Thursday, 19 November 1987 Madam SPEAKER (Hon. Joan Child) took the chair at 10 a.m., and read prayers. Madam SPEAKER —I remind honourable members of the letter I sent to them earlier this week informing them that there will be a launch of the parliament education kit in King's Hall at 11.30 a.m. Bill presented by Mr Duffy, and read a first time. Mr DUFFY(Holt-Minister for Trade Negotiations)(10.03) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. The purpose of this Bill is to authorise a contribution of $A335m towards the eighth replenishment of the International Development Association, or IDA as it is commonly called. Grouped with this Bill are two further Bills, dealing respectively with Australia's contribution to the fourth replenishment of the Asian Development Fund (ADF) and the second replenishment of the International Fund for Agricultural Development (IFAD). I propose to discuss the substantive issues in respect of each of the three Bills in this speech, as there are a number of matters which overlap the Bills. I will then proceed to move the second reading of the Asian Development Fund Bill 1987 and the second reading of the International Fund for Agricultural Development Bill 1987, and make a short statement specific to each of those Bills. In late 1986, in the context of considering Australian contributions to the current replenishments of the Asian Development Fund and the International Fund for Agricultural Development, a number of questions arose as to the effectiveness and efficiency of those international financial institutions (IFIs) to which Australia belonged, namely the World Bank, the Asian Development Bank and the International Fund for Agricultural Development. A review of these IFIs as a basis for determining further Australian contributions to IDA, ADF and IFAD replenishments was carried out internally by the Australian International Development Assistance Bureau (AIDAB). AIDAB concluded that the IFIs are, in general, effective institutions and that Australia's participation in their activities complements our own bilateral aid program. I feel that, with regard to IFAD, a rigorous assessment needs to take account of views such as expressed by Professor Helen Hughes. In an article in the Canberra Times of 24 August, she points out that IFAD depends upon the World Bank and other agencies to do much of its project preparatory work; IFAD's projects are highly risky as a result of poor preparation and support by host countries; IFAD's examination system is not yet systematic; and that IFAD is weak on infrastructure and institutional support. She concludes, as I do: It would be wise to cut aid to ineffectual organisations and retain sufficient interest in the more effective ones to be able to have something of a say in their running. I turn now to the eighth replenishment of IDA. IDA was established in 1960 as the concessional lending affiliate of the World Bank. It assists its poorest member countries by providing long term, interest free credits for sound development projects, utilising mainly grant funds provided by donor countries. The poorest countries have great need for development assistance on concessional terms, which include lengthy repayment and initial grace periods. Honourable members will recognise that IDA, in turn, depends on developed donor countries like ourselves to provide most of the resources to carry on its work: donor funds are critical to the development needs of these countries. The eighth replenishment of IDA-IDA-8-is designed to cover concessional lending operations over the three fiscal years 1988-90. Negotiations on the size and modalities of the replenishment began in January 1986. The substantial needs of IDA recipients were viewed against the background of the budgetary resources available in donor countries to finance multilateral aid. Donors, including Australia, argued that every effort should be made to achieve an IDA-8 of at least $US12 billion, a level of replenishment which would maintain the real level of operations under previous replenishments. After extensive deliberations, on 15 December 1986 donors agreed on a basic $US11.5 billion IDA-8 replenishment with traditional burden sharing arrangements. In addition, five countries agreed to provide voluntary special contributions totalling $US731.7m. Switzerland, a non-member, made an untied grant of $US165m. During negotiations Australia argued that our economic circumstances precluded us from increasing our relative share of IDA. Australia pledged a maximum contribution of $A335m to IDA-8. This figure maintains our IDA-7 share of 1.98 per cent of the basic replenishment. The financial impact of the IDA-8 contribution is shown in the explanatory memorandum to this legislation. As in previous replenishments, Australia has the option of paying its contribution either in cash or by lodging non-negotiable, non-interest bearing promissory notes encashable on demand as and when funds are actually required by IDA for loan disbursements. In accordance with past practice, and in line with the practices of most other members of IDA, payment will be made in promissory notes, which will be encashed over a period of eight years, beginning in this financial year, as per the schedule in the explanatory memorandum. IDA contributions represent a major share of Australia's aid to Africa. Donors have agreed that 45 to 50 per cent of IDA-8 resources will be allocated to countries in sub-Saharan Africa. China and India are the other main beneficiaries; these two countries will receive about 30 per cent of IDA-8 resources. Honourable members will know that Australia has a solid record of support for IDA since its inception. There has been general agreement, on both sides of the House, that IDA is a highly effective channel for disbursement of development assistance to the most impoverished countries of the world. The recent major reorganisation of the World Bank initiated by the President of the Bank, Barber Conable, will, I believe, result in an even more efficient and responsive organisation. Indicative of the changes taking place at the World Bank is the significant increase in bank resources to be devoted to environmental policy and developmental strategies. The Bank has also increased its emphasis on women in development activities. This Bill provides an opportunity to demonstrate support for IDA and our willingness to recognise, through our support for this institution, the development assistance needs of the poorest developing countries. I turn now to the proposed Australian contribution to the fourth replenishment of the Asian Development Fund. As indicated, the Bill will be presented immediately following the IDA-8 legislation. Honourable members will know that since the Asian Development Bank was established in 1966 Australia has been and remains a strong supporter. The Asian Development Fund is the soft or concessional loan arm of the ADB. ADF resources complement our limited bilateral aid program to the poorest countries of South Asia, and supplement our bilateral aid to Papua New Guinea and the South Pacific. The fourth replenishment of the ADF is intended to cover concessional lending operations over calendar years 1987-90. Negotiations on the modalities of the replenishment commenced in June 1985, with Australia, Japan, Italy and the Nordic countries arguing for the $US4 billion replenishment level. This figure represented the level required to maintain the ADF's rear level of operations during the 1987-90 period. The ADF-V negotiations were concluded in April 1986 with donors agreeing to a replenishment level of $US3.6 billion. Australia pledged $410m, which represents a 7.98 per cent share of the replenishment. The basis for this level of contributions is that it would have been the equivalent of a 7.19 per cent share-that is, our share of the previous replenishment-if the fourth replenishment had reached the $US4 billion level which we had initially advocated. As with IDA-8, payment to the fourth replenishment of ADF will be made in the form of non-negotiable, non-interest bearing promissory notes. These will be encashed over a period of 12 years beginning in this financial year, as per the schedule in the explanatory memorandum to this legislation. Despite our strong and continuing support for the ADB, there have been concerns over some recent trends at the bank. Our main concerns have centred to some extent on personnel practices such as the handling of staff grievances, but more importantly on certain project proposals which appeared to be of doubtful value. It has appeared at times that the bank has been prepared to sacrifice quality control in order to maintain its level of lending. The bank has to be careful that it does not become guilty of `monu-mentalism' at the expense of rigorous quality control and economic justification. Australia has been quick to voice its concerns in an open and frank manner, at the executive board and at other fora. Indeed, at the 1987 annual meeting in Osaka, Australia's governor ad interim, the honourable member for Adelaide (Mr Hurford), outlined our concerns with the bank, and joined with a number of other members in calling for a comprehensive external review of the management and organisation of the bank. I note that the bank has acknowledged its concern and declared its responsiveness to the criticisms of Australia and others. A panel of five eminent persons has been set up as an external panel to study the role of the bank in the 1990s and provide a basis for the bank to formulate its operational directions, strategies and policies for that decade. We shall monitor the work of the panel closely and make known to the panel our views on the future of the bank. The Asian Development Bank and its Asian Development Fund have an important role to play in continuing to foster economic and social development in the region of immediate interest to Australia. Our contribution to the fourth replenishment will confirm our willingness to continue helping the poorest developing countries in our region with highly concessional assistance. We will continue to provide constructive criticism and comment where we feel this is necessary to ensure the continued effective operation of the ADB. The last of the institutions which come before our attention today is the International Fund for Agricultural Development. The primary objective of the fund is to help increase agricultural production in developing countries. Australia's membership of IFAD has been predicated on political and humanitarian considerations. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) donors supply 60 per cent of IFAD's resources, and the Organisation of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) the remaining 40 per cent. IFAD has had considerable problems in attracting regular replenishments from donors, more particularly from OPEC donors whose contributions set the base for the fund and therefore the total to be subscribed. The second replenishment-IFAD-2- negotiations took nearly three years to complete. Agreement was finally reached in January 1986 on a replenishment of $US460m, considerably below the original target of $US1 billion. The low replenishment level partly reflected the OPEC group's limited capacity to contribute in the wake of substantially reduced oil prices. Australia pledged $A8.48m to IFAD-2. This contribution represents our assessed burden share of 2.15 per cent of OECD donor contributions. Although Australia's share has increased from our 1.68 per cent share of IFAD-1, our contribution in both real and nominal terms has actually declined because of the low level of the overall replenishment. In the present circumstances the Australian share of OECD donor contributions maintains our support of IFAD programs through to fiscal year 1991-92 when the last encashment of the Australian contributions is scheduled. As the explanatory memorandum to the legislation shows, payment of the IFAD-2 contribution will be by way of promissory notes, to be encashed over a period of three years beginning in 1989-90. The Government has taken into account the low level of the IFAD-2 replenishment, and the protracted nature of the negotiations required to conclude the replenishment. There clearly are difficulties in terms of the commitment of some donor countries, particularly in the OPEC group, to provide a viable level of funding to IFAD. The Government also has concerns over the developmental effectiveness of IFAD and there are questions regarding IFAD's overlap with other developmental agencies. As honourable members are aware, the current climate of expenditure restraint has led to Australia's overseas aid program being reduced in real terms over the past three years. This cutback has required a rationalisation of the number of international organisations that Australia supports. It is in this context that the Government has decided to make no further contributions to IFAD after honouring our current commitment to IFAD-2. Australia accordingly will not participate in the replenishment negotiations for IFAD-3, due to start in 1988. In summary, I have taken the opportunity whilst speaking to the International Development Association Bill 1987, to canvass also the issues involved in contributing to the fourth replenishment of the Asian Development Fund, and the second replenishment of IFAD. I believe that it is both in Australia's national interest and in the interest of the international community as a whole that we should contribute to these organisations on the basis which I have outlined. Specifically, in respect of the IDA Bill, it is proposed that Australia contribute an amount of $A335 million to the eighth replenishment. I commend the Bill to honourable members and present the explanatory memorandum. Debate (on motion by Mr Moore) adjourned. Bill presented by Mr Duffy, and read a first time. Mr DUFFY(Holt-Minister for Trade Negotiations)(10.18) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. The purpose of the Bill is to authorise a contribution by Australia of $A410m towards the fourth replenishment of the Asian Development Fund. I commend the Bill to honourable members and present the explanatory memorandum. Debate (on motion by Mr Moore) adjourned. Bill presented by Mr Duffy, and read a first time. Mr DUFFY(Holt-Minister for Trade Negotiations)(10.19) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. The purpose of the Bill is to authorise a contribution by Australia of $A8,472,570 towards the second replenishment of the International Fund for Agricultural Development. I commend the Bill to honourable members and present the explanatory memorandum. Debate (on motion by Mr Moore) adjourned. [COGNATE BILLS: STATES GRANTS (TERTIARY EDUCATION ASSISTANCE) BILL 1987 STATES GRANTS (TERTIARY EDUCATION ASSISTANCE) AMENDMENT BILL (No. 2) 1987 AUSTRALIAN NATIONAL UNIVERSITY AMENDMENT BILL 1987 CANBERRA COLLEGE OF ADVANCED EDUCATION AMENDMENT BILL 1987 MARITIME COLLEGE AMENDMENT BILL 1987 STATES GRANTS (SCHOOLS ASSISTANCE) AMENDMENT BILL (No. 2) 1987 STATES GRANTS (EDUCATION ASSISTANCE-PARTICIPATION AND EQUITY) AMENDMENT BILL (No. 2) 1987] Debate resumed from 18 November, on motion by Mr Dawkins: That the Bill now be read a second time. upon which Mr Carlton had moved by way of amendment: That all words after `That' be omitted with a view to substituting the following words: `whilst not declining to give the Bill a second reading, the House condemns the Government for its failure to administer Austudy student assistance grants in a timely and efficient manner, thus causing grave inconvenience to students and their families'. Madam SPEAKER —Before the debate on this Bill is resumed, I remind the House that it has been agreed that a general debate be allowed covering this Bill and orders of the day Nos 3 to 9. Mr SNOWDON(Northern Territory)(10.20) —I rise in this debate to address the Student Assistance Amendment Bill 1987. The primary purpose of this Bill is to limit the extent to which Austudy is payable to students in private sector tertiary institutions. The Student Assistance Amendment Bill is significant in three respects. Firstly, it has clarified the question of eligibility for students who will seek financial assistance from the Federal Government during their studies. Secondly, it will allow the students enrolled in courses the subject of contractual arrangements with approved educational institutions to take advantage in certain circumstances of the status already enjoyed by the institutions. Thirdly, it allows the Minister to exercise his discretion to determine the institutions whose students will be eligible for Austudy. As to the first point, it is of the utmost importance when the Government provides a bene-fit that the legislation and regulations be clear as to the potential recipients. Without a clear approach, both the applicants and the Government may be forced to fund legal challenges brought under the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977. The Minister for Employment Services and Youth Affairs (Mr Holding), in his second reading speech, mentioned one such case which involved a claim by a student from the University College of the Northern Territory, but there have been others previously brought under different sections of the legislation, including an application for review that went to the High Court of Australia in 1977. Whilst I recognise that it would be impossible to cover every variable with this amendment, any step in this direction is a positive one. The second point to be considered is that the proposed new sub-section 10 (2) will allow students to be eligible for the benefit, subject to the Minister's discretion, where they study under annexed and contractual arrangements with approved educational institutions, even though they may not be physically attending the institutions. Such a situation may arise in a number of ways, but it is most clearly demonstrated by the example of the University College of the Northern Territory. The Northern Territory University College is not and has not been recognised by the Federal Government, and a number of consequences flow from this non-recognition. One of these is that, prior to the case mentioned by the Minister in his speech, there were doubts surrounding the eligibility of students to receive Austudy. The Northern Territory University College has an arrangement with the University of Queensland whereby students study at the University College but the degrees are awarded by the University of Queensland. Students at the University College are now eligible to receive the benefit of Austudy. It is by virtue of the status of the University of Queensland and its arrangements with the Northern Territory University College that students in Darwin are able to have access to this benefit. Such a situation is envisaged by this amendment. The amendment envisages that other similar arrangements are subject to the Minister's discretion. The amendment looks at situations where an educational institution requires or allows a student to take his course or part of it in another institution. This may be necessitated by the student seeking particular specialisation, often at another institution, or may be purely in relation to sharing of teaching or other resources between institutions. As the case referred to by the Minister has shown, it is necessary to put some limits on these arrangements. Without such limits there would be no end to the institutions that would seek to have approval for Austudy. This brings me to my third point directly concerning the Bill, that is, the Minister's discretion, as set out in proposed new sub-section 10(3), to determine that a place or class of places may be excluded from the operation of sub-section 10(2). The Federal Government, with its serious responsibilities in the area of tertiary education, must concurrently exercise the right to determine which institutions shall receive recognition and therefore benefits. The advantage of giving the Minister the discretion is that the fruitful and efficient arrangements between public and private institutions can be maintained without detriment to the individual student recipients, yet courses which are inappropriate for Austudy purposes will be excluded. By insisting on the formation of the University College of the Northern Territory, the Northern Territory Government, like all fledglings, has committed an unfortunate act in its own place, in its own nest, if you like. The Northern Territory Government established the University College of the Northern Territory against the advice of the Federal Government in 1985. The Federal Government went out of its way to accommodate the Northern Territory in its wishes, but rightly refused to fund a separate university. The Northern Territory had proposed the establishment of this separate university. The Commonwealth advised the Northern Territory Government that the most cost-effective and educationally sound approach to adopt would have been to develop a university at the site of the Darwin Institute of Technology. The Northern Territory Government rejected this view and this advice despite the significantly higher costs involved in the University College. The University College opened in 1987 on the site of the former Darwin Hospital. The initial annual recurrent cost of the University College is $24,000 per enrolment or some $30,000 per equivalent full time student. This compares with $18,000 per equivalent full time student for Griffith and Murdoch universities in their initial years and $11,500 per equivalent full time student for the Gold Coast College of Advanced Education in 1987, declining to $6,000 in later years. The fact is that the Northern Territory Government could have had almost everything it asked for with Commonwealth funding if it had only agreed to do it through the Darwin Institute of Technology-the established tertiary education venue in Darwin. The Territory Government was told that if it placed the university campus at the Darwin Institute of Technology it would receive the necessary capital funds and that recurrent costs per student would be made available. It costs an average of $6,500 to $7,000 per student in the rest of Australia. Currently, the Darwin Institute of Technology receives about $8,000 per student from the Commonwealth Tertiary Education Commission (CTEC). The Northern Territory Government in its original submission to CTEC asked for that initial grant of $24,000 per student. That submission will take its place in the archives as a brilliant example of absurdity and extravagance. As I have stated, it was a wrong-headed decision by the Northern Territory Government to pursue the Northern Territory university in this way. Nevertheless, the University College is a very heavy drain on education funds in the Northern Territory. In 1986-87 expenditure on this college was $5m and the Northern Territory's appropriation Bills for 1987-88 have earmarked $5.6m for that purpose. It is interesting that this money has come directly from the Northern Territory Treasury. At the same time, the Northern Territory Government has cut expenditure in other areas of education by $6.2m. This has had a dramatic effect on the standard of service provided by other education institutions in the Northern Territory. For example, in the area of secondary school staffing, including resource teachers and librarians, there has been a loss of almost 50 positions. There has been a negative impact upon the provision of special education and migrant education services. Per capita funding in schools has been cut by 20 per cent and there has been increased pressure on families to pay additional costs directly to schools and other institutions. There has been a decrease in the number of courses that can be offered at the Darwin Institute of Technology, the hardest hit being technical and further education courses. According to the Northern Territory Government's own Budget Papers, until at least 1991 degrees from the Northern Territory University College will be awarded by the University of Queensland and merely endorsed to show that they were obtained through enrolment at the Northern Territory University College. In its Budget Papers of 1987-88, the Northern Territory Government admits that the enrolments in the Northern Territory University College courses are few in number. It may be necessary to offer advanced studies in some fields by external study or by transfer to the University of Queensland in Brisbane. In its next breath the Northern Territory Government claims that the Northern Territory University College can offer post-graduate courses in honours, master's qualifying, MA, MSc and PhD studies. This is hardly an example of the dynamic and independent academic stand that is greatly needed in the Territory. We have an urgent need for centres of academic excellence. An example of the lack of excellence in the Northern Territory University College is the provision of its law course. Almost 60 students were enrolled in the first year of that law course. However, in the second year, which is still attached firmly to the Queensland University, there is provision for only five places. Given this example, my primary concern in speaking about the Northern Territory University College in this debate is for the students. They have been unwilling and unhappy pawns in the Territory Government's self-interested attempts