Murray, the Menindee Lakes and other waters, to amend the River Murray Waters Act 1983, and for other purposes. Mr Kerin to present a Bill for an Act to amend the Dairy Produce Act 1986. The following papers were deemed to have been presented on 3 November 1987: Fisheries Act-Notices-Nos. 196, 197, 198, 199. Proclamation by His Excellency the Administrator fixing 28 October 1987 as the date on which the provisions of Division 2 of Part III of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation (Safeguards) Act 1987 shall come into operation. Quarantine Act-Determination fixing fees pursuant to section 86e, dated 27 October 1987. States Grants (Tertiary Education Assistance) Act 1984- Direction-1987-No. 29 Treaties-Text of- Which have been signed by Australia and which require further treaty action by Australia before the treaty can enter into force- (1) Treaty between Australia and the Federal Republic of Germany concerning Extradition done at Bonn on 14 April 1987. (2) Treaty on Extradition between Australia and the Republic of Portugal done at Lisbon on 21 April 1987. (3) Treaty on Extradition between Australia and the Hellenic Republic done at Athens on 13 April 1987. (4) Treaty on Extradition between Australia and the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg done at Luxembourg on 23 April 1987. (5) Treaty on Extradition between Australia and Spain done at Madrid on 22 April 1987. Which have been signed for and ratified by Australia- (6) Treaty on Fisheries between the Governments of Certain Pacific Island States and the Government of the United States of America done at Port Moresby on 2 April 1987. Signed for Australia on 2 April 1987. Instrument of ratification deposited by Australia on 18 May 1987. The Treaty is not yet in force. (7) Agreement among Pacific Island States concerning the Implementation and Administration of the Treaty on Fisheries between the Governments of Certain Pacific Island States and the Government of the United States of America done at Port Moresby on 2 April 1987. Signed for Australia on 2 April 1987. Instrument of ratification deposited by Australia on 18 May 1987. The Agreement is not yet in force. To which Australia has become a party by signature- (8) Exchange of Notes at Canberra on 5 January 1987 constituting an Agreement between the Government of Australia and the Government of the United States of America concerning the conduct of Equatorial Mesoscale Experiments and the Stratosphere-Troposphere Exchange Project. The Agreement entered into force on 5 January 1987. (9) Agreement between the Government of Australia, the Government of New Zealand and the Government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to Terminate the Nauru Island Agreement 1919 done at Canberra on 9 February 1987. The Agreement entered into force on 9 February 1987. (10) International Agreement on the use of INMARSAT Ship Earth Stations within the territorial sea and ports done at London on 16 October 1985. Signed for Australia on 2 April 1987. The Agreement is not yet in force. (11) Agreement between the Government of Australia and the Government of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics on Co-operation in Agriculture done at Canberra on 20 November 1986. The Agreement entered into force on 20 November 1986. (12) Agreed Statement on Observer Programme done at Port Moresby on 2 April 1987. Signed for Australia on 2 April 1987. (This Statement should be read in conjunction with the Treaty on Fisheries between the Governments of certain Pacific Island States and the Government of the United States of America (No. 6)). (13) Exchange of Notes at Port Moresby on 2 April 1987 constituting an Agreement between the Government of Australia and the Government of the United States of America on Access to the Australian Fishing Zone. The Agreement entered into force on 2 April 1987. (14) Agreement between the Government of Australia and the Government of New Zealand on Seismic Monitoring Co-operation done at Apia on 30 May 1987. The Agreement entered into force on 30 May 1987. (15) Agreement concerning an International Trust Fund for Tuvalu done at Suva on 16 June 1987. Signed for Australia on 16 June 1987. The Agreement, with the exception of Articles 5, 7, 12 and 16, entered into force for Australia on 16 June 1987. Articles 7, 12 and 16 entered into force on 11 August 1987. Article 5 is not yet in force for Australia. (16) Exchange of Notes at Canberra on 1 September 1987 constituting an Agreement between the Government of Australia and the Government of the United States of America on the Launching of Sounding Rockets. The Agreement entered into force on 1 September 1987. (17) Exchange of Notes at Canberra on 20 August 1987 constituting an Agreement between the Government of Australia and the Government of the Federal Republic of Germany on the Launching of Sounding Rockets. The Agreement entered into force on 20 August 1987. (18) Protocol of Amendment to the International Convention on the Harmonized Commodity Description and Coding System done at Brussels on 24 June 1986. Signed for Australia on 22 September 1987. (19) Exchange of Notes at Canberra on 30 September 1987 constituting an Agreement between the Government of Australia and the Government of Japan to Amend the Agreement for Air Services signed at Tokyo on 19 January 1956. The Agreement entered into force on 30 September 1987. Which Australia has accepted or to which Australia has acceded- (20) Amendments to Articles 24 and 25 of the Constitution of the World Health Organization adopted by the thirty-ninth World Health Assembly by resolution WHA 39.6 of 12 May 1986. Instrument of acceptance deposited by Australia on 25 February 1987. The Amendments are not yet in force. (21) Amendment to the Convention on the International Maritime Satellite Organisation (INMARSAT) done at London on 16 October 1985. Instrument of acceptance deposited by Australia on 24 March 1987. The Amendments are not yet in force. (22) Budapest Treaty on the International Recognition of the Deposit of Microorganisms for the Purpose of Patent Procedures, as amended done at Budapest on 28 April 1977. Instrument of accession deposited by Australia on 7 April 1987. The Treaty entered into force for Australia on 7 July 1987. (23) Regional Co-operative Agreement on Research, Development