to establish a university, which culminated in this appeal to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal. Accordingly, I have approached the office of the Minister for Employment, Education and Training (Mr Dawkins) with my concerns about the University College and I am pleased to advise the House that his office has made me aware that the Commonwealth Tertiary Education Commission has prepared a briefing paper which discusses the amalgamation of the Northern Territory University College and the Darwin Institute of Technology. Although the Minister has yet to form a view on the matter, which in the first instance will also be a matter for the Northern Territory Government to consider, the amalgamation is a suggestion on which the Northern Territory Government should reflect most carefully. It is one that I would commend to the House. The idea has great merit and would go a long way to solving many of the problems that now confront the Northern Territory University College and it would assist the Northern Territory Government to use its educational resources more efficiently and expeditiously. The amalgamation of the Northern Territory University College and the Darwin Institute of Technology to create one tertiary institution in the Northern Territory would save taxpayers' money not only in the Northern Territory but in Australia generally. It must be remembered that the Northern Territory Government relies on the Commonwealth for 80 per cent of its revenue, so indirectly the Australian taxpayers are paying for the extravagance of the Northern Territory Government in building this white elephant, the Northern Territory University College, on its site at the old Darwin hospital. Amalgamation of tertiary institutions will be addressed in more detail by the Minister in a Green Paper to be released in December. I sincerely hope that the Northern Territory Government will not reject this proposal because it is made by the Federal Government. To keep playing politics with people's careers, as the Northern Territory Government has done in the past with the Northern Territory University College students, is unforgivable. This time the Northern Territory Government should heed some of the advice offered to it and consider the welfare of the students who are attending the Northern Territory University College. Mr McVEIGH(Groom)(10.32) —I wish to take part in the debate on the Student Assistance Amendment Bill and cognate Bills, recognising that we as a nation have taken a track which now fortunately has terminated at the yawning chasm of economic reality. In the face of our current economic crisis, it is indeed creditable that those members of this esteemed institution, empowered to dictate the future direction or our education system, have recognised the role and subsequent impact of education on our economy. I suggest that its impact on the economy can be best illustrated through the medium of the immortal words of Joseph Addison, a seventeenth century poet: What sculpture is to a block of marble, education is to the soul. However, in the face of this debate, let it not be forgotten that this proverb also extends to the individual level of personal development. To dredge this argument from the morass of obscurity, I hope I shall be permitted to echo the sentiments expressed in less abstract terms by the Director of the Darling Downs Institute of Advanced Education, Dr Lindsay Barker, at his address in May this year to a group of college graduands in my home town of Toowoomba. Dr Barker said: It is essential that all who work in education become actively involved in the process of adjusting our society to meet the changed circumstances. This task demands that educators develop a carefully thought out personal philosophy which will enable them to meet the pressures that are always associated with change. This theory, however, has no chance of being practically recognised as a reality unless it is supported by a cohesive education system. It is on the basis of this argument that I wish to address these education Bills. I am delighted to acknowledge that the Federal Government is in the vanguard of establishing that higher education must not be the prerogative of the rich. Currently in Australia the number of people undertaking studies at tertiary education institutions, including colleges of technical and further education (TAFE), exceeds 1.5 million. Of this total, 176,000 are studying at universities, 195,000 at colleges of advanced education, and 1.3 million at TAFE colleges. In 1987 the Federal Government committed itself to making Austudy payments to 7.6 per cent of these people as a total group. In 1988 this is expected to rise to 7.8 per cent. This represents support to some 128,000 whom one might term struggling students. While that is good in principle, let me point out that this year, in practice, it fell well short of meeting its objectives. Apparently because the computers and staff of the Department were not equipped to cope with the overwhelming demand for Austudy, some students were left waiting up to six months for their applications to be processed, effectively forcing them to take up student loans in order to support themselves in the interim. I ask the Minister for Employment Services and Youth Affairs (Mr Holding) to take up with the Minister for Employment, Education and Training (Mr Dawkins) this matter which caused a great deal of personal anguish and concern to students and their parents. Many of the students had to leave their courses. In future, Austudy payments should be processed within a month, thereby not defeating the original purpose of such financial assistance. It is good that assistance is available. I support that, but it causes great difficulties when someone who is entitled to a payment does not receive that payment for several months and when, in some cases, people are forced to leave a higher educational institution. Let us ensure that the practical parts are put into operation so that people's claims can be processed and paid in a normal commercial period of, say, 30 days. The Government's financial support to these students in 1988 can be expressed in monetary terms as $403.7m, which is an actual increase of $46.3m, or 13 per cent, on the previous year. On the basis of those statistics, the Government can rightly be commended on its increased commitment to encouraging youth to strive for that elusive goal of a tertiary qualification. On the long and sometimes winding path towards achieving that goal, the Federal Government has lent a further guiding hand through the provision of Austudy payments to secondary students. The same problems have occurred there, but I suppose the degree of difficulty experienced has not been quite so high because, in the main, secondary students are still being supported by their parents. In 1987, 99,000 students were recipients of the benefits, and in 1988 the figure is expected to rise to almost 109,000. That represents a financial commitment of $171.2m, which is a rise over the previous year of 59.9 per cent. In toto, outlays to the scheme are estimated to increase by $113.5m to $589.3m in 1987-88. Present policy, however, appears to be merely a response to a series of immediate problems rather than a carefully formulated strategy. Therefore, Australia is in need of such a national vision and strategy; yet the people debating this issue argue whether these Bills do, in fact, represent the reform Australia needs. In passing, I support the comments of my colleague the honourable member for Fairfax (Mr Adermann), who in a speech last night appealed for assistance to be given to students who study at theological colleges. It appears that they are being discriminated against. My understanding of the position is that some legal advice indicates that if a Government helps a student studying in a theological college, a student who will eventually become a minister, it could be in breach of the Constitution in that the Government is not supposed to give assistance to religious organisations. I ask the Minister to further examine that point raised by my colleague the honourable member for Fairfax last night in another debate. The line being pursued by the Federal Government through the medium of these eight education Bills is the restoration to the Commonwealth of the right to determine those institutions to which financial assistance and Austudy is provided, which thereby limits the provision of Austudy to publicly funded courses. In other words, the Government is taking the liberty of bestowing upon itself the power to make autocratic decisions concerning the education of all Australians, which, as I have already pointed out, will ultimately determine the direction of change within the country. Further to this move, last month the Federal Government established a new national education body which effectively took over the role of the Commonwealth Schools Commission and the Commonwealth Tertiary Education Commission to facilitate the bringing together of all sectors of education. On 20 October, I issued a Press statement commending the Government on the move suggesting that it was one that would herald the birth of a much needed single education policy. However, I have one minor reservation concerning the move, which regrettably appears to have been realised. I appealed to the Government not to dislocate its perspective and seize upon this opportunity of using the Australian people as pawns in order to make short-sighted political gains. I feel that the extent to which the Government, exclusively, is making decisions on behalf of society as to which individuals and which institutions should receive financial assistance represents such a turn toward political expediency. The Student Assistance Amendment Bill limits the extent to which Austudy is payable to students in private sector tertiary education institutions such as denominational teacher training colleges and some business colleges. The Act formerly allowed these people to gain Austudy benefits, thereby effectively bypassing ministerial screening. However, this amending Bill now limits those who are eligible to receive these benefits. Similarly, the Minister also possesses the power to revoke approval of courses to be funded. According to the Government, the logic behind this move rests solely on its attitude toward a particular course or program of study. Only if the Commonwealth considers a course to be of `sufficient educational significance'-those are the words of the Government spokesman-will it provide financial assistance. Clearly then, those courses at such institutions as academies of dance and art, cooking schools, chiropractic colleges-just to name but a few of the examples cited by the Government-which do not happen to come within the esteemed realm of `sufficient educational significance' are excluded from gaining financial assistance. The Commonwealth has also adopted the recommendation of the now defunct Commonwealth Tertiary Education Commission to provide further concentration of effort in the general areas of science, technology, engineering and business. Priority has been given specifically to computer science, electronic engineering, accounting and business studies, industrial and product design. The Government has provided $23.4m in recurrent funds to increase higher education intakes by between 3,500 and 4,000 in 1988. More than 80 per cent of these funded places will go to those aforementioned fields of study. Although I acknowledge that this move will be beneficial to perpetuating economic recovery one must not lose sight of the fact that other courses of study and other students are being sacrificed for this scheme to work. This serves to offset the principle behind the States Grants (Tertiary Education Assistance) Amendment Bill, which provides a net increase of $3m with the underlying purpose of promoting `equality of opportunity'. In the light of this move, the announcement of the Commonwealth's dedication to providing education to all people, especially the young, through the allocation of $2,624.1m in funding for Australia's education sector, made by the Minister for Employment, Education and Training (Mr Dawkins) just under a fortnight ago, becomes merely hollow words. My particular anxieties are reflected in some of the questions raised by Dr Barker in his aforementioned address in Toowoomba in May. He asked: firstly, who shall be educated-all or some? Secondly, should the education of leaders be different from the education of others? Thirdly, if educational opportunity is to be equal for all, must the same kind as well as the same quality of education be offered to all? So the debate is unfurled. Should not every study from a variety of disciplines and institutions be extended the same opportunity for furtherance in his or her chosen field without regard to whether it can be categorised by the value laden term of `sufficient educational significance'. Moreover, I question to whom it must be `significant' and to what end. In returning to Dr Barker's question, I ask: To what end should the state direct the education of its members? Should it be to its own welfare and security, or to the happiness of individuals and their quality of life? Should education always serve the status quo by preserving existent customs and perpetuating existing forms of government; or can it aim for a better society and a higher culture? As I noted in the opening paragraphs of this speech, education has a role to play in the future direction of our economy and I commend the Government on recognising this fact and subsequently acting upon it. However, we cannot allow this perpetuation of the socialist ethic to dictate what our children shall and shall not study. Education should be allowed to fulfil its second function-that of encouraging personal development-and this can be done only if people are afforded the opportunity and facilities to expand and to branch out into different fields. The time has most certainly come for a carefully formulated education strategy, but the Government should take time out to reassess what it is attempting to achieve through the strategy. The new directions that must be developed can be fixed only by asking questions and reaching conclusions that transcend individual self-interest or political expediency. Mr LEO McLEAY(Grayndler)(10.47) —I wish to deal with three items that are part of the financial package involved in the Student Assistance Amendment Bill and cognate Bills. I would like to address the question of improved access for lower income families to secondary education, to university education and to trades training. I would also like to talk about the financial assistance that is now available to low income families for access to higher education. More importantly, I would like to say a few words about adult literacy. Since this Government came to power there has been a marked increase in access to tertiary education, high school education and trades training for children and young people. The year 12 retention rate has increased from 36 per cent four years ago to almost 50 per cent in 1987. The Government is confident that we will get to a 65 per cent retention rate by the first half of the next decade. Those statistics might sound meaningless unless one applies them to schools. It is interesting to consider the impact these retention rates will have on the children who are growing up where I grew up and who go to the school that both you, Mr Deputy Speaker, and I went to in Marrickville. In the days when we went to school it was not all that common for people who went to school in such suburbs to do their leaving certificate and then undertake tertiary education. My wife and I finished our schooling at the same school about the same time. She was one of four or five people in her leaving certificate class who went on to university. Those figures have changed significantly in recent years. Even with improved access to schooling there has always been a significant educational barrier to people from low income families. One of the barriers was that the schools that serviced areas where people on low incomes lived were not as good, in many instances, as schools in the better parts of Sydney and Australia. They did not have the same resources or the same ethos which encouraged people to scholarship and improvement. Indeed, it was the reforms of the Whitlam Government and the work that Kim Beazley senior did in providing resources for schools in the inner city and western suburbs of Sydney that made it possible for this Government's schemes to encourage people to stay at school to prosper. When in the future we look back on the things that were important to people being educated in Australia, I think the two matters which will stand out greatly will be the work done by Kim Beazley as the Minister for Education in the Whitlam Labor Government and the work done by this Government in extending the capacity for young people to continue in secondary school. We have now developed a number of different types of programs in schools that encourage young people to stay at school. It has been funding provided by Commonwealth governments that has allowed these innovative programs to exist. Schools in my electorate provide multi-stream education whereby young people can choose to study things that they are interested in as well as the basic tools of reading, writing and arithmetic-things that will make them wish to stay at school rather than subjects which may in the past have driven people away. I think it is that approach to making secondary school interesting and attractive that has done a lot to keep young people at school. This Government has looked at the apprenticeship area as well. It has increased the apprenticeship training available to young people. Four years ago the number of young people in Australia with apprenticeships was declining fast. This Government has reversed the decline and the number of young people involved in apprenticeships has risen by 16,000 since 1983, an increase of at least 50 per cent. Looking at the skills base of Australia, that is a remarkable turnaround. Three or four years ago young people who wanted to go into a trade and learn a skill that could take them through life found that there just were not openings available. They found that businesses were not taking on apprentices and tradesmen were not training people to take their places. With the introduction of such things as group apprenticeship schemes and a number of other innovative programs funded by this Government, there has been a very substantial increase in the number of apprenticeships available to both young boys and young girls. I think that the Government's program of encouraging young women into trades is a very important thing for us to have done. I recall that when I first started my apprenticeship training-probably too many years ago for me to wish to remember-our class of 250 at the Alexandria technicians training school with Telecom Australia, as it now is, was made up of 16- and 17-year-old young men. Recently I had occasion to have the phone at my home repaired and the technician was a woman in her early twenties. I think that the changes that have allowed girls to get involved in those technical trades have opened up to young women with ability and capacity a whole new world that was not there 15 or even 10 years ago. In many of these trades there was no capacity for the entry of women even five years ago. This Government has gone a long way down the track of increasing young women's access to that type of trade training, and that will be of considerable benefit to Australia in the future. Looking also at university access, it is important to consider the changes that this Government has wrought in the system. As I said, some years ago at the school that you, Mr Deputy Speaker, and I attended we would see that maybe 2, 3, 4 or 5 of the people who finished the final year went on to university. These people were the exceptions-or thought to be the exceptions-in their classes. It always struck me as incredibly strange that any number of surveys that were done of tertiary participants in Australia found that over 75 per cent of people attending universities came from the upper levels of the socio-economic scale. No one could suggest that poor people are not intelligent. No one in his right mind would even attempt to suggest that. But we had the taxpayers of Australia funding a university system that the great majority of their children did not have access to. If there was one thing that struck me as really criminal that we in Australia did in those post-war years until the Whitlam years, it was that we kept talented working class kids out of the universities and other tertiary institutions, firstly, in many instances because their parents did not have the money to afford to have them attend and, secondly, because we tended to support an education system that did not encourage those young people even to attempt to enter university. Whitlam and his associates thought that doing away with fees would be one way of encouraging access for young working class people. Unfortunately, that was a failure. The abolition of university fees did not change to any great degree the participation of working class people in university level education straight from school. It always struck me that working class families needed two things to get their kids into university. They needed to have the chance to get in, but they also needed to be paid for having their kids go there. If a family were struggling and had financial difficulties it was always too easy to say that a child, usually the girl, should leave school at 15. A girl might get a job in a shop or an office, or a boy might be told he should leave school and get a job in a factory to help the family finances. The only way that we could break that cycle of people from low socio-economic groups not getting access to university education was to find a way to pay those people, not only to attend university but also to attend secondary school. Steps were made that assisted along the way, but I think one of the great achievements of this Government is the Austudy provisions for secondary school students in Australia. I know that for many kids living in my electorate Austudy is what makes or breaks not their chance to get to university but their chance to do the Higher School Certificate. If we are really about providing equity in Australia we have to give those young people the chance to succeed. It is interesting to note now that there has been a dramatic increase in the rate of participation by lower socio-economic groups in year 12. I believe that the provision of Austudy has been of great assistance in that. In fact, it is also interesting to note that in a speech made by the Minister for Employment, Education and Training (Mr Dawkins) he said that, of the 215,000 Austudy applications approved for payment of allowances so far this year, no fewer than 94,000 were for secondary students. I would suggest to the House that the great majority of those young people would not have attended senior secondary school if they had not been able to get Austudy. In times of economic stringency, with families having financial problems, the girls in particular would have been required to go out to work. Austudy has done a great deal to give kids from low income families a great chance to get a Higher School Certificate and, for many of them, the chance to get into university and to break that economic cycle that their parents and, indeed, many of their grandparents had always been in. It is interesting to look at what the Austudy scheme does for families on low incomes. Let us take the case of a family entering the new year, 1988, with three children at home, one attending a university, one over 16 years of age in a secondary school and the other perhaps 12 or 14 years old and therefore not eligible for Austudy. Let us say that the income of such a family is $300. Under this Government in 1988 that family will receive real financial assistance to help their children complete their studies. They will receive a family allowance of about $5.25 a week and a family allowance supplement of $28 a week. They will get Austudy payments of $50 a week for the senior secondary child and $60 a week for the child at university. That makes a total of $143.25 a week extra that a family on $300 a week will get to support them and the education of their children. It is interesting to go back and look at the situation that such a family would have been in in 1983. As you well know, Mr Deputy Speaker, $300 a week is typical of the family income of the great majority of people who live in my electorate. Mr Hollis —And mine. Mr LEO McLEAY —As the honourable member for Throsby, who is sitting next to me, says, it is also the case with the people whom he represents in the south-eastern part of New South Wales. In 1983, before this Government came to power, a family on that rung of the income ladder would have been earning about $199 a week. Taking into account family allowance and those sorts of things and without looking at the specifics, the assistance that that family would have got from the previous Government would have been $69.28, compared with the $143.25 that such a family will get in assistance from this Government. This assistance will increase dramatically the capacity of that family to educate its children. Without the assistance that this Government has given, the young people in that family would go the same way as their parents, into either semi-skilled or unskilled work, with not much to look forward to in the future and with not a great deal of expectation, even for their young children. The amount of money involved in these Bills is huge in concept. Thousands of millions of dollars are associated with the programs that the Parliament is debating today. But I want just to take five minutes to say a few things about one area, which is probably the smallest program involved in the vast amount of money associated with these Bills. In the allocations that we are making for technical and further education in 1988, there is an amount of $6.4m for programs in advanced English language for migrants, adult literacy and non-government adult education. That amount of $6.4m is a small line in a large Bill. The part of that $6.4m which will go to adult literacy is probably some of the most important money we can spend in Australia at present because, while we are looking at the future of Australia and governments are saying that we should be reskilling people and providing access for people to secondary and tertiary education-the great bulk of this legislation provides that access-we cannot forget those people who, in all instances through no fault of their own, finished school but did not learn to read or write. In the latter part of the twentieth century, when everything is moving at nearly twice the speed of light, we tend to forget about that group of people. In an earlier age governments were very concerned with literacy. Most education Ministers would say that we have tended to solve the problem of illiteracy in our community. But there is still a small group of people who, because they are now a small group, are in an even worse position than people who may have been illiterate at the turn of the century. I spoke earlier about when I went to school. When I was thinking about what I would say in this speech, it occurred to me how much greater would be the difficulties one would have now if one were functionally illiterate compared with then. If I had wanted to catch a bus, or a tram in those days, from Enmore up to Marrickville, I would know which tram to get on because, instead of having the name of the suburb to which it was going written across the front of the tram, there were symbols. The symbol for Earlwood was a couple of dots and for Canterbury three diamonds. So, if I had not been able to read, I would have known which tram to get on. Nowadays, if one cannot read, one may not even know which bus to get on to get home. But the worst thing for people who have not learned to read at school is that in many instances it is not their fault. If one is blind, deaf, cannot speak or has a mental problem, that is something done to one by God; it is not something that one does to oneself. But people who cannot read get the unfortunate feeling that it is something that they missed out on and that it is their fault. One of the important things we need to accept in society at present is that it is not the fault of that group of people that it cannot read. We have to do the best we can by providing assistance, both through governments and through changes in attitude, to help people who have not learned to read at school to make that big jump. An amount of $6.4m in billion dollar programs is not enough. It ought to be improved. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Mountford) —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr MILES(Braddon)(11.07) —Having noted what the previous speaker, the honourable member for Grayndler (Mr Leo McLeay), was talking about with regard to reading, I could not agree more with him about the concern there is for those children in our schools who do not seem to learn to read while they are there. Let me say on this point that that is something fundamental in our education system that should be addressed, particularly by the teachers, because there are very few, if any, children born into our society who, if they go to school, cannot be taught to read. The simple fact is that so often in our schools the children are taught to read by several different methods. They get confused and after a few years we find out that they cannot read. Certainly, it is a problem which should be addressed by the teachers in the schools of this nation. The House is discussing a package of eight education Bills arising from the Budget and from the recent statement by the Minister for Employment, Education and Training (Mr Dawkins) on higher education and the proposed new advisory bodies on employment, education and training. The Bills range from general Bills such as the Student Assistance Amendment Bill to specific Bills such as the Canberra College of Advanced Education Amendment Bill. I welcome such a wide-ranging debate on education issues and want to raise a number of particular issues in regard to schools. This Government has preached the virtues of deregulation with a vigour more characteristic of members on this side of the House. Aviation, currency, the media, communications, financial markets and business regulation are all areas which this Government is opening up to the fresh winds of the market. But why is it not doing so with education in our schools? If we can manage to deregulate institutions as unstable as financial institutions, why can we not deregulate institutions as stable as our educational institutions? The fact that there is no fundamental inconsistency between deregulation and education has effectively been conceded by the Government. Already Minister Dawkins has hinted at a number of significant possible reforms moving towards freeing up the higher education system. The tertiary education assistance part of this package relaxes to some extent the legislative prohibition on fees. Why not move in the same direction in the schools system? Parents should have the opportunity to choose the education they want for their children, but this Government lives by the principle that its platform was made not to stand on but to jump off. Let us apply that to education. It is time for the Government to jump off its education platform and abandon its intrusive batten down the hatches approach to education. In the Australian Labor Party (ALP) platform we read the following: Labor believes that to achieve this purpose education must be universal, secular, free, public and democratic. We would all agree on several of those points. Of course, education is not free at all and, therefore, it is a misleading statement. Why should the purposes of education be limited to public education? The policy in that sense is out of date and it is outmoded for our times. Throughout the other 125 points in the platform relating to education there is not one ounce of encouragement to parents to choose the education they prefer for their children. There is no incentive for them to make decisions or to become involved in the education of their children. The platform's begrudging recognition of non-government schools is merely a concession to the political realities in Australia today. The ALP philosophy is patently anti-choice and anti-parent. The Commonwealth's role should be that of a choice facilitater. Facilitating choice is not simply a matter of removing barriers. To provide an environment conducive to choice, governments must provide a secure framework in which parents can make a real choice. The Commonwealth should be the standard setter, not the central planner or the sole provider. This Government, however, uses the standard setting pretext to harass the non-government school sector. By increasing encroachment of Commonwealth control, it seeks to achieve what it could not achieve through open means. The ironic result is that non-government school enrolments have steadily increased over the term of this Government and they will continue to increase because the same socialist values which feed the Government's hatred of parental choice are spurring parents by their thousands to transfer their children to non-government schools. The Liberal Party of Australia is committed to a deregulated education system. We will move so that the government schools participate as equal partners in the education industry, competing on equal terms with non-government schools. We will move towards a position where parents know that their taxes will go towards the education of their children irrespective of the school they choose for them to attend. The Liberal Party of Australia strongly believes that every child is entitled to receive some Commonwealth financial assistance towards his or her education. To this end, at the last election we proposed a simpler and more equitable funding regime incorporating a basic per capita grant with additional needs based funding. We proposed that the 12 rigid categories of non-government schools be simplified into four categories with variable levels of funding based on varying proportions of the cost of a government school place. Especially in tight times an education system which encourages parents to take more responsibility and brings fresh funds into the education system should be pursued with vigor. The Commonwealth Government already saves over $1 billion per year because parents are involved in the most fundamental responsibility of parenthood, and that is schooling. Public school apologists and many parliamentary Labor Party hopefuls claim that the children in private schools come from wealthy families and are not worthy of government support. What does this tell us? It certainly tells us more about the Labor Party definition of `wealthy' than of the nature of the private school sector. Over 25 per cent of Australian students attend non-government schools, the assumption being that 25 per cent of Australian families with children are wealthy. Nothing could be farther from the truth. At this stage I point out to the House that I spent all of my time as a student in government schools and I spent nearly all my time as a teacher teaching in government schools. I am really here advocating a balanced approach, one which I believe will be beneficial in the ultimate for this nation. I return to my point about the number of people in private and government schools. The figures in regard to wealth show that there are over 50 per cent more children from wealthy families in government schools than there are in private schools. The Labor Party ignores the fact that many comparatively wealthy parents send their children to government schools and many relatively poor parents work very hard to get their children into a non-government school. It ignores the efforts of the Catholic education system, in particular, to keep education as affordable as possible. Not only does the Labor Party reject its responsibility to support the education of all Australian children, but it also ignores, to its shame, the plight of 50 per cent of public school parents who are locked in. They cannot afford to pay twice for their children's education, so they are forced to rely on public school education. I refer the Labor Party to the survey done in the Australian Capital Territory, where parents choose to send their children to private schools if at all possible. But there is no real choice in the system-and that applies right around Australia. If given a free choice, they might still choose public education, but they have no choice and the school system-and consequently our children-is the poorer for it. The sweeping assertion that private schools are only for children of wealthy parents is nonsense. It is a piece of cheap political rhetoric designed by the Labor Party to divide the community between those who have the conviction and the determination to choose private education and those who believe that parents should give their children over to the state to educate. The real concern of parents today is changing rapidly as they search for a better educational deal for their children. They do not want to be locked into a system over which they have no effective control. They are rejecting the notion that governments know best for the flexibility and freedom that parents know better. They are making real sacrifices in order that their children get the best education they can provide. What is the best education that can be provided? The Labor Party platform tells us what it wants. Point 13 in the platform says that a high quality education is a system `which leads to more equal outcomes'. It does not say `which leads to equal opportunity' or `which leads to equal access to education'; it says `leads to more equal outcomes'. This is an approach which seeks to pull down one's potential to the lowest common denominator rather than nurture and encourage one's greatest potential. At a time when Australia more than ever before needs to have national motivation and incentive to be productive and competitive, there is no better place to begin developing those skills and qualities than in our schools and education system. Thousands of parents throughout Australia are voting with their feet to indicate what they think of the Government's approach. I find that parents are keen to observe the performance of schools, performance which they judge by two distinct criteria. First, parents look at the performance of schools in terms of the educational achievement reflected in the results posted in years 10 and 12. In spite of the Government's slowly starving private schools of funds, many private schools are producing impressive results. I would like to outline to the House the record of one school in my electorate. The school operates under the State examination moderation system. The average income of the parents is well below the national average and the school is underresourced. Yet the academic results that that school achieved last year, only in its second year of operation, are quite remarkable. At the top level of English-and this is with an average ability class-the school achieved an average of 61 per cent compared with the State average of 33 per cent. In the mathematics section the school averaged 39 per cent compared with the State average of 31 per cent. In science-where the students in their first year's secondary education used jam tins for their science course-the school achieved 67 per cent compared with the State result of 33 per cent. I am saying that many of our children are being undersold in the education they are receiving in many of our schools. If one school can achieve that result, with average ability children, every school in Australia can achieve the same results. It is a sad reflection that many of our children are being undersold. This Government will not be rewarding this school. Rather, it puts barriers in its way. If someone is successful, innovative, creative or achieving, the Government cuts that person off at the ankles. If someone works hard and is successful, the Labor Party believes that he or she should be cut down to size. It does not want achievers and it does not want equality. Let us look at some of the burdens that the Labor Party places on some of these non-government schools. The Labor Party platform states that Labor will require comprehensive information on: all forms of income received from both public and private sources, and details of expenditure for all purposes; numbers of students, teachers and other staffing resources; enrolment policies and policies on equal opportunity and entry of disadvantaged students; details of ownership and valuation of capital assets; and employment policies. Clearly, these things have very little to do with improving the education of children in our schools, yet they are a gross burden on the schools which are achieving and they are totally unnecessary. Labor also asks the schools to: Publish annually all of the above necessary to satisfy legitimate public interest and information such as funding category, student numbers by level of schooling, purpose and amount of grants received from Commonwealth and State sources as well as information about fees, charges and relevant income from other sources. Maybe we should institute public records of the achievements of all schools in Australia so that parents can clearly see what is really going on, and the amount of money which goes into every government and non-government school, and apply the same rules to every school. If that is the way the Government wants to go, so be it, but let us apply the rules to every school in Australia. Secondly, I find that parents are keen to observe the performance of schools in terms of the values and principles that guide the educational experience. The unstructured curriculum of the playgrounds and corridors of schools is as important to parents as the classroom. Parents want schools to back up their values of honesty, respect for people and property, an honest day's work for an honest day's pay, courtesy and integrity. These are values which are valued by the majority of parents in Australia. Parents are deeply concerned when they go into some of our schools and see the damage to property, in the form of broken desks, damaged lockers and graffiti that appears to go unchecked-unchecked because of the difficulties now faced by many schools in being able to identify the offenders. Teachers today in many of our government schools are faced with the increasingly impossible task of providing education in an acceptable atmosphere and of an acceptable standard because children are not being adequately prepared by some parents for education. This, together with a pluralistic approach by some schools to what is right and what is wrong, creates an educational jungle into which many parents are not willing to send their children. Why is the Government so keen not to lose the regulative power over the schools? I believe that one of the elements is the maintenance of power for political purposes. Earlier this year this House passed the States Grants (Schools Assistance) Amendment Bill 1987. It contained an interesting clause which I think highlights why the Government is not keen to deregulate the education system. Clause 8 of the Bill extended the Minister's powers to give him the power to refuse a capital grant recommended by block authorities in certain circumstances-first, if a co-educational school has applied for a capital grant, and the Minister thinks the benefits may not be equally beneficial to both male and female students; and secondly, if the project is mainly or partially designed to provide facilities used in religious worship. We have the tantalising assertion implicit in that clause that the Federal Labor Minister knows what is best for the children of Australia. On the one hand, the Minister will act to promote equal opportunity, but on the other hand he will act to discourage educational activities fundamental to developing wholesome attitudes and values. The Government has an ideology to push, and it is not reticent in using the taxpayers' funds to do it, often against the wishes of the taxpayers. That is why it does not want to deregulate the education system. It wants its fingers in the pie so that it can promote lethargic and debilitating ideals of secularism and humanism for many children in our schools. The Labor Government is presiding over an education system that is in turmoil, and the Government, as though juggling hot potatoes, regards administrative rearrangements as an adequate alternative to decisive action. In conclusion, what we need is the encouragement of personal development, the creative capacities of future generations and the efficient use of taxpayers' money in a markedly enhanced environment, together with the reduction in and the removing of unnecessary restraints on non-government schools in Australia. I am sure that if we did this, the education system which we have provided in this nation would grow and would be much more effective, even with the same amount of money which we are now spending on it. Mr GEAR(Canning)(11.28) —Before moving on to an area of interest to me, that is, vocational education, I would just like to make a couple of points in response to the speech that we have just heard from the honourable member for Braddon (Mr Miles). He talked about the dichotomy between non-government and government schools, but it was a highly partisan speech and certainly many of the conclusions he drew were very suspect indeed. The main contradiction was that he admitted that there were growing numbers in private schools, yet he talked about the lack of freedom of choice. He cannot have it both ways. We cannot have growing numbers in private schools if there is no freedom of choice. On the subject of freedom of choice, there are a number of people in this country, certainly people on low incomes and children of pensioners, who do not have that choice, because they just cannot afford to go to private schools. It would not matter how open we made that choice, they just have not got the money to get there. There is only one sector in this nation that accepts all people, which is non-discriminatory, particularly on the basis of finance, and that is the government schools. I think it is sad that in many cases parents think they can buy better education by sending their children to private schools. I do not agree with that conclusion. I sometimes think that parents abrogate their responsibility when they think that, by sending their children to private schools, in some way they are making up for their own deficiencies. I make the point that learning happens not only within the classroom but also outside it. I think that what the children learn outside the school, certainly in the home environment, is just as important as what they learn within the school. Having said that, I move on to an area of particular interest to me, and that is vocational education. In the last couple of years in particular we have had a look at attitudes to education. It is a fact that education does mirror the economy, and the Australian economy, which basically relies on unprocessed, raw products for our exports, has been matched with an education system that has supported that. Certainly when we look at the numbers of graduates from our universities and places of higher learning, we see that, in comparison with more industrialised countries, our outputs are very low indeed. To some extent Australia has bludged in its delivery of vocational education. We have always been able to import skills to make up for the deficiencies that were inherent in the economy. To that extent, employers have not really had to focus on training in the way that they should have because, if they had a deficiency, by and large they could go overseas and import the skills. Unfortunately, that is happening today-to a lesser extent, I must admit-but we are importing skills because we have not really grown up as a nation and realised the value of education, although that is changing. Employers in particular have to take a greater role and not rely on governments or other employers to do the training for them. The sooner employers realise that they cannot turn to government and say, `Listen, why haven't we got enough skilled people in this country?', that they are partly responsible and certainly must also play a role, the better it will be. As a former technical and further education (TAFE) teacher, I know that the resources we give to our vocational institutions in many cases have not matched what is needed. In my area of electrical trades and electronics, the change in technology is particularly rapid. If we are to have our educational institutions actually leading technological change rather than following it, we have to give them the resources to do that. I can remember when I was teaching in TAFE that in the electronics field in particular there were three different generations of programable logic controllers-which were called PCs. When I left TAFE only the first and second generation controllers were available, yet we were expected to lead technology and have those technologists in place to accept new technology. Certainly, resourcing is expensive but we must realise that it is an investment which must be made. I return to the point I made before that employers must also recognise their responsibility. It may be that they will make these resources available to TAFE to train the technologists to use that equipment. I would also like to turn to the different training streams we have within vocational training. One that I am familiar with is the apprenticeship. I served an apprenticeship as an electrical tradesman and I also taught electrical tradesmen in TAFE. In all that time apprenticeships did not change appreciably. I think we all recognise the cyclical problems. When the economy is going fairly well there is a rash of intakes of apprentices, but when the economy flattens out the last thing employers do is take on apprentices. It seems to me that this is one of the major failings of apprenticeships. There is also a restriction on entry. To get an apprenticeship one physically has to have a job. It seems to me that there are other restrictions, but these are two of the major failings of the apprenticeship system as it stands now. I would prefer to see an apprenticeship system that allowed people to enter in a much more open way than is presently the case. Certainly, the