and Training Related to Nuclear Science and Technology, 1987 done at Vienna on 2 February 1987. Instrument of acceptance deposited by Australia on 11 June 1987. The Agreement entered into force on 11 June 1987. (24) Vienna Convention for the Protection of the Ozone Layer concluded at Vienna on 22 March 1985. Instrument of accession deposited by Australia on 16 September 1987. The Convention is not yet in force. (25) Amendment to the Operating Agreement on the International Maritime Satellite Organization adopted at London on 16 October 1985. Instrument of acceptance deposited by Australia on 10 July 1987. The Amendments are not yet in force. Which have been ratified by Australia- (26) Convention for the Conservation of Antarctic Seals done at London on 1 June 1972. Instrument of ratification deposited by Australia on 1 July 1987. The Convention entered into force for Australia on 31 July 1987. The following answers to questions were circulated: (Question No. 211) Mr Tim Fischer asked the Minister for Veterans' Affairs, upon notice, on 7 October 1987: (1) How many veterans, war widows and dependants utilise the Veterans' Home Services Program (VHSP) in each State. (2) What will be the eligibility criteria for the veterans' community under the Home and Community Care program (HACC) when VHSP is abolished in December 1987. (3) Will these criteria be more or less strict for veterans than for other persons who utilise services of HACC. (4) Will veterans, war widows and dependants currently receiving services under the VHSP need to reapply for HACC. (5) Can veterans, widows and dependants not currently receiving services apply for HACC services now or are they required to apply, until December, under VHSP. (6) What sum does the (a) VHSP and (b) HACC cost each year. (7) What sum will be saved by the transfer of VHSP to HACC. (8) How will the Government ensure that the extra $2m to be allocated to HACC will be utilised by State Governments solely for the purpose of providing services to veterans, war widows and dependants. (9) Has any State not co-operated totally with regard to (a) VHSP and (b) HACC, if so, which State has not co-operated in each case. (10) How can the federal Government ensure that State Governments provide the required services to the veterans' community. (11) What special arrangements will be made to ensure that those veterans, war widows and dependants who presently receive services under VHSP continue to receive services at the same level of care. (12) Are there any services currently being provided by VHSP which will not be provided under HACC. (13) What is the waiting time for the processing of applications for HACC services and how does this compare with the waiting time currently being experienced for VHSP services. (14) Is the decision to transfer the VHSP to the HACC a broken election promise to the veterans' community. Mr Humphreys —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) On 15 September 1987 NSW: Nil, Victoria: 298; Queensland: 12; South Australia: 34; Western Australia: 112; and Tasmania: 42. (2) The Home and Community Care (HACC) Program is directed towards assisting those persons (including veterans, war widows and their dependants) living in the community, who, in the absence of basic maintenance and support services provided under the Program, are at risk of inappropriate admission to long term residential care. Categories of persons assisted include: Frail or at-risk persons, with long term moderate or severe disabilities; Younger disabled people, with long term moderate or severe disabilities; The carers of those persons; and Other classes of persons which are agreed upon by the Commonwealth Minister and State Minister. A person is considered to have a moderate or severe disability if he or she has difficulty in performing any of the tasks of daily living, such as dressing, preparing meals, housecleaning, home maintenance or using public transport, without personal assistance or supervision. There are no formal criteria for eligibility for a particular service. Individual service providers are responsible for assessing a person's need for the service they provide in the area covered. (3) An individual service provider is expected to apply the same assessment procedures for all persons who apply for HACC services. (4) Veterans, war widows and their dependants receiving services under the VHSP on 15 September 1987 will continue to receive these services under the VHSP for their current episode of need. Those who commenced receiving VHSP services after 15 September 1987 may continue to do so until 1 December 1987 and then apply for services under HACC if further services are required. (5) Veterans, war widows and their dependants needing home care services up until December can either apply under the VHSP or can continue to approach a HACC funded organisation which provides the required services. It is pertinent to note that veterans, war widows and their dependants have already been receiving services under HACC. (6) (a) $1.09m in the 1986/87 financial year; (b) the 1987/88 Commonwealth Appropriation for the HACC Program was $176.878m which included an amount of $1.1m in recognition of the additional care load to be borne by the HACC Program following the Government's decision to rationalise the provision of home care services to veterans, war widows and their dependants through the HACC Program in lieu of the VHSP. The HACC Program is cost-shared between the Commonwealth and States. It is estimated that the funds available to the HACC Program in 1987/88 total $309m. From 1987/88 onwards moneys available for the HACC Program in a particular State are determined by respective Commonwealth and State expenditures in the previous financial year indexed by an agreed percentage up to a maximum of 20%. (7) The Commonwealth is committed to maintaining 1986/87 program expenditure on the VHSP in real terms through the HACC Program. (8) The Veterans' Home Services Program (VHSP) was initially funded in 1984/85 to meet the immediate needs of veterans and their dependants for home care services which could not be met through the Home and Community Care (HACC) Program at that time. The HACC Program has grown considerably in the last two years following the injection of significant additional new moneys into the Program by both