apprenticeship system should be broad-based. We should be teaching our tradesmen the broad base of skills and not specialisation because specialisation just leads to redundancy when technology changes. The emphasis should be on the individual. The portability of qualifications is another area we must look at. There is academic snobbery between different institutions. Having completed a diploma in TAFE, I know that, if one fronted up to a college of advanced education (CAE) and tried to get some credits for it, these would invariably be denied. Yet many of the courses that are undertaken in TAFE mirror those in the CAEs. I think that is one restriction that we really have to break down. The CAEs tend not to take into account the experience of learning that tradesmen in particular and technicians have when they enter those institutions. As I said before, the attitude to vocational education in this country has to change. Certainly, the investment in education should be seen by employers as just as important as the machinery they buy. There is no use in having an expensive machine that can perform wonderful functions if nobody can operate it. The output of machines is directly linked to the efficiency of an operator. Firms recognise the value of education in the salaries that they are willing to pay these people, but they do not always appreciate the sort of investment that is needed to get these people up to the required level. Also, I think individuals have to recognise the benefits of vocational training, not only in terms of their own income but also on a collective basis to the nation. Education is too important to be left to governments alone. I have already touched on this point. I think there has to be an effective partnership not only among government, industry and unions, which tends to be where we have been, but also in a wider sense to include students and parents as well. They have to recognise the benefits of vocational training and take an active part in it. Obviously the attitude to people entering the vocational education stream has to be very positive so that we get the maximum output. As a nation we have recognised that we have to lift our educational and training effort because, if we are to change the fundamentals of our economy, this has to be matched by the educational system. We have to identify and remove the obstructions that are currently built into the system. Many of these are historical. I have identified a few in the apprenticeship training area. I think it is ludicrous that the number of apprentices that we take on at any one time is restricted by the capacity of industry to take them on. In the past that has never produced enough tradesmen. We have to break down a few barriers in that area. We have to identify areas of growth in the economy. Mr Humphreys —As an old tradesman. Mr GEAR —As an old tradesman, as the Minister rightly points out. Having had that experience, I know that we have to identify the areas of growth, and the educational outputs have to mirror the changes that we anticipate in the economy. We have to ensure that resources are available and adequate. We might have to involve more than just governments in providing those resources. I do not think we can go on providing a virtually free education to all our tertiary students. As the honourable member for Grayndler (Mr Leo McLeay) pointed out before, this has not served the objectives of getting people of working class parents into higher education. I have always maintained that we should start not at the top end but at the bottom end to make sure that everyone gets a basic, adequate primary and secondary education. At least then students will get to the starting gates of higher education and we can have a look at how we can get them in. We have to diversify our resources not only in the technological resources and the material required but also in resources made available to fund our educational system. I think that the Hawke Government has gone a long way towards addressing these problems but there is still a long way to go. As a member of the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Education, Employment and Training and vice- chairman of the Caucus education, employment and training committee, I look forward to the challenges that await us. I know that they are considerable but, if we work through these problems with the co-operation of industry, unions, parents and schools, I am sure we can overcome them and Australia will be the better for it. Mr DAWKINS(Fremantle-Minister for Employment, Education and Training)(11.37) —In winding up this debate on the Student Assistance Amendment Bill, which has covered a large number of areas and issues, I wish to thank all those honourable members who participated. Certainly, I found their contributions very interesting. Rather than delaying the House now, I think it would be better if I wrote to honourable members about specific points, or at least the most important specific points, that they raised during the course of the debate. Amendment negatived. Original question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith. Bill (on motion by Mr Dawkins) read a third time. Debate resumed from 5 November, on motion by Mr Dawkins: That the Bill be now read a second time. Mr CARLTON(Mackellar)(11.41) —As I foreshadowed last night, I move the following amendment: That all words after `That' be omitted with a view to substituting the following words: `whilst not declining to give the Bill a second reading, the House- (1) condemns Government policies which have denied 20,000 qualified students entry into higher education this year and which promise no better performance in 1988; (2) notes with concern the failure of the Government to maintain the triennial funding system for higher education, thus introducing uncertainty and potential wastefulness into the planning and expenditure of universities, institutes and colleges; (3) draws attention to the dangers inherent in allowing centralised bureaucratic bodies to decide whether or not research conducted by universities and colleges of advanced education is in the national interest; and (4) questions the inclusion of funds for key centres for teaching and research as a part of research funding rather than as a separate allocation concerned mainly with the improvement of teaching'. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mrs Darling) —Is the amendment seconded? Mr Smith —I second the amendment. Amendment negatived. Original question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. Message from the Governor-General recommending appropriation announced. Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith. Bill (on motion by Mr Dawkins) read a third time. Debate resumed from 5 November, on motion by Mr Dawkins: That the Bill be now read a second time. Mr CARLTON(Mackellar)(11.43) —As I foreshadowed last night, I move the following amendment: That all words after `That' be omitted with a view to substituting the following words: `Whilst not declining to give the Bill a second reading, the House expresses its concern that the transfer of responsibility from the Commonwealth Tertiary Education Commission to the Department of Employment, Education and Training proposed in the Bill is a precursor to the denial of an adequate consultative mechanism and public voice for those directly concerned with running and using Australia's various education systems'. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER —Is the amendment seconded? Mr Smith —I second the amendment. Amendment negatived. Original question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. Message from the Governor-General recommending appropriation announced. Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith. Bill (on motion by Mr Dawkins) read a third time. Consideration resumed from 5 November, on motion by Mr Dawkins: 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 Dawkins) read a third time. Consideration resumed from 5 November, on motion by Mr Dawkins: 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 Dawkins) read a third time. Consideration resumed from 5 November, on motion by Mr Dawkins: 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 Dawkins) read a third time. Debate resumed from 5 November, on motion by Mr Dawkins: That the Bill be now read a second time. Mr CARLTON(Mackellar)(11.46) —As I foreshadowed last night, I move the following amendment: That all words after `That' be omitted with a view to substituting the following words: `whilst not declining to give the Bill a second reading, this House deplores the excessive regulation by the Federal Government of non-government schools, which is designed both to impose an external value system on those schools and to hamper the growth of non-government schools and thereby limit parent choice'. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER —Is the amendment seconded? Mr Smith —I second the amendment. Amendment negatived. Original question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. Message from the Governor-General recommending appropriation announced. Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith. Bill (on motion by Mr Dawkins) read a third time. Consideration resumed from 5 November, on motion by Mr Dawkins: That the Bill be now read a second time. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. Message from the Governor-General recommending appropriation announced. Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith. Bill (on motion by Mr Dawkins) read a third time. Debate resumed from 29 October, on motion by Mr Holding: That the Bill be now read a second time. Mr MOORE(Ryan)(11.51) —The Opposition does not oppose the Sales Tax (Off-shore Installations) Amendment Bill. In recent years, there has been an increasing interest in the establishment of sea installations, such as floating hotels, along the Australian coastline. Those which may be established within the three-mile territorial sea limit of Australia are subject to the appropriate State and Federal laws. However, those which may be established beyond the three-mile limit but are still within the outer limits of the continental shelf or the Australian fishing zone would not currently be subject to State or Federal laws, especially those relating to customs, excise, immigration, quarantine, safety, health and pollution control. Platforms used for petroleum exploration are not affected by the legislation as they are already subject to control under the Petroleum (Submerged Lands) Act 1967. This legislation, which is to be effective from 15 October 1987, would apply only to the proposed floating hotel to be constructed in the lagoon off John Brewer Reef, some 72 kilometres off-shore from Townsville. This hotel, which is to be built at a cost of approximately $31m, is still subject to industrial troubles in Singapore, the place of manufacture. It is roughly of seven storeys and has 200 beds. It is being constructed by a company by the name of Reeflink Resort Pty Ltd. At the moment, many people who live in the Townsville area are looking forward to this development with some considerable expectation. Other developments in the north are currently in the planning stage, with the appropriate plans for the floating hotel at Fitzroy Reef currently being in the advanced stage. The Sea Installations Bill imposes requirements for proposed developers to obtain permits from the Minister for the Arts, Sport, the Environment, Tourism and Territories. These may be given subject to terms, conditions and safeguards resulting from considerations of other matters, such as insurance. The Bill makes relevant State laws applicable to the installations. It applies relevant Commonwealth laws where no general body of civil or criminal law extends. It allows States to be recompensed for their administrative costs where the authorities enforce legislation. Commercial fishing, pearling vessels, navigation and meteorological aids, commercial cargo carriers, wharves and jetties, historic shipwrecks, resource industries, fixed structures and mobile units, defence structures, submarine cables and other prescribed structures are exempt from the legislation. The Sea Installations (Miscellaneous Amendments) Bill separately imposes the relevant provisions of the Customs Act 1901 and the Excise Act 1901. The Sea Installations Levy Bill imposes a levy on installations expressed as either a percentage of their market value or the gross revenue desired from such installations, whichever is the higher. The maximum percentage may not exceed 20 per cent. The aim is to recoup revenue equal to that which would have been paid to the State or local government in taxes had they been applicable. It ensures that these installations do not operate at the expense of the mainland economy. Levy money will be used to pay the States for their administrative costs involved with this legislation. In the case of some installations, for example, Pacific research installations or scientific installations, they may be exempt from the levy by regulation. The Bill provides for some areas of Commonwealth-State issues. In that regard, the Queensland Government has raised the matter of the extent to which the law will be applied beyond the three-mile limit if the structure in question is physically attached to a point within that limit, for example, a 3 1/2 mile jetty. In that case, Queensland's laws, for example, the liquor licensing requirements, should apply in all circumstances to such installations. However, while States are compensated for administrative expenses, they should also be recompensed for revenue forgone. The States require the Federal Government to consult them before a permit is granted. A State veto should be enacted to stop Federal permits-for example, a permit for a casino, that compete with existing facilities, such as the casino in Townsville-being granted where they are perceived to be contrary to State interests. In view of these arguments, the Opposition does not oppose the Bill. Mr CHYNOWETH(Dunkley)(11.57) —It is with great pleasure that I rise to speak on the Sales Tax (Off-shore Installations) Amendment Bill. The Bill is one of a package of sea installations Bills, the first of which was introduced into the House earlier this month. The Bill extends to areas within 200 nautical miles of Australia the cover of laws relating to customs, migration, and taxation, and makes certain that Australia's laws are applicable to these new installations that are being built around the borders of Australia, sometimes in its territory and perhaps, in the future, in Antarctica. It is most important that we make certain that these areas are covered by Australian law. That is what the Bill sets about doing. Recently-I think it was on 22 October-I spoke about the floating hotel that is to be moored or anchored at the John Brewer Reef. I raised some concerns about it, and is it probably timely that I again bring them to public notice. I have not had any correspondence or answers to these questions from manufacturers and the people who will be managing and looking after this quite unique concept. This has never been done in Australia; in fact, it has never been done anywhere else in the world, so it is important that we get it right. There is some talk about building a floating hotel complex and mooring it in Antarctica. I raise concerns about that. It is a bit premature even to speak about building one of these hotels and transporting it to Antarctica. It is too early; we do not have the experience. Mr Humphreys —It is pretty cold down there, too. Mr CHYNOWETH —Yes. We as a race, the human beings on this planet, do not have the technology to make certain that what we are doing in Antarctica will not affect the ecological balance in that area that is so fragile. Constructing one of the floating hotels and transporting it to Antarctica may be something that could happen in the future, probably 10 or 20 years in the future. It is too early to think about it at this time. Maybe we can learn from the experience of the floating hotel that will be moored at John Brewer Reef; that is, when it arrives. I understand there is a problem at the moment because it is still stuck in Singapore. I do not know what the troubles are but no doubt Doug Anthony, who is a director of the firm-who in the past has had lots of dealings with the unions, et cetera, and who has some political and persuasive skills-will be able to go to Singapore and sort out the problems. Mr Braithwaite —It is not a union problem. Mr CHYNOWETH —I am not certain what the problem is but there is a problem in getting it here. However, I hope the structure proposed for Antarctica does not go ahead for some time. It will probably take at least 10 years to learn what environmental effects the hotel complex at John Brewer Reef will have-not just the first six or 12 months the complex is moored there but 10 years down the track. I remember going to Green Island when I was 21 and it was a beautiful area then. I went there a couple of years ago and I am afraid-- Mr Humphreys —It is still a beautiful area. Mr CHYNOWETH —It is still a beautiful area but the corals, et cetera, that I saw years ago have all gone. Why has this happened? No one seems to know but I think the pressure of tourism and humans walking all over the island crushing, breaking and destroying coral and sewage, have had a detrimental effect on Green Island. I do not want the same thing to happen to John Brewer Reef. As I have said in other debates, I have visited the reef and swum there. It is still a beautiful and pristine area. While I am talking about off-shore installations may I mention Hamilton Island, which although it is not an off-shore installation, is off-shore. It is a great tourist area. Hundreds of tourists go to Hamilton Island. However, I have heard that the sewage and waste from the island is pumped out to sea with no treatment. This gravely concerns me because no one knows what environmental effects it will have or what to do about it. I remember that, when the resort at Hamilton Island was being constructed, Mr Williams, who owns the complex, pushed down half a mountain and pushed it over the fringing coral reef. He destroyed that quick smart; I do not know what he is doing to ruin the outside coral reef. I intend to ask a few questions and to investigate to see what effect that development has had on the environment. Tourists and hotels come and go but the environment and the world go on forever. We are here only as temporary residents and it should be our goal to look after the environment and leave it in a proper state for future generations. Australia is a very rich country and we can afford to put a lot of effort into environmental management. I trust that what happens on John Brewer Reef will be studied and monitored closely and that any effects on the reef will be noted by the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation and the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority, which I think has control over it. No doubt there will be errors and problems, and lessons will be learned and passed on. Let us hope that when future proposals come forward to build any more such installations off the coast anywhere around Australia these lessons will be taken into account and the mistakes not repeated. The Bill is part of a package of Bills designed to ensure that Australia's laws are adhered to in these types of installations. I commend the Government for its foresight in introducing the legislation and I am certain that it will be passed through this House and through the Senate. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Millar) —I call the honourable member for Dawson. Mr BRAITHWAITE(Dawson)(12.04) —Whenever I come to speak on a Bill, I am always blessed with your presence in the chair, Mr Deputy Speaker. Therefore, I shall proceed in the knowledge of your degree of tolerance in these matters. The Sales Tax (Off-shore Installations) Amendment Bill is, as has been described, part of a package of Bills. I was fortunate enough to speak on the original legislation when it was introduced here last month to deal with the new regime of off-shore man-made installations. At that time honourable members debated a 20 per cent levy on the capital cost of an installation or on the turnover, whichever was the higher. I understood then that the levy was to cover Federal, State and local government charges. The question that I immediately asked when I saw this Bill was what the sales tax was to cover. It is legitimate to introduce into the House a Bill that ensures that the goods that are sold from off-shore installations-whatever they be, so long as they are anchored on the seabed-are subject to the same sales tax as goods sold on land. I see no offence in that. I believe that the 20 per cent should cover only those charges and licence fees that would normally apply if a structure were on-shore. I shall give a couple of examples. The John Brewer Reef hotel, the Barrier Reef Holdings hotel, has already been mentioned. As I understand it, the company will supply its own power, suitable disposal of refuse and sewage-contrary to what was suggested occurred at Hamilton Island-and water, and will pay its own charges within the harbour. It would be offensive if the 20 per cent charge were to include the normal charges, State or local government, for installation on-shore. At one stage it was suggested that the 20 per cent levy might apply to other Commonwealth charges also. The Commonwealth already has shipping, licence and other types of charges. It came as a surprise to me to learn that a sales tax might be levied on the capital cost of off-shore installations. I am not a great reader; I do not read Bills each night when I go to bed to put myself to sleep-I think many here would join me in that-but with this Bill some doubt seems to exist as to what the cost of an installation will be and whether sales tax will apply and, if so, at what rate. May I refer to the capital installation cost at John Brewer Reef. I understand that already the Barrier Reef Holdings has been committed to supplying chains and anchors for the mooring system of the hotel, even though the hotel has not yet arrived, and has been charged sales tax on those items. The company has paid that charge because the items had to be in place by the time the hotel was due to arrive. Although it has appealed against the decision, obviously there is dispute as to whether the charge should have been made and, if so, at what rate. Fortunately, at this stage the chain and anchors are not the major cost of the installation. I should like the Minister for Land Transport and Infrastructure Support (Mr Duncan), who is at the table, and the Government to clarify whether there is an inconsistency between what has happened with the chains and anchors and what the Bill implies. At one point in the definition, an `installation' means `an off-shore industry fixed structure'. If one turns over the page, one finds that `sea installation' means certain things but does not include `an off-shore fixed industry structure'. Whatever it means, can the Minister arrange to clarify the uncertainty? My understanding is that the contract cost of the Brewer Reef installation is $S30.7m. To that has been added acknowledged extras of $S2.8m, which totals $33.5m. That is basically the finished contract price. According to the shipbuilders, $10m is in dispute. We will call the hotel a ship in this case. On top of that cost, the cost of shipping the structure to Brewer Reef has to be borne. Because of the dispute, demurrage will be added to the additional cost as far as the company is concerned. It would be offensive to apply sales tax, presumably at the 20 per cent rate which applies to the chains and anchors, to this pioneering industry. Not only is there the cost of building, the extras, the amount in dispute and the cost of demurrage until the dispute is settled but also the cost of shipping the hotel to its site and fixing it to the reef. A 20 per cent rate of sales tax could involve a substantial sum. I would like to think that the amendments to the Act exempt structural costs. I am not as familiar with the steel plan as I might be. The steel for the hotel coming into Australia is manufactured by an international company, the third greatest steel manufacturer in the world, Bethlehem Steel. I bring to the attention of the House something that has already been raised in this debate in regard to the dispute involved in this venture and ask the Government whether there is anything it can do. It is no longer a secret. Barrier Reef Holdings has issued a complaint and is seeking a court decision as to final payment. The proprietors went to the manufacturers in Singapore, prepared to give a bank cheque for the balance of the final price plus the extras-$3.7m. The figure was not accepted. The shipbuilding factory is now closed. The doors are locked. Although subject to some minor modifications, the ship could have been taken out upon payment of the proper amount. As I said, the extra $S10m is subject to grave dispute. There is a fixed contract. The extras have been acknowledged. The proprietors are prepared to go to arbitration which is fixed by the contract in Australia. Yet they are being held to ransom by the third largest steel manufacturer in the world. This is criminal. People entered into a contract in good faith. The work was done. If Bethlehem Steel, in the final analysis, has decided that its contract price was too low, it has no alternative but to honour the contract. The problem is that the longer this matter is delayed in the courts and in arbitration and appeal, the longer justice is denied the Australian company. There is a limit to what the company has in reserve. Bookings have already been made for the hotel. This legislation has been brought in to put everything in place for this first sea installation. Justice delayed is justice denied. Perhaps the Government can do something in this regard. I know the proprietors, as I admitted in an earlier speech on the same subject. The proprietors are innovators. I hope that the Government, in bringing in this Bill, which is part of a parcel of Bills, will have some sympathy for the proprietors and see what it can do to get the dispute to a court and a decision made as quickly as possible. That would be under Australian jurisdiction. Perhaps Austrade could negotiate out of Singapore with the company. The Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade might also give some assistance. I turn to the second reading speech of the Minister for Employment Services and Youth Affairs (Mr Holding). The doubts I have expressed remain in the minds of the people concerned. The second reading speech states: The second measure contained in the Bill expands the types of off-shore installations which will be subject to Australian sales tax law when installed in these areas. They will include off-shore installations for the purposes of tourism, recreation, business activities, marine archaeology, fishing, scientific activity and transport activity. The speech goes on to state: As a consequence, any transaction or act affecting goods on such an installation which would be taxable if the goods were in geographical Australia will be taxable as if those goods were in Australia. That is clear. It extends the boundaries. The speech continues: In addition, any installation which is brought from overseas to be installed in Australian waters, and any goods on it at the time it is brought in, will be deemed to be imported into Australia and on that basis, will be subject to the sales tax law in respect to that importation. The amendments made by this Bill will, in relation to installations that are attached to the seabed in Australian waters, operate with effect from 21 January 1987, the date these measures were announced by the Treasurer . . . The floating hotel is the first of its kind. The structure, I imagine, would be a steel shell with the tolerance to withstand the winds on the reef. But it would also include some soft fittings such as built-in chairs, wardrobes, carpeting, panelling and wallpaper. To what extent, if any, is the Government to separate those soft fittings from the structure in regard to this legislation? What price will it attach to them, considering the freight cost and installation cost? This matter has to be clarified. Another problem is involved in the delay in delivery of the ship. In Singapore at this time of the year, with the shipyards and the ship locked up and the plant installed, one can imagine what would be happening to the soft fittings in the humid climate. There would be mildew and deterioration. The owners have no access to the ship. They do not know whether the machinery is being turned over to provide the air-conditioning to keep all the fittings in good order. Considering the treatment of this matter so far I imagine that that would be a secondary consideration. These matters have a bearing on this legislation, not only in regard to values but also in regard to the installation of the hotel on the reef which this Bill is intended to cover. I hope the Government will give me an answer as to what will be the assessable amount of tax and at what rate, if at all. I hope the statement `if at all' applies only to the plant and machinery normally there. I ask the Government whether there is any way the Government can assist this great Australian enterprise to get the justice it requires to install it. As I said, the hotel has already taken bookings in the expectation of an early start within the new year. It has everything going. All it needs is an anchor on the reef and away it will go. I ask for the sympathy not only of the Australians who view this enterprise as a pioneering enterprise and one of great value to the nation particularly in regard to the tourist, travel and trade aspects of it which offer something novel but also of the Government. I take up a few comments made by the honourable member for Dunkley (Mr Chynoweth) about Hamilton Island. I know the island well. It is in my electorate of Dawson; it is on the Barrier Reef; and it is one of the islands that possibly would cater for the international trade. Certainly in its own way it pioneered that type of off-shore development. Until recently most off-shore developments involved the end of a jetty or a very small strip of land with a cluster of buildings that catered for young people, middle-age people, old people or family people. One could almost pick the island according to the type of holiday one wanted to take. The proprietor of the Hamilton Island resort, Mr Keith Williams, possesses the pioneering spirit. Unfortunately, in Australia today a pioneering spirit has to be associated with somebody who is prepared to take risks and perhaps cut a bit of red tape. Members of this House would know what I mean about cutting red tape in pioneering industries. This proprietor has taken a risk. He would acknowledge that the method of treating sewage may not be desirable, but that was the standard laid down by the authorities at that time. It is not for me to question what the rights of the authorities were or the standards they set. At this stage the imposition of the burden of a sewage treatment system that would remove all risk whatsoever would be a tremendous additional cost to that project. I am not familiar with the finances of the entrepreneur. I am not aware of them at all. But I would suggest that, when honourable members make claims in this House, they should probably know the circumstances more clearly. All I can say is that, in respect of the Brewer Reef, every precaution has been taken. I understand that the sewage will be shipped out and treated properly on the mainland, and so there is no risk there. As far as Hamilton Island is concerned, I do not think we should lose sight of the fact that Keith Williams has done a lot. I think the Minister for the Arts, Sport, the Environment, Tourism and Territories (Mr John Brown) would acknowledge that he has done a lot for the advancement of tourism in Australia, particularly in north Queensland, to cater for that international trade. I suggest to the honourable member for Dunkley that, provided he is a fare paying passenger, he is welcome in the electorate of Dawson at any time he would like to take advantage of its attractions. There are Brampton Island, Lindeman Island, Hamilton Island, Hayman Island-what have I not mentioned?-there are all the Molles and, of course, Daydream Island itself. But, of course, the choice places are Airlie Beach and Mackay, where one can breathe the fresh air, enjoy the coastal resorts and take advantage of the off-shore installations. Mr McVeigh —They would have the advantage of a good local member, too. Mr BRAITHWAITE —I would like to think so. That is one interjection I will acknowledge. I think it was an appropriate interjection, Mr Deputy Speaker. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —I think the honourable member is somewhat at sea at the moment. Mr BRAITHWAITE —I am floundering a bit, but I will return to the legislation. The Opposition certainly does not oppose this rather straightforward legislation. But I would like at some time in the near future to have answers to my questions, because the concern I have mentioned is one of many that the company has. Mr MARTIN(Macarthur)(12.24) —The Sales Tax (Off-shore Installations) Amendment Bill is part of a package of sea installation Bills which is designed to apply Australian laws regulating customs, migration, quarantine and taxation to installations in Australia's off-shore waters as if they were in fact part of Australia. Specifically, this Bill will amend the Sales Tax Assessment Acts (Nos 1 and 9) of 1930, the Sales Tax Assessment Act (No. 10) of 1985 and the Sales Tax Assessment Act (No. 5) 1930 to extend the coverage of the sales tax laws to areas within 200 nautical miles of the territorial limits of Australia. At present, the sales tax laws do not generally extend outside geographical Australia. This Bill also expands the types of off-shore installations which will be subject to Australian sales tax. These include installations for the specified purposes of tourism, recreation, business activities, marine archaeology, fishing, scientific activity or transport activity. The proposed Act will apply to a new and exciting development taking place on the Great Barrier Reef. Of course, I am referring to the floating hotel being constructed in Singapore but to be located off Townsville. It is new and exciting because of the innovative contribution it will make to the tourism industry in this country. I endorse the comments made by the honourable member for Dawson (Mr Braithwaite) with respect to entrepreneurial skill and flair in developing these sorts of hotel-tourist complexes in Australia. I would also support some of the remarks he has made about the pioneering spirit of some people in this country in developing tourist opportunities. Of course, as my colleague the honourable member for Dunkley (Mr Chynoweth) indicated, he also supports the development of this type of project, although he does have some reservations about the environmental consequences of it. But he certainly is supportive of any endeavours of entrepreneurs-and, indeed, of tax relief given by this Government to encourage them-to develop tourist facilities in this country, because he, like most members of this House, recognises the valued contribution that tourism makes to our economy. It is worth recapping the proposal itself to the House today because, as I and the honourable member for Dawson have indicated, it is innovative in a number of details. Firstly, it will be simply a floating hotel. It will be moored on the John Brewer Reef, which is a large coral island some 44 miles north-east of Townsville. It is being constructed on behalf of Four Seasons Ltd, which, of course, is an Australian company well renowned throughout Australia. It has been established for some 21 years, it has 19 other operations throughout Australia and, of course, it is an extremely reputable organisation. In addition to this proposed development, this particular organisation already operates central Australian hotel chains. I say that it is innovative in its contribution to the tourist industry in the context of the way in which Australia's tourist industry is at present progressing: people are coming to Australia using Sydney as the point of entry and then very quickly going to major tourist locations around Australia. This issue was raised in the matter of public importance yesterday. They are going to central Australia and northern Australia-particularly the Whitsundays. Developments such as this one-a floating hotel on a reef which will provide ready access to a great range of Australia's beautiful coastline-are, of course, things which most honourable members would support. The proposed opening date of this particular project is February 1988 but, as the honourable member for Dawson has rightly pointed out, there seems to be some sort of problem at present, specifically involving one of the contractors that has provided the steel, that is Bethlehem Steel. I would also endorse comments that have been made in debate about the fact that bookings have been taken for this particular development and the fact that the owners have had no problem coming up with the ready cash to meet their commitments. These are the sorts of issues which should be taken up by somebody to try to resolve them and get the hotel released from Singapore and towed to Australia and installed so that the opening date can be observed. I understand that this resort will be seven storeys in height, with some 200 rooms. It will have a number of dining areas, specialty shops and night clubs. It will have conference facilities and recreational facilities such as tennis courts, a swimming pool, a gymnasium, coral viewing and a semi-submersive submarine associated with it. These are all things that will attract the tourist to this country. They make this development something slightly novel. People will be able to get there by helicopter or some other form of transportation. They will then be able to have a very good opportunity to see what tourist facilities Australia has to offer in terms of its natural beauty. At the same time, however, I would have to say that I share some of the concerns of my very good colleague the honourable member for Dunkley in terms of the environmental questions. We are a little uncertain as to what effect mooring a facility of this type will have on the coral reefs. He alluded to visits to northern Australia and the Barrier Reef areas in times gone by, pointing out that he has seen the devastation that has occurred to our natural corals in some of these parts of the northern coastline. I concur with his view that we need to monitor carefully and to study the effect of this development. If it is successful and if it can be shown that it has no detrimental effect on the reef or on the environment generally, it may be very much the forerunner, the pioneering spirit, for other developments that may occur in other parts of Australia. In view of the contribution that this development will make to tourism in Australia, it is important to mention the fact that tourism is certainly being pursued by this Government as a major economic benefit to this country. For example, the number of tourist arrivals in Australia from Japan alone in the month of September 1987 represents a 77 per cent increase on 1986. A facility such as the one proposed for the Barrier Reef would be very attractive to Japanese tourists. In recent times it has been my pleasure to visit Hamilton Island. This subject was raised recently and I will come back in a moment to make a couple of points about it. That island has certainly developed as a tourist mecca for Japanese visitors and a number of others. The forecast is that in 1988 half a million Japanese will visit Australia. Most certainly the Bicentennial has something to do with that, but as a tourist destination Australia is very appealing to many people. In December 1986 there were 51,210 applications for visas to visit Australia from the United States of America, Japan, the United Kingdom and Canada. That represents an increase of at least 20.7 per cent. In the calendar year 1987 the tourist industry will contribute to our economy about $25 billion, which represents a 200 per cent increase on the 1982 figure. All of this illustrates to me the fact that developments such as those proposed in this Bill, and the changes being wrought here to the taxation system, will provide the incentives in the tourist area for the people with the pioneering, entrepreneurial spirit to which the honourable member for Dawson referred. I wish to talk very briefly on another aspect associated with this sales tax question which I believe is worthy of consideration because it relates to sales tax on sea type enterprises and relates at the same time to the tourist industry-subjects encapsulated in the Bills with which we are dealing. I refer to an apparent anomaly which exists in regard to the 20 per cent sales tax rate on charter fishing vessels and charter boats and the fact that that sales tax regime does not exist for the purchase of boats to provide a regular service between a mainland port and a facility such as this floating hotel, Hamilton Island or any other off-shore facility. As I understand it, if a regular service is provided by a vessel-it may be only once a day-and if 12 passengers are carried by that vessel, again maybe only once a day, a 20 per cent sales tax relief is applicable on the purchase of that vessel. On the other hand, the purchase of a charter vessel which can take perhaps only six or seven people on board for, say, a fishing trip-indeed, even leaving from the floating hotel off Townsville being debated here today, which will attract the 20 per cent sales tax relief-does not attract the same opportunity for sales tax relief. That adds many thousands of dollars to the cost of operating those charter vessels. I believe this is an area that the Government needs to address. We are encouraging tourism. The people who will travel to Australia from Japan, the United States and other parts of the world will come to enterprises such as this because we as a government, through our taxation concessions and so on, have made it possible. We have made people realise that the tourist industry should be promoted through major infrastructure development. We must then promote the opportunities for smaller scale businesses and tourist operators in those areas. I hope that the Government will take the opportunity to look at that in the future. The subject of Hamilton Island was touched on by both the previous speakers. If I may be guided by you, Mr Deputy Speaker, I would like to pose a question to the honourable member for Dawson, as he indicated that it is in his electorate, that he may like to take up in the future. He mentioned that sewage and effluent disposal is left to natural forces on that island and that the pioneering entrepreneurial spirit rests with Mr Keith Williams, who is developing that facility. I would like to hear from the honourable member for Dawson his reaction to the fact that on 11 July this year the Hamilton Island residents were disenfranchised and, as I understand it, did not get a vote because there was some muck-up-- Mr Chynoweth —That is a disgrace. Mr MARTIN —I thought it was a bit of a disgrace that they did not get an opportunity to vote in the election. Of course, the honourable member for Dawson may have benefited to some extent from the votes of the people on that island-the employers and employees in the tourist industry. But, then again, perhaps he may not have benefited and perhaps that is why we have not heard a great deal about it. I conclude by saying that this Bill is one of a series which this Government is pursuing to ensure that sales tax and a range of other taxes that are necessary are applied and that the Australian economy does not suffer from any oversight that may exist. I commend those people who have taken the initiative to develop this as a major facility off-shore. I wish them every success and I support the comments of the honourable member for Dawson that we would like to see that facility get out of Singapore and be moored off the John Brewer Reef so that we can get more tourists into this country to spend all those dollars. Mr DUNCAN(Makin-Minister for Land Transport and Infrastructure Support)(12.36) —I would like to refer in a moment to one matter raised by the honourable member for Dawson (Mr Braithwaite) but, before doing so, I thank all honourable members who have contributed to this debate. The debate was of a very high standard and it was particularly good to see the co-operation and constructive spirit which pervaded the whole debate. I congratulate honour- able members who have been involved in the debate on approaching the issues involved in the Sales Tax (Off-shore Installations) Amendment Bill in such a constructive way. I want to refer for only a minute or two to one issue which was raised. The honourable member for Dawson expressed some concern about the application of sales tax in this Bill. I point out to him and to other honourable members that sales tax will not be imposed on the total cost of the floating ship to which he referred. In fact, it will be determined and applied to the items used in the construction of the ship and to items on the ship. However, of course, some of those items will be exempt and some will be taxable according to the general sales tax legislation. I think that clarifies the matter that he raised and expressed some concern about. Apart from that, I simply commend the Bill to the House. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith. Bill (on motion by Mr Duncan) read a third time. Mr SHARP(Gilmore) —Mr Deputy Speaker, I wish to make a personal explanation. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Millar) —Does the honourable member claim to have been misrepresented? Mr SHARP —Yes, Mr Deputy Speaker. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —The honourable member may proceed. Mr SHARP —In an article in today's Sydney Daily Mirror by Peter Gibson, he reports comments of mine that indicate that the Minister for the Arts, Sport, the Environment, Tourism and Territories (Mr John Brown) is involved in some sort of sex scandal. I want to make it quite plain to the House that that was not my intention. I have never at any stage indicated that in anything that I have said either yesterday in the Parliament or subsequent to that. I want to ensure that the House understands that the papers that were referred to yesterday were totally unauthenticated. I made that quite clear when I revealed them. I still stand by those statements of yesterday in that those papers were unauthenticated and in reality cannot have any substance at all as documents from which articles like this can be drawn. I take this opportunity to apologise to anybody to whom I may have caused concern. That was certainly not my intention. The comments by Mr Gibson in the Daily Mirror article today do not reflect anything that I may have said to him or anything that I may understand to be true. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Millar) — Order! It being approximately 12.45 p.m., proceedings are interrupted. The question is: That grievances be noted. Mr ANDREW(Wakefield) —Mr Deputy Speaker-- Motion (by Mr Young) agreed to: That the question be now put. Original question resolved in the affirmative. Sitting suspended from 12.41 to 2 p.m. Mr HAWKE(Wills-Prime Minister) —I inform the House that the Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade, Mr Hayden, left yesterday on Government business overseas. He will return to Australia on 20 December, and in his absence the Minister for Trade Negotiations, Mr Duffy, is the Acting Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade, with the exception of the period from 27 November to 4 December, when Senator Gareth Evans will act as Minister for that portfolio. Madam SPEAKER —Order! I have to advise that catering services were withdrawn today between 12 noon and 2 p.m. The catering staff have taken industrial action in relation to a claim for a 4 per cent second tier wage increase. The Joint House Department and the union have been negotiating on this matter since March 1987, and the matter was considered by the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission on Thursday, 12 November 1987. At that time the Commission advised that the productivity, efficiency items identified to date were insufficient to warrant a 4 per cent increase, and that further work would be required before the Commission would be satisfied. The Commission set a further hearing date of 1 December 1987. Since last Thursday, the Joint House Department and the Department of Industrial Relations have been conducting further negotiations with the union. The Department of Industrial Relations has responsibility to oversight second tier wage claims within the public sector. At a meeting on Friday, 13 November, the catering staff voted to undertake a series of lightning rolling industrial stoppages in support of their claim. The strike today is part of that action. The Conciliation and Arbitration Commission will be notified of the strike. I sincerely regret the disruption caused to senators, members and other users of the catering facilities. The Secretary, Joint House Department, is circulating details of alternative catering facilities in close proximity to Parliament House. Mr Howard-Does that extend to the Lodge? Madam SPEAKER —I do not know whether it extends to the Lodge. The honourable member will have to ask the Prime Minister. Mr HOWARD —My question is addressed to the Prime Minister. In the wake of the recent sharp downturn in world stock markets, will the Prime Minister assure the House that his Government will not, nor will any of its agencies with the exception of the Reserve Bank of Australia acting in accordance with proper central banking principles, directly or indirectly, through the use of guarantees or otherwise, commit or expose taxpayers' money to the general financial support of any corporation in Australia? Mr HAWKE —The honourable gentleman can be assured that the Government will continue, as it has for nearly five years, to take the appropriate decisions necessary to protect and advance the interests of the Australian economy. I can assure him that I see absolutely no need for any of the type of action to which he refers. Mr O'NEIL —My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce. What is the future of the steel industry under the steel industry plan, and the future of the steel industry in Australia beyond that, particularly at Whyalla? Mr BARRY JONES —The honourable member for Grey is an extraordinarily persistent member whose concern about the welfare of his constituents is legendary, almost to the point of obsession, as all Ministers will know. I understand the importance of the steel industry, which is critical in the honourable member's area. The Government is well aware of the general concern in Whyalla about the future prosperity of the city, but not, I think, of any current concern about the future of the steel industry or of any reason why there should be concern about the steel industry. The long products division of the Broken Hill Proprietary Co. Ltd (BHP) has recently held discussions with the major unions at Whyalla, in which it foreshadowed major capital investments in the plant and in the development of new iron ore deposits. BHP has invested $18m in the plant at Whyalla, of which $14m is to upgrade the blast furnace, and $4m for computer systems. Those investments are nearing completion and will enhance Whyalla's competitive position. That is not exactly the picture of an industry that is being allowed to die. Quite the contrary, the evidence indicates that it is one where plans are being made for growth. The companies and the unions are to be commended for their co-operation in Whyalla. BHP's long products division is very well placed to take advantage of the benefits achieved by the steel industry as a whole under the Button steel plan. It has a very low cost source or iron ore and low transport costs for its other raw materials. The company is also looking at the development of additional iron ore deposits in that region, which demonstrates the degree of commitment to the long term future of the steel industry based in and around Whyalla. The industrial relations record at Whyalla is good, and productivity levels have risen substantially since the start of the plan. Whyalla's heavy dependence on export markets does restrict the company's ability to expand production, but productivity consistently exceeds the target level of 250 tonnes per employee per year which was set at the beginning of the plant. They are all pluses. Whyalla is currently supplying coke to BHP, Newcastle, and has achieved export markets for some of its by-products. BHP has advised that a reduction of 400 in manning levels at Whyalla between now and the end of the steel plan will be achieved by natural attrition and voluntary retirements. That is in keeping with BHP's commitment under the steel industry plan-no retrenchments during the life of the scheme. Further reductions of up to 100 are under consideration in the post-plan period of up to 1992. I repeat, BHP has not retrenched any staff at Whyalla and it has advised that every effort will be made to avoid retrenchments in the future. To build on this reasonably optimistic picture for Whyalla, I understand that the range of possible developments the company is looking at includes some which would reduce the plant's dependence on exports and make it a more important and integral part of BHP's steel production operations. Mr SINCLAIR —I ask a question of the Prime Minister. In light of the response just given by the Minister for Science and Small Business regarding, inter alia, the commitment of taxpayers' funds to the steel plan, what is his Government doing to eliminate the chronic industrial strife to ensure that the warning of the Broken Hill Proprietary Co. Ltd (BHP) that it may walk away from its Port Kembla steel works operations does not eventuate? Mr HAWKE —It does come as passing strange to hear from the Opposition any talk about the level of industrial disputation in this country. I remind the right honourable gentleman of the statistics in regard to the level of industrial disputation under my Government compared with the comparable period of time when he was a leading figure in the Fraser Government. They are absolutely staggering. The monthly average since April 1983 is 111,700. That is the monthly average of days lost in the whole of the period since 1983, and that compares with a figure of 248,200 from January 1976 to March 1983. In other words, the level of industrial disputation under this Government has been significantly less than half of the level of industrial disputation in the period of the Fraser Government. The relative industrial peace which has characterised the period of this Government compared with the Fraser-Howard years has been reflected throughout the economy generally, and for most of the period it has been reflected in the steel industry. Unfortunately, it is the case that there has been some increase recently in industrial disputation in the steel industry. Like all honourable members of this House, I regret that. Events that have occurred since that disputation has increased give some reason for optimism. A considerable amount of the disputation which occurred, particularly at Port Kembla, resulted from problems associated with the commissioning of new plant and from industrial disputes earlier this year. The level of industrial disputation has dropped significantly since the middle of this year and productivity across BHP's three integrated steelworks is currently approaching the record levels that were being achieved in 1986. A series of meetings between BHP and the unions, including a meeting on 28 October, convened by the Steel Industry Authority, has made progress in negotiations on dispute settling procedures, particularly at the plant level. It should also be noted-perhaps more importantly-that these meetings have set the scene for an industry agreement to be achieved next year which, hopefully, will be the basis for industrial relations harmony in the post-steel plan period after 1988. This Government does not favour or look with any pleasure upon unwarranted disputation. But it looks with a great deal of pride upon the fact that we have improved the industrial relations climate in this country beyond recognition. We have improved it from the state of confrontation which was brought about by the unthinking and uncaring policies which characterised the government of our predecessors. Mr BRUMBY —Can the Minister for Industrial Relations advise the House of the outcome of the anomalies conference conducted by the Remuneration Tribunal today on parliamentarians' salaries? Madam SPEAKER —I am sure the Minister will get quite a good hearing. Mr WILLIS —As the House will recall, the background to this matter is that the Remuneration Tribunal found in 1984 that there was an 11.7 per cent anomaly in relation to the pay of members of parliament (MPs). The Tribunal did not award that increase because of its concerns about possible effects on wages policy if it were granted. The same applied in 1985. In 1986 there was a determination made to give the 11.7 per cent increase. However, the Parliament disallowed that. After the election this year, the Government requested the Remuneration Tribunal to conduct an anomalies conference, which is the normal process for dealing with an anomaly. The date was set for 18 October, but that was delayed because of the delay in the national wage case. The conference, which was held this morning, was attended by members of the Tribunal, an officer of my Department as the Government representative, Mr Kelty from the Australian Council of Trade Unions (ACTU), Mr Noakes from the Confederation of Australian Industry, the honourable member for Maribyrnong and the honourable member for Dundas representing the two caucuses. The conference concluded at lunch time. Following the conference the Tribunal issued a statement which said: The Remuneration Tribunal said that a conference was held by it today at which were present representatives of the Government, representatives of the Government party, of the Liberal Party and of the National Party, the Australian Council of Trade Unions and the Confederation of Australian Industry. At the conference there was agreement: (1) that an anomaly has existed for a considerable time in respect of parliamentarians' salaries, and that there should be an adjustment on the following basis: (a) an increase of 3.8 per cent operative from 1 July 1987; and (b) an increase of 2.2 per cent operative from 1 July 1988. (2) that the Remuneration Tribunal should conduct a review of parliamentary salaries and allowances and that it should consider, inter alia, the following questions: (a) whether an appropriate benchmark should be established for parliamentary salaries; (b) what should be the relationship between electoral allowances and salaries payable to members of the parliament; (c) whether provision should be made for the social dislocation suffered by members of the federal Parliament in the discharge of their duties. The remuneration Tribunal will take account of this agreement in making its determinations for 1987. I will make a few comments about that agreement. First, it should be understood that the agreement is an agreement by the parties present today, not the Tribunal. The Tribunal will take account of that agreement, as it has said, in reaching its determination. Secondly, the ACTU believes that the increases granted in that satisfaction of the anomaly and proposed in the agreement would not lead to any consequential claims for wage increases elsewhere in the work force which, of course, has been a factor in relation to the previous 11.7 per cent anomaly. Thirdly, in regard to the proposed review, the Government strongly believes that there should be a link between the pay of members of parliament and that of the Public Service. We should establish a link at a particular level of the Public Service pay structure so that MPs' pay moves automatically with that of the Public Service. Only by doing that do we believe that we can get MPs' pay out of the political arena, so that it simply moves automatically with the Public Service pay. We also believe that with the change in the taxation arrangements so that the electoral allowance is now taxable, unless allowable expenses are substantiated, the distinction between salary and allowance has been blurred. As those are the circumstances, we believe that rearrangement of the relationship could be used to establish an appropriate link with the Public Service. We also believe that a case exists for an allowance to be paid to MPs for the dislocation of their family, home and social life that results in continual absence from their home base. That point was agreed by the parties at the conference today. Therefore, we expect the Remuneration Tribunal will make its report in the early part of December and will make its determination in light of the agreement reached by the parties. Also, if the Tribunal agrees to a review of parliamentary salaries, we expect that that review will be completed in time for report by mid-1988. Mr Ruddock —With your indulgence, Madam Speaker, as one of those present at the conference, I make it clear on behalf of the Opposition that I attended that conference to submit to the Remuneration Tribunal the Opposition's view that this was a matter for the Tribunal ultimately to determine. Mr SPENDER —My question is directed to the Prime Minister. Does the Government's policy of not condemning acts of violence in South Africa extend to other parts of the world where there is a blatant suppression of individual liberty, such as the Soviet Union and, most recently, Fiji? Does this policy extend to the non-condemnation of acts of murder and other acts of violence against the civilian authorities of such countries? Mr HAWKE —The honourable gentleman who has asked this question, together with some of those around him, seems quite incapable of understanding the position which has been adopted in regard to the issue of violence in South Africa not only by this Government but also very much across the spectrum around the world. I take this opportunity to refer in some detail to some of the observations in the report of the Commonwealth Eminent Persons Group on Southern Africa. By way of preface on this point, I remind the honourable gentleman and members of the House of the constitution of that Eminent Persons Group. Lest it be thought that the Eminent Persons Group was constituted by radicals, I remind the honourable gentleman that in addition to his previous Leader-the right honourable Malcolm Fraser-the group included General Obasanjo from Nigeria; Dame Nita Barrow, who was proposed by the Prime Minister of the Bahamas; Mr John Malecela, who was proposed by the President of Zambia; and Mr Sardar Swaran Singh, who was proposed by the Prime Minister of India. Perhaps significantly, as far as the conservative parties in this country are concerned, it also included Lord Barber who was proposed by the Prime Minister of Britain. The positions he held included that of Chairman of the Conservative Party from 1960 to 1970. In addition to Lord Barber, the Most Reverend Edward Walter Scott was proposed by the Prime Minister of Canada. In my references to the report one will see that the observations in regard to the unique character of the repression in South Africa are made by a body of people whose competence and integrity are beyond question. Here is what they had to say at the beginning of chapter 2 on the issue of violence where they pointed to the peculiar, unique character of the situation in South Africa: All governments have coercive powers, and regard the maintenance of law and order as their first duty. If the Government of South Africa was a democratic government, its claims in this regard would command some respect. But the situation in South Africa is different; the objectives of the South African Government are different; and the rules and conventions governing the use of state power are different. It is important that these differences should be clearly understood if the issue of violence is to be viewed in proper perspective. The Eminent Persons Group, having established the unique nature of institutionalised violence in South Africa, went on to comment on the extent, level and nature of violence in South Africa. I do not apologise for now taking up a little time to bring to the attention of the House some of the things said by the Eminent Persons Group on the question of violence to establish, in response to the honourable member's question, why I and this Government have the views that we do have, particularly in regard to South Africa. Let me refer to some passages in chapter 2 on the issue of violence. This is what the group had to say: . . . even as we arrived in February, the level of violence touched new heights. It went on to say about allegations that were made: We had no power to call the authorities to account. However, we were deeply moved by the account given us by one local resident. Fearing his son might be dead, he had gone to look for him in a hospital morgue. The first body he saw was that of his son, shot several times. Steeling himself from his personal grief, he determined to see how many other bodies there were there and so pretended not to recognize his son. In all, he told us, he counted in excess of forty bodies, all of them victims of gunshot wounds, in one morgue alone. The passage in the report went on to talk about the way in which the army conducted itself: So widespread and so consistent were these complaints of excessive force, of gratuitous beating, of point-blank shootings, that to us they had an unmistakable ring of truth. There was a similarly widespread and consistent pattern of complaints about the treatment of detainees. We spoke to numerous people of all races who recounted to us how, while in detention, they had been assaulted and even tortured-in some cases being brought close to drowning by having their heads held down in buckets of water dowsed with tear-gas. The group referred to the provocation that occurs on occasions of black funerals: The typical black funeral commences with an all-night vigil . . . We learnt of unprovoked attacks by security forces lobbing tear-gas into houses during vigils, sjamboking women and children and deliberately wrecking the barrels of water awaiting the return of mourners from the graveside. It went on: Claims that the security forces provoke violence are confirmed by our own experience. On our very first visit to a township, Johannesburg's Soweto, we were confronted by the spectacle of a policeman chasing and shooting at an apparently unarmed person, and this not 15 yards away from us. As I referred to yesterday in answer to the Leader of the Opposition, let us look at what happens to children: Indeed, we heard, with depressing repetition, accounts of violence directed by the security forces against children, of children brutally whipped, or schoolrooms teargassed and of difficulties experienced by parents in locating children taken by the police. In regard to the suggestion made yesterday about violence by black against black, the Eminent Persons Group had something significant to say. Mr Sinclair —I wish to put a point of order, Madam Speaker. The original question asked whether the Prime Minister condemned murder. To date, he has not acknowledged that that was the question, nor is his answer relevant to that question. I suggest that he might address himself to that subject. Madam SPEAKER —Order! The Prime Minister is relevant to the question. Mr HAWKE —On the point about violence of black against black, let me quote the Group again: From what we heard and saw, there appeared to be a pattern of vigilante violence directed against blacks agitating for change in the status quo by some of those who have a stake of sorts in `the system' and are encouraged by the authorities to preserve it in this way. Listen to what the Eminent Persons Group-Malcolm Fraser and Lord Barber-had to say about this. Mr Sinclair —Why are you running away from the question? Mr HAWKE —I know that Opposition members do not like this because their hypocrisy is being exposed. Madam SPEAKER —Order! The Prime Minister will continue with his answer. Mr HAWKE —This is what the Eminent Persons Group had to say: However, there is a substantial body of evidence, including that gathered by Black Sash and other human rights organizations, that official agencies, in a wish to promote `black-on-black violence and the notion that blacks are divided among themselves, give some degree of encouragement to vigilante groups. The Eminent Persons Group said in conclusion on this point: In a situation such as that in South Africa, blacks who `collaborate' with the Government obviously make themselves vulnerable. It is a fact of life that in any uprising against the oppression of an army of occupation-which the South African security forces are seen as being-those who collaborate with the occupiers are among the first victims. For a European equivalent, one need look no further than the French Resistance, whose members perpetrated premeditated violence on those of their people who were seen as siding with the occupying power. The clear statement by the highly qualified Eminent Persons Group is that the situation in South Africa is unique. There is institutionalised racism and state organised and applied violence. This Government's attitude expressed by myself and the Foreign Minister is that in the unique situation of South Africa-- Mr Sinclair —You condone murder. Mr HAWKE —We do not condone violence, but we can understand that men and women who have had their children beaten and brutalised will have to resort to violence. It is a unique situation in South Africa, not paralleled in any other country. Of course, when I see murder in any country I deplore it. Mr Howard —Your Foreign Affairs Department does not even brief on Afghanistan. Mr HAWKE —We have this pathetic creature here talking about Afghanistan. Madam SPEAKER —Order! The Prime Minister will address the Leader of the Opposition by his correct title. Mr HAWKE —We have the Leader of the Opposition asking about Afghanistan. On occasion after occasion, publicly and in private submissions to representatives of the Soviet Union, I and the Foreign Minister have condemned what is happening in Afghanistan, condemned the occupation by Soviet authorities in Afghanistan. We have done so time after time, and when I am in Moscow in less than a fortnight I shall be doing so again. It serves the Opposition's purposes not at all to try to divert attention from its inadequacy on the question of South Africa to throw in the issue of Afghanistan. Wherever there is violence, wherever the interests and rights of individuals in the world are infringed, one will find, as one has found in the last five years, this Government through its Foreign Minister and through myself condemning violence wherever it occurs. We have done that. We have done so in regard to the Soviet Union both in its external operations and internally. We do so wherever violence occurs. I repeat that there is no other country in the world which has institutionalised racism and violence in the way that has occurred in South Africa. Because the situation in South Africa is unique, at least in this country, on this side of the House, there will be people unequivocally condemning it, and expressing not a condonation of violent reaction by blacks but at least an understanding. If there is a situation where a man or woman has his or her child brutalised and shot, at least we can understand that there will be a reaction of violence. Mr GEAR —I refer my question to the Minister for Community Services and Health. I draw the Minister's attention to an advertisement in the Newcastle Herald of 17 November headed `Investigation into Medicare activities'. This advertisement asked members of the public to write to the New South Wales branch of the Australian Medical Association with any complaints they have regarding incorrect or slow payments by Medicare or any other transgressions by the Health Insurance Commission. Can the Minister advise the House about the timeliness and accuracy of the payments made by the Health Insurance Commission and the public's level of satisfaction with medicare? Dr BLEWETT —Yes, I am aware of an advertisement and allegations made by Dr Shepherd and others about incorrect and slow payments made by Medicare. In a moment I will provide both the honourable member and the House with the evidence on those so-called incorrect and slow payments, but I should first note that the advertisement is probably a reaction to the very effective campaign being waged by the prices network committee, under the charge of the honourable member for Canning, against the small minority of doctors who are charging substantially above the schedule fees. I want to stress that it is a small minority of doctors. Indeed, in the figures for the lastest quarter-that is, the June quarter-73 per cent of all services were billed at or below the schedule fee. It is only a small proportion of doctors who are charging substantially above the schedule fee, mainly specialists, at which the prices network committee is aimed. I now turn to the evidence of the speed or otherwise and the incorrectness or otherwise of Medicare payments. The latest New South Wales figures for September show that the average time lag between the lodgment and processing of all types of claims is 4.03 days. The Australian average is only 3.53 days. That turnaround compares more than favourably with most private organisations in this country. Secondly, the quality control checks we have in our Medicare payments show that, in September, the New South Wales error rate was only 0.29 per cent for direct bill claims and 2.14 per cent for patient claims. Even that 2.14 per cent includes minor keying errors and, in fact, only 0.13 per cent were incorrect payments. That is an extraordinarily low error rate, particularly when one considers that Medicare pays approximately 130 million services per annum and, of course, when some medical practitioners, for whatever reason, inadequately itemise their accounts. Even more impressive is the level of public satisfaction with the Medicare claims payments service, which now stands at 94 per cent. That level is virtually constant across all States. The reasons given for that satisfaction are the efficiency with which the claims are handled, the fast and prompt payment, the helpful staff and the simple, straightforward procedures. There is no doubt in the Government's mind that the Medicare payments system is an outstanding success and must rank as one of the most efficient services, public or private, in this country. In relation to the so-called inquiry called for by Dr Shepherd, the General Manager of Medicare wrote this week to say that Medicare would be happy to provide any material information that Dr Shepherd required. I hope that Dr Shepherd and his surgical colleagues will reciprocate with regard to the prices network inquiry under the direction of my colleague the honourable member for Canning. Mr CARLTON —Will the Minister for Employment, Education and Training confirm that on his proposed National Board of Employment, Education and Training only two of the 12 members will be required to be drawn from the education sector, the same number of places as has been allocated to the Australian Council of Trade Unions? Will he further confirm that, unlike the Commonwealth Schools Commission and the Commonwealth Tertiary Education Commission, which