Commonwealth and State Governments. The Commonwealth has provided an additional $1.1m for the HACC Program in 1987/88 in recognition of the additional care load to be borne by that Program with the abolition of the VHSP, not solely for the purpose of providing services to veterans, war widows and their dependants. It is expected that veterans, war widows and their dependants in need of HACC services will be assessed for services by service providers in the same manner as all others who apply for HACC services. State Governments will not be required to acquit the additional funds separately from other HACC funds. This would prove to be administratively cumbersome. (9) (a) State Governments have co-operated in the establishment of VHSP services although negotiations have been more protracted in some States than in others. In Queensland, Victoria and Western Australia the State Government has preferred negotiations to take place directly with provider agencies; (b) The Commonwealth and State Governments are co-operating in each State to ensure the successful development of the HACC Program. (10) Services under HACC are provided through non-profit organisations including State or local Government bodies, religious organisations and charitable organisations. Individual service providers, not State Governments, are responsible for assessing people for services. Veterans, war widows and their dependants living in the community will be able to apply to local service providers for services in the same way as anyone else in the community. (11) Veterans, war widows and dependants receiving services when the new arrangements were announced will continue to receive those services for the duration of their current episode of need. Funding is available for the purchase of those services and it is intended to make arrangements for services to continue through existing providers. (12) All major services available under the VHSP are available under HACC. The types of services eligible for funding under the HACC program are: Home help or personal care (or both); Home maintenance or modification (or both); Food; Community respite care; Transport; A community paramedical service; Community nursing; Assessment or referral (or both); Education or training for service providers and users (or both); Information; Co-ordination; Such other service as is agreed upon by the Commonwealth Minister and the State Minister. Each of these services can be provided either to a person's home, or in or from a community based centre. While there are some minor services available under the VHSP that are not available under the HACC such as heavy duty spring cleaning and social integration, current expenditure on these services under the VHSP is small. Their absence under HACC is more than compensated for by the broader range of services provided under HACC. (13) When a person approaches an individual service provider for services under HACC an assessment is made of that person's need for services. Subject to that person being assessed as needing services, the time then taken to provide services to that person varies according to the volume of services already being provided and the capacity of the organisation to expand. Delays are minimal, however. The time taken for processing VHSP applications varies with the locality and type of service. In general, nearly all routine applications are processed within two weeks of receipt. Most urgent cases are processed in one or two days. (14) The Government does not see the revised arrangements for home help services for veterans as being inconsistent with its election policy statement. VHSP was intended to serve a complementary function during the initial phase of HACC by acting as a safeguard against undeveloped areas in HACC services. Mr Hawke —On 27 October 1987 (Hansard, p. 1478) the right honourable member for New England (Mr Sinclair) asked me a question without notice about termination of salary support to Australian doctors in Fiji. I can now provide the following answer to the right honourable member's question: Following the second military coup in Fiji, the Government announced on 29 September 1987 that Australia's aid program to Fiji would be suspended. The bilateral aid program to Fiji includes the Australian Staffing Assistance Scheme (ASAS), which tops up the salaries of ASAS officers as contract employees of the Fiji government to a level commensurate with what they would earn in similar positions in Australia. Acceptable terms for the disengagement of ASAS personnel are being negotiated. Those who wish to stay in Fiji will retain their contract status with the Fiji government but will opt out of any Australian repatriation assistance and will not attract further payments under ASAS while the current suspension of the aid program is in force. There are six Australian doctors currently in Fiji funded under ASAS: two at the Lautoka Hospital (one of whom is an orthopaedic and training surgeon and who the Australian International Development Assistance Bureau understands is the only orthopaedic surgeon currently working in Fiji) and four at the Fiji School of Medicine based at the Colonial War Memorial Hospital in Suva. The Fiji School of Medicine is not part of the University of the South Pacific, although graduates from the Fiji School of Medicine are currently issued degrees by the University of the South Pacific. The Fiji government medical system, hospitals and the Fiji School of Medicine are facing difficulties following the coup as a result of the exodus from Fiji of medical personnel, quite apart from any effect due to suspension of ASAS. It is not the case, however, that suspension of ASAS will cut off all specialised surgery in Fiji. The Foreign Minister's statement of 16 October 1987 referred to Australia's wish to maintain its friendly links with the people of Fiji. I have stressed the same point. I note that the Right Honourable Member's question raises humanitarian issues for the people of Fiji. I have therefore directed that an examination be made to see whether there should be any exemption to the Government's general policy on suspension of aid to Fiji. I might remind the Right Honourable Member that the decision to suspend aid was rightly taken to demonstrate the condemnation of the Fiji coup by the Australian Government and people.