the Board replaces, the advisory councils reporting to the new Board will have neither the power to initiate any matter not referred to them by the Minister or the Board, nor the right to publish material independently? If my understanding is correct, will the Minister please explain why the Government proposes to close off the access of consumers and providers of education to the public forum of debate which they have until now enjoyed? Mr DAWKINS —The first point that I make is that the Government is still conducting a series of consultations with a number of interested parties before finalising the decision in relation to this matter. However, I expect that we will be able to do that within the next week or so. The next point I would like to make is that one cannot just see the proposed National Board of Employment, Education and Training on its own because underneath the National Board, as the honourable member for Mackellar indicated, will be a Schools Council, a Higher Education Council, a Skills Formation Council and a Research Council. What is obviously the case in relation to what the Government has announced is that those councils will comprise people drawn from those particular sectors. For instance, on the Schools Council there will be representatives of the teaching profession, obviously, parents and others involved in schools education. A similar situation will apply with the Higher Education Council and the Skills Formation Council. The Research Council will be made up predominately but not entirely of people active in or knowledgable about research practice in Australia. As far as the National Board itself is concerned, it should be recalled that, whilst the proposal indicates two education and training providers, there are to be full time executive positions, which will be taken by the people who chair the particular councils. Whoever chairs the Schools Council will almost certainly be an educator. The person who chairs the Higher Education Council is likely to be an educator or at least in touch with those issues. So, in addition to the education providers, who themselves will be drawn from actual participants, probably in the States, the full time positions will largely be drawn from people who are active in the education and training areas. It is not true to say that the education and training providers will be a small minority voice on the Board. Among the total, they will constitute a majority. The other point that I make is that it is indicated in the proposal that the Board will have two so-called independent members, and it would be my intention that those two positions would be used with a view to carrying out whatever balancing is needed in relation to the composition of the Board. In relation to the reporting procedures, again, these matters are subject to further consultation. However, in the proposal as released, the Government has said that advice from the councils to the Board would be published at the same time as the Board's advice to the Government. As for the setting of agendas for the councils, it is important that the work of the advisory bodies take very much into account the kinds of resources that might be available from the Government in this area, which, apart from the non-government school sector, is almost entirely publicly funded by either the Federal Government or the States. Therefore, the advice we want must be given to us, I would have thought, in the context of those resource questions and the general direction and national priorities that the Government wants to set. I do not see there being any particular problem with that. Otherwise, one runs the risk of getting advice which is irrelevant to the Government's major concerns. Mr O'KEEFE —Can the Prime Minister inform the House of the progress being made by the Government's Australian made campaign? Will he advise of the involvement of the Government and the private sector in advertising for the campaign? Mr HAWKE —I am very pleased to say that more than 1,300 companies have now joined the Australian made campaign since I launched it in August last year. Our research shows that the campaign is supported by 87 per cent of Australians and that more than 90 per cent of those surveyed recognise the green and gold kangaroo logo. Importantly, the research also suggests that approximately 25 per cent of Australians have now bought Australian made products as a direct result of the campaign. In the last Budget the Government decided to allocate a further $2m for a new phase of the advertising campaign, for retail promotions and a quality campaign. The new advertising campaign has now gone to air in time for the Christmas shopping period, and a corporate sponsored campaign will go to air at the end of this month. I hope honourable members on both sides of the House will join with me in urging all Australians to look for the genuine green and gold logo, to stop, and to compare the Australian made product with the imported competition and, where the Australian made product compares favour- ably-as it nearly always will-to buy it in preference to the imported item. I know I will have the support of all honourable members in expressing that wish to all Australian shoppers. Finally, I wish to congratulate and thank the honourable member for Burke for his continued interest in this campaign and his active support in its promotion. Mr N.A. Brown —I remind the Minister for the Arts, Sport, the Environment, Tourism and Territories of the Government's refusal yesterday to table the legal advice from the Attorney-General's Department to the Minister's Department on the Government's liability which the Minister admitted to Mr Bob Rogers's company arising out of the World Expo 88 contract. With that in mind, if the Government will not table the legal advice, will it now table all other documents, apart from the legal advice, relating to this matter? In particular, will the Government table, firstly, all the records of meetings of the two committees set up to consider the Expo contract and, secondly, all notes of meetings between the Minister and Mr Rogers? If the Government will not table those documents, will the Minister give the House one good reason why the Government wants to keep the Australian people in the dark about this matter, which is now clearly of great public interest and concern? Mr JOHN BROWN —Certainly, I cannot speak on behalf of the Attorney-General in whose Department most of the papers repose. Yesterday I think the Attorney-General suggested to the House that because the matter is the subject of some litigation at the moment, the less said about it the better. I certainly have nothing to conceal from the House on this matter and I think later events will prove that to be the case. I have nothing further to add. Mr CHYNOWETH —Can the Minister for Defence Science and Personnel report on the crash of Australia's front line fighter, the FA18, near Townsville last night? Mrs KELLY —It is unfortunate that I have to inform the House that at approximately 10 o'clock last night an FA18 aircraft, piloted by Flying Officer Ric Jeffreys from No. 2 Operational Conversion Unit based at Royal Australian Air Force (RAAF) Williamtown, crashed on Great Palm Island near Townsville. Two FA18 aircraft were conducting a night navigation exercise, which included radar bombing at the Halifax Bay weapons range which is near Palm Island. The pilot of the other aircraft reported that the FA18 aircraft piloted by Flying Officer Jeffreys was seen to impact at Great Palm Island. Wreckage has been sighted at the eastern end of Palm Island and a ground party has reached the scene. The site is in very heavy rainforest and a search is continuing for the pilot. The pilot is 23 years old and single. An accident investigation team has departed Canberra for Townsville. At this stage it would be inappropriate to comment on the possible cause of the accident. A full report of the accident will be prepared by the Air Force. I am very concerned for the pilot and his family and I appreciate the distress that his family must be feeling. The FA18 is a high-technology aircraft which, in operational training, is flown at the very edge of its capabilities. Unfortunately, accidents like this will occasionally happen. The RAAF now has received 31 FA18 aircraft. This is the first aircraft to have been lost. Again, on behalf of the House, I extend the sympathies of every honourable member to the family of the young officer. Honourable members-Hear, hear! Mr HOWARD —I remind the Attorney- General that yesterday, in answer to a question, his colleague the Minister for the Arts, Sport, the Environment, Tourism and Territories informed the House that the payment to be made to the Rogers's company by the Commonwealth was not an act of grace payment. As the Attorney-General has read the legal advice, as he indicated in the House, and in light of the Minister's statement, can he confirm that the payment is being made under a contractual obligation advised to be on foot from the Commonwealth to the Rogers's company? Mr LIONEL BOWEN —Mr Rogers has made a claim for reimbursement. That is a question of substantiation and the matter is under negotiation. Mr YOUNG(Port Adelaide-Minister for Immigration, Local Government and Ethnic Affairs) —For the information of honourable members, I present a report on Australia's population trends and prospects 1987. Mr JOHN BROWN(Parramatta-Minister for the Arts, Sport, the Environment, Tourism and Territories) —Pursuant to sub-section 12 (4) of the Australian Institute of Sport Act 1986, I present the Australian Institute of Sport strategic plan 1988 and beyond. Motion (by Mr Young) proposed: That the House take note of the paper. Debate (on motion by Mr Fife) adjourned. Mr HOWARD(Bennelong-Leader of the Opposition) —I seek leave to make a personal explanation. Madam SPEAKER —Does the honourable member claim to have been misrepresented? Mr HOWARD —Yes. Madam SPEAKER —Please proceed. Mr HOWARD —During Question Time today the Prime Minister claimed that I had misrepresented the Government's position in relation to protests regarding Afghanistan and he claimed that the matter was very high on the agenda of the Government's concern for Soviet-Australian relations. I simply inform the House that that is a misrepresentation, and in support of that I table a briefing note which I obtained today from the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade in aid of my discussion with the parliamentary delegation from the Soviet Presidium. In that three-page document the only reference to Afghanistan in the context of Australian-Soviet relations is a simple recording of the fact that when the Government came to power it decided to pursue relations with the Soviet Union on a more pragmatic basis. An example of that was the decision to lift the sanctions against Afghanistan. In other words, the Government is so worried about this matter it does not even mention it is a briefing. Madam SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member is now going on to debate the matter. He will resume his seat. Indulgence has been withdrawn. I point out that this is the last time this will happen. No further honourable member will seek to make a personal explanation unless he has a personal explanation to make. Mr FIFE(Farrer-Manager of Opposition Business) —Madam Speaker, with your indulgence, there is a report to be tabled regarding the review of the tender procedures for the Coast- watch contract. Madam SPEAKER —It will be tabled on Monday. Mr FIFE —I understand that it has been tabled in the Senate and that it is being debated there today. Is it possible for it to be tabled here today? Mr Young —Yes, shortly. Messages received from the Senate returning the Income Tax Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1987 and the Medicare Levy Amendment Bill 1987 and acquainting the House that the Senate has agreed to the Bills as amended by the House of Representatives at the request of the Senate and without further requests. 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 Brumby,Mr Jenkins,Mr Kent,Mr Peacock and Mr Scott. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives, in the Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned respectfully showeth that there is widespread 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 Humphreys. To the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in 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 resubmitted to Parliament. As in duty bound your petitioners will ever pray. by Mr Beale,Mr Kerr,Mr Moore,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 Brumby,Mr Peacock and Mr Wright. 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 taxpayer's money and a significant infringement of civil liberties. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Cadman,Mr Cobb and Dr Harry Edwards. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in 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-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 Cowan. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in the Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned Australian citizens showeth 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. by Mrs Harvey and Mr Hurford. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully sheweth that: 1. The decision by the Australian Broadcasting Corporation not to televise the Jack High Bowling Tournament in 1988 is cause for distress to the 500,000 bowlers and many non bowlers who, for years, have enjoyed this interesting programme on television. 2. The unilateral decision was taken after verbal assurances had been given that the 1988 event would be televised. This action is deplored and we feel should be reversed by the parliament in the interests of your many constituents. by Ms Fatin,Mr Hurford and Mr Rocher. 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 1985-1986 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 recommendations of the Senate select committee to outlaw destructive experimentations on human embryos. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mrs Darling and Mr Ian Robinson. 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; That this form of national and compulsory identification will be intrusive, costly for taxpayers and business and will not be effective in combating tax evasion, illegal immigration or social security fraud; That we are deeply concerned at the Labor Government's inability to provide effective and efficient methods to combat tax evasion and social security fraud without resorting to expensive, ineffective and authoritarian measures which are alien to the Australian way of life; That we call upon the Labor 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 Dobie and Mr Moore. 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% of Australians in other States have banned X rated videos. Because the trade is still flourishing, and it's 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 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 Ms Fatin and Mr Rocher. 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 Kerr and Mr Rocher. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of Parliament assembled. We the undersigned citizens, respectfully showeth: 1. That we are totally opposed to the Governments discriminatory Anti-Smoking legislation in the workplace bans and on Domestic Airline travel. 2. Note that so called Environmental Tobacco smoke has not been proved as a major pollutant either in the workplace or on aircraft. 3. This legislation will discriminate against thirty per cent of the citizens of Australia, and 4. Call upon the Government to lift all bans and not proceed with any discriminatory smoking legislation. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Beale. 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 the Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth that: The fringe benefits tax will cause hardship to business throughout Australia, especially in the already severely-depressed rural sector and in the motor vehicle industry. The fringe benefits tax will be a disincentive to employment and worse, will result in additional unemployment. The economy of this country would best be served by policies that lightened the tax burden, not increased it, that encouraged enterprise, not stifled it and stimulated growth, development and jobs, not prevented it. Your petitioners therefore pray that the House will repeal this Legislation and your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Rocher. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia 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 Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The Petition of the undersigned shows that the petitioners are concerned that 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 be 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 Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The Petition of the undersigned shows: We are gravely concerned by the threat to social morality and the welfare of children, posed by the unrestricted importation, distribution and sale of X-rated pornographic video material in and from the Australian Capital Territory. Your Petitioners request that the House of Representatives, in Parliament assembled, should recognise our concern and reverse its amendments to ACT legislation and Customs regulations which have resulted in Australia-wide distribution of material restricted under State censorship laws. And your petitioners, as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Connolly. To the Honourable Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives 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 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 United States 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 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. To the Speaker and members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: That we consider the 2 per cent discounting of Commonwealth Occupational Superannuation Scheme pension adjustments on 10 October 1986 to be a serious breach of trust by the Government. This cut has reduced the base for future adjustments. The Government has promised to restore the base as soon as economic circumstances permit. Having regard to the state of the economy as portrayed by members of the Government in recent months and the interaction between Social Security pensions and the above mentioned adjustment, your petitioners most humbly pray that the House of Representatives, in Parliament assembled, should urge the Government to restore the pension base for the calculation of future adjustments and that the restoration be effected in conjunction with the Social Security adjustments in November 1987. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Langmore. 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 the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully sheweth that: The decision by the Department of Defence to close down the Macksville Sub-section of 41 Battalion, Australian 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. This petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth that we strongly oppose the introduction of the `Australia Card' or any other form of National Identification Numbering System. We believe that the introduction of a national Identification Numbering System is not only totally unnecessary but is a severe threat to our civil liberties and privacy. We condemn the Government's actions on this matter, particularly as no reasonable nor responsible justifications for the proposal have been forthcoming from the Government. We humbly pray that the House of Representatives, in Parliament assembled, should reject any proposal for a National Identification Numbering System. by Mr Porter. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. This petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth that: Any proposal to abolish the Department of Veterans' Affairs gravely concerns 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 Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in the Parliament assembled, your humble petitioners showeth: 1. Naval and defence equipment including ammunition stored on and in the waters around Spectacle and Snapper Islands in Sydney Harbour are a potential danger to residents of and property on the foreshores of Drummoyne and Hunters Hill and also to pleasure and commercial craft that use the waterways near the islands. 2. All naval and defence equipment and ammunitions should be removed from on, and in the waters around, Spectacle and Snapper Islands. 3. In celebration of Australia's Bicentenary, Spectacle Island and the naval museum housed thereon should be opened to the general public of Australia. As in duty bound your petitioners will ever pray. by Dr Woods. To the Honourable the Speaker and the 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. Petitions received. Mr DUNCAN(Makin-Minister for Land Transport and Infrastructure Support) —For the information of honourable members, I present the final report of the review of tender procedures for the Coastwatch contract. Motion (by Mr Young) proposed: That the House take note of the paper. Mr Fife —Mr Deputy Speaker, before I move for the adjournment of the debate, could the Leader of the House (Mr Young) give us an assurance that there will be an opportunity to debate this report before the House rises for Christmas? It is a very significant report concerning the continuing saga of the Coastwatch contract. Mr Young —I give an assurance that, when all the business of government is completed, this will be the first item to be discussed. Mr Fife —I would have preferred an unequivocal assurance. I move: That the debate be now adjourned. Question resolved in the affirmative. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) —Madam Speaker has received a letter from the honourable member for North Sydney (Mr Spender) proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion, namely: The refusal of the Government to condemn murder, torture and the resort to other forms of force and violence in South Africa. 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 SPENDER(North Sydney)(3.57) —In the last 48 hours the Government has justified murder and given the green light to terrorism. This has not been done accidentally or casually but deliberately and in a considered and carefully worded statement made by the Australian Ambassador to the United Nations on 18 November. In making that statement the Government has reversed past policy. I refer to what the policy was as stated by the present Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade (Mr Hayden) in a Press release of 24 December 1985 concerning violence in South Africa. He expressed concern about a number of recent incidents. The release states: Land mines laid in the Transvaal, and bombs exploded in and around Durban had caused a number of deaths and injuries. When bombs and land mines go off they do tend to cause deaths and injuries. The release goes on: The ANC had claimed responsibility for some of the incidents. Mr Hayden said that these incidents marked a disturbing change of direction in the anti-apartheid struggle. Later-here we get to the gravamen of the matter-the release states: `The Australian Government has consistently condemned the resort to arms and violence for political ends', Mr Hayden said. He expressed his dismay that in recent incidents explosives should have been used indiscriminately, causing casualties among the civilian population. That is what happens. If one uses land mines and bombs in the way in which these incidents show they were used, people get hurt, people get killed, people are wounded, people are maimed. They may be white, black or Cape coloured. Bombs are not discriminate when it comes to killing and maiming. Recently, the Foreign Minister expressed himself on the subject of indiscriminate violence, and rightly so, when he condemned, on 26 July of this year, what he called the `brutal massacre' of an estimated 380 civilians by guerrillas opposed to the Mozambique Government. That is right-he condemned them. We ask this question: What is the difference? Today the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke)-that pitiful man-came in here and read a book for about 15 minutes in answer to a question. He said that somehow things were so unique that special rules should apply to indiscriminate violence and death in South Africa but that they should not apply to anywhere else in the world. What drivel! What strange new facts did the Prime Minister learn that the Foreign Minister did not have in 1985 when he made the right statement that his Government condemned the indiscriminate use of violence in South Africa; that is, condemned terrorism? Nothing has changed. This is what the Australian Ambassador to the United Nations said two days ago: In the face of this continuing oppression and massive disregard for human rights- let me say that he is perfectly right in the way in which he described the South African Government's approach to the black people- it is important both to note and to pay tribute to the efforts by South Africans of all races to challenge their Government's policies and to call for fundamental change. In the face of the violence meted out to them, some of them have felt compelled to resort to violence. Listening to those words one would think that somehow they had been pushed to do something and that they had no choice. But we all have choices. He went on to say this: My Government does not condone resort to force and violence as a matter of principle but it will not condemn them for doing so. We understand the frustration and bitterness they must feel in South Africa's repressive and unyielding political, social and economic climate. One could well understand that. One could well understand it in many countries in the world. But what was he really talking about? That kind of bland diplomatic statement which talks about the use of force and violence and not condemning it has to be understood in the matrix of fact in which it is to operate. We are talking about South Africa. We are not talking about a soccer game or a riot of a negligible nature. We are talking about murder-sometimes of whites but mainly of blacks; recently predominantly murder by blacks of other blacks. We are talking about terrorism and a particularly horrible manifestation of terrorism and murder called necklacing. This is when a bound victim, perhaps with his hands cut off, has put around his neck a tyre filled with petrol. It is lit and he is incinerated-burnt to death. We are talking about soft targets, the kind of target the Foreign Minister talked about back in 1985-women and children, civilians, non-combatants. These people are the classic innocents. We are talking about people being blown up by landmines and bombs in supermarkets or wherever it may be if they are so unlucky, be they black or white, as to be around when a bomb goes off. We are talking about the moderates such as Chief Buthelezi, who rejects violence in the struggle against apartheid and has had attempts made on his life. Is that the sort of thing that we do not condemn? Apparently so under this Government. We are talking about this kind of cry for moderation, peace and sanity made by the black assistant editor of the Sowetan, a black newspaper, when he said a short time ago: It is time to have the guts to read political gangsters the riot act. We have been treating the violence sparked by political opportunism with kid gloves for just too long. Most of us were just too damned frightened to say anything about it. Well, that tells us a great deal, does it not? Why were they too damn frightened? It was because of reprisals, because they fear their lives are in danger, just as Buthelezi's life is in danger. He went on to say this: In the end some of us who are assumed to be opinion-makers are facing the impossible task of defending our people for doing the indefensible. It is the indefensible that this Government refuses to condemn. We condemn violence from whatever side, be it from the side of the Government or be it against the Government. Wherever it comes from it must be condemned. But that is not the attitude of this Government. Yesterday we heard this question-do honourable members remember it?-put to the Prime Minister: Does this policy apply to force and violence by blacks against blacks? Does it apply to force and violence against so-called soft targets such as children, women and other civilians? Does it apply to murder? Does it apply to the practice of necklacing, when a rubber tyre filled with gasoline is placed around the neck of a bound victim, who is then burnt to death? We were treated to the pitiable and degrading display of this moral dwarf saying that of course he opposes and abhors violence; but he will not condemn it. He said today that there is something so unique about circumstances in South Africa-which apparently the Government has just learned about-that the people who get killed there are different in some moral quality. It is fair enough not to condemn their deaths. It is fair enough not to condemn the deaths of people who are necklaced. It is fair enough not to condemn the great violence of blacks against blacks. It is fair enough that all these things should go without condemnation. We do not believe they should, just as we do not believe that the actions of the South African Government against blacks and its repression of their rights should go without condemnation. What is justified? Is necklacing justified? Will necklaced victims be lucky enough to have around a man such as Bishop Tutu, who back in 1985 went into a crowd to save a man who was about to be thrown into a burning car because it was suspected that he was a police informer? What have we heard from the Foreign Minister? Yesterday the Foreign Minister and I had a brief debate on television. He said: There were circumstances that could justify murder in defence of basic rights. We are talking about South Africa. But let us just ponder upon `justify murder in defence of basic rights'-or justify unlawful killing. Who selects the victims? Who judges? Where is the right of appeal? What happens is that a person is plucked out at random or on suspicion and killed by necklacing. That is justifiable, is it? The Foreign Minister is not here, and I am sorry that he is not. If we do not condemn murder, violence and terrorism what we are doing is saying that necklacing, murder and terrorism are actions that do not merit condemnation. The Government's policy is the manifest of terrorists. We heard today an exercise in sophistry and in evasion by the Prime Minister when he read bits and pieces from the report of the Eminent Persons Group, which reported in the middle of 1986. There was nothing new about that, as everybody here knows. We all know the nature of the system. We all want to have that system changed and to see peaceful change. But what the Prime Minister and this Government sought to say is that there is something so unique about South Africa that terrorism and murder are justified, and it will not condemn those things-regardless of the targets and regardless of the carnage. That adds up to the terrorist manifesto. The terrorist's creed is very simply this: the ends justify the means. It does not matter where the act of terrorism takes place; that is the terrorists' argument and that is effectively what this Government accedes to. If that were accepted as the rule or the practice in South Africa, what would happen? If non-condemnation of violence were the norm, if violence became the rule, that would be the death of any prospects for peaceful solution. It would destroy the position of the moderates, as this Government's position most certainly would. What would result out of a blood bath? What would result out of a new state brought into existence after a campaign of violence and terror? Might it not be something infinitely worse? Might it not be something in which the rights of blacks presently are? What are the consequences of this doctrine? One cannot quarantine it. The Prime Minister seems to think that because of his idiotic references to the Eminent Persons Group in some way this statement of principle can be quarantined to action in South Africa, that it does not apply to any other country regardless of the repression. What about the Soviet Union? What about a spill-over into any just struggle? What are the logical consequences? If the Government says that, because of the situation in South Africa, it will not condemn violence there, it is very easy to find other situations to which the same rationale should apply. What about Fiji? What about China? What about some of the Commonwealth countries such as Nigeria and Zambia whose records on human rights are pretty damned poor? By acceding to this barbaric proposition we give a moral licence for murder and for terrorism. What this Government does at the same time is to destroy its capacity to exercise moral judgment over the events of the world. It comes back to this, and the Government cannot escape it: if the Government will not condemn violence in South Africa by those struggling against apartheid-let me say that I hope to God we can soon see that system dismantled-that means that it considers that innocent people-blacks, whites and children-are somehow of no moral consequence. If they are of no moral consequence in South Africa, it is easy enough to say that they are of no moral consequence in parts of the Middle East, in Northern Ireland, in the Soviet Union and in other countries. Let us bring this slightly closer to home. What about the blacks in Australia? The blacks in this country have had a pretty damned bad run. We all know that. We came here a couple of hundred years ago and many of them say that we took their land from them. Some of them would like to have a black nation of their own. We do not agree with that, and we should not. What will we do if-I hope it does not happen-they say, `Well, look, we think it is fair enough for a bit of violence to be used in a case like this'. The charter will go straight back to this Government. Once we let that licence run, it runs throughout the world. Our position is simple. We condemn all violence in South Africa. We condemn murder because murder is murder wherever it takes place. Torture is torture wherever it takes place. Let us remember this: one does not murder governments; one does not torture governments; one does not maim governments. But one does murder, torture and maim people. Mr DUFFY(Holt-Minister for Trade Negotiations and Acting Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade)(3.12) —As the honourable member for North Sydney (Mr Spender) was quite vocal in criticising the references by the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) today to the report of the Eminent Persons Group, so well participated in by the Rt. Hon. Malcolm Fraser, I indicate to him early that I also propose to refer to some of the matters in that report because I think those opposite need to be reminded of some of the matters therein. It is also necessary to look for a moment at the sort of regime we are talking about in South Africa. Forty years ago we had the unveiling of apartheid. What was it about? It was the grand design for the survival of white minority rule. It was based on a plan of racial injustice-nothing else. We have moved on 40 years, and what is the legacy of this brutal violation of human rights? In fact it is now inflicting its own terrible revenge on South African society. Never mind about 40 years ago when it was set up; let us move through to 1984 and look at what has happened during that period. In 1984, as reported in newspapers, under the Race Classification Act of the Government of South Africa, 518 coloureds became white, 14 whites became coloured, seven Chinese became white, two whites became Chinese, three Malays became white, one white became Indian, 50 Indians became coloureds, 54 coloureds became Indians, 17 Indians became Malays, and so it went on. Also, one black was put in the `other Asian' category, three blacks became Indians, four coloureds became Chinese and one Malay became Chinese. One can only be staggered at the minds which can produce this sort of decision. That is what is going on in South Africa. The honourable member for North Sydney said that he hoped this system would come to an end. It was very pleasing to hear him say that. But one wonders what the Opposition is prepared to do about it other than just say that sort of thing in a debate such as this today. After all, it is the South African Government's refusal even to countenance any effective breakdown of the apartheid system that is driving the blacks away from the idea of any peaceful change and driving them towards violence. We have to come back to why the blacks of South Africa have moved towards violence. It is because the Government in South Africa will not countenance any change towards breaking down this absolutely abhorrent and detestable system. It is necessary for us to look at just what sort of regime in South Africa we are talking about. Over the last two years there have been unprecedented violent black protests. Since August 1985 some 2,500 people have been killed, many in clashes with police, and thousands have been injured. In the state of emergency which was imposed in January 1986-it was lifted briefly from March to June-some 20,000 people have been detained, over 40 per cent of them children. The South African Government has stated publicly that, in 1986, 716 people, 92 of them juveniles, were killed. Of course, 21 were white and 40 coloured. The respected South African Institute for Race Relations in its latest report estimated that 1,298 people were killed in unrest-related incidents in 1986. That brings the estimated total for the period September 1984 to December 1986 to a tragic 2,326. We have to look then at what this debate today is about. The honourable member for North Sydney spent some time talking about other countries. It is his proposal for a discussion of a matter of public importance that is before the House and he referred, inter alia, to the resort to other forms of force and violence in South Africa. He made some comments-maybe the following speaker will be able to clarify what he was talking about-about the comments of Ambassador Woolcott at the United Nations. I come back to that for just one moment to clarify what was said by Mr Woolcott because, although it was gone through by the honourable member for North Sydney, I did not understand the honourable member's comment about people having choices in the sort of situation that we have outlined here today. In fact what the Ambassador said was: In the face of the violence meted out to them, some of them have felt compelled to resort to violence. He then said: My Government does not condone resort to force and violence as a matter of principle but it will not condemn them for doing so. We understand the frustration and bitterness they must feel in South Africa's repressive and unyielding political, social and economic climate. I ask those on the other side to look again at what Ambassador Woolcott said. What he was saying was: `We understand. My Government does not condone resort to force and violence'. But he understands the frustrations and bitterness that people feel in South Africa. That is what the Ambassador was saying. I would like somebody later in the debate to indicate what the honourable member for North Sydney meant when he interjected that people have choices. I have explained what the Ambassador was pointing out. That is what I was trying to get over to the honourable member for North Sydney by recapping in my opening remarks on why apartheid started. What has happened 40 years later? The recent information on what has happened is that people are forced into a situation in which they will resort to violence. That does not mean that we condone violence. We are saying that we understand-- Mr Spender —And you won't condemn it. Mr DUFFY —That is right. We understand why they resort to violence-because of the frustrations. As the Ambassador said, and it has been repeated since, `My Government does not condone the resort to violence as a matter of principle but it will not condemn them for doing so'. The Ambassador then went on to explain his reason for saying that-because he understands the frustration and bitterness felt by those people. I know that the Opposition has been critical of the fact that there was reference today to the publication of the report of the Eminent Persons Group-- Mr Spender —As irrelevant to the question. Mr DUFFY —I do not agree that it is irrelevant. I think it is at the heart of what we are talking about. In preparing for my speech today I re-read one chapter, chapter 2, of the report of the Eminent Persons Group, which was so ably participated in by the Rt. Hon. Malcolm Fraser. Again I come back to the point about why people get to the stage that they are at. The Prime Minister dealt with the point that the Eminent Persons Group reported that it was unable to investigate allegations in relation to deaths. He went on to talk about the extraordinarily moving situation set out in the report. I commend a reading of chapter 2 to all honourable members if they have nothing else to do. Mr Peter Fisher —I read it some months ago. Mr DUFFY —The honourable members who are interjecting would want to have nothing else to do to read something like this. I commend it to them. Mr Peter Fisher —I raise a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. I object to that comment by the Minister. My interjection was that I had read it some months ago. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) —The fact that an honourable member interjects does not mean that the Minister has to withdraw. Mr Peter Fisher —I do not think the Minister heard the interjection. I find his comment offensive. Mr DUFFY —I am ecstatic and delighted that the honourable member read the report. I suggest that it would not hurt him to read it again. Let us look at another part of the report to which the Prime Minister did not get to today, Chapter 2 states: The Minister of Law and Order maintained in discussions with us that the police invariably act responsibly, with restraint and within the law. The evidence, however, suggests otherwise. One difficulty confronting the police is simply the breadth of the prohibitions against blacks. There has been a general ban on open-air meetings . . . It goes on to deal with that matter. I think it was just one paragraph that the honourable member for North Sydney indicated was not relevant. This paragraph is something people ought to think about. Chapter 2 of the report states: These are times when passions run high, and feeling against the security forces is close to flash point. It is talking about funerals particularly. It goes on: When the police presence is oppressive, all too often violence flares and one funeral leads to others. This is the crucial point: But we observed when the police adopted a low profile almost invariably funerals, even mass funerals, passed off peacefully. That builds up the whole context of what we are talking about. I want to deal with what we say about violence. A lot has been said about what this Government is saying about that. I will tell the House what we are saying. This Government has a long-established policy of support for a peaceful solution to the problem of apartheid. But the sad fact is that Commonwealth leaders, as recently as at the Vancouver conference, all agreed that the situation in southern Africa has deteriorated with more suffering and loss of life resulting from the repressive measures taken by the South African Government and by its military intervention in neighbouring states. In view of the South African Government's refusal to fundamentally change its policies, and in reaction to the violence meted out to those who actively oppose the policies, the Australian Government understands how some South Africans have felt compelled to resort to violence. That is what we are saying. We cannot condone resort to violence as a matter of principle, but we understand why people feel compelled to resort to it. That has been made clear to black nationalist leaders such as Oliver Tambo. The Government will not condemn those people for doing what they have done. The Australian Government's position reflects a number of considerations. I refer the House to the third preambular paragraph of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which refers to the need to protect human rights. It says: If man is not to be compelled to have recourse, as a last resort, to rebellion against tyranny and repression. . . Unless human rights are protected, that is what will happen. As a last resort people will react in a way that leads to rebellion against tyranny and repression. We are not saying anything unusual; it is stated in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. I will give the House another point to think about. The Holy See in its Instruction on Christian Freedom and Liberation of 5 April 1986 defended the right of the oppressed to revolt and as a last resort to use armed struggle to put an end to an obvious prolonged tyranny. The Opposition talks as though we have suddenly thought of these things. We have a long established policy on this matter. I have quoted two supporting points of view: one from the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the other from the Instruction on Christian Freedom and Liberation dated 5 April 1986. Let us reflect a little. It is a very unfortunate fact of history that some countries, including the United States of America, have had to achieve their independence through armed struggle when peaceful avenues failed. That is what I seriously think the Opposition is not prepared to face up to. There are situations where people will not cop it any more. Mr Spender —Land mines, car bombs, necklacing. Mr DUFFY —I heard the interjection `necklacing'. I am not going to avoid that issue. This Government cannot condone in any circumstance the phenomenon of necklacing. This practice is an example of the inhumanity which the apartheid system has inevitably engendered among South Africans. This is the sort of thing that I have tried to outline to the honourable member for North Sydney-I do not know whether he has been here for all the debate-as to what is going on in South Africa that people are driven to this sort of extreme? It would not occur in a South Africa where black aspirations could be pursued by peaceful legitimate means. Those legitimate means are the very means denied to them. That is what we are talking about. The Government cannot condone in any circumstance the phenomenon of necklacing, but we are saying that it would not occur if the legitimate means that are denied to them were available. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr N.A. Brown(Menzies)(3.27) —The matter we are debating is a matter of public importance for many reasons. One reason that must be stated at the outset is that the proposition put forward for this Government by our Ambassador at the United Nations was new policy as far as the Australian Labor Party is concerned. The Minister for Trade Negotiations (Mr Duffy), who has given what I suppose is the Government's defence, seems to be ignorant of the fact that the Labor Party itself, in its own documents, as recently as 1986, has said that the Government believes that the suspension of violence on all sides would provide the best atmosphere in which a transition could be achieved. It must be understood that what we have had from the Government in the last few days is a departure even from the policy of the Labor Party itself. Australia's representative has said, as we know, that we will not condemn those in South Africa who have felt compelled to resort to violence as part of a challenge to the policies of the South African Government and as a means of bringing about change. The Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) has aligned himself with this view, so there can be no doubt that what has been put is the considered view of the Australian Government. There is common ground on at least a number of issues concerning South Africa. First, we all reject the apartheid system. Secondly, we all want to see change in South Africa. Thirdly, we all agree that Australia should do whatever it can to help bring about that change. But we depart from the Government, and we censure the Government-and where the Minister who has spoken has certainly not replied in any persuasive way on behalf of the Government-for its refusal to condemn violence as a means of bringing that change about. In the statement made by the Ambassador at the United Nations, the Government has refused to condemn violence. But what is worse, it has not left it at that; it has not simply left its policy in a position where it could be said that it refuses to condemn violence; it has in fact gone out of its way to say that that is its considered position. Indeed, it even has not left it at that, because it goes on to say that it understands this resort to violence. So we have not simply a throw away line, we have a considered policy, where the Government takes the position that it refuses to condemn violence and that it understands those who resort to violence in South Africa. We condemn that policy and we condemn it for many reasons. One that has not been mentioned so far is this: it is not merely an invitation to violence on behalf of those who are subjected, as the Minister would say, to some form of tyranny. But if we look at the plain words which the Ambassador used, violence is a justifiable response to the social climate as well as to the economic climate in South Africa. So violence can even be used, on the plain words of the Ambassador, in response to the social and economic climate. The Government says that it can understand those who resort to violence as a means of response to social and economic conditions. What sort of example is this to hold up for the rest of the world? If those in South Africa, who are terrorists and murderers, now know of the statement made by the Australian Ambassador, they are justified in reaching the conclusion that if there is more murder, if there is more terrorism and if there is more necklacing, they are entitled to believe that there will be a receptive audience to this in Australia. I can tell them this: the only receptive audience in Australia for that sort of conduct is within the ranks of this Government. We, in the Opposition, and I venture to say the overwhelming majority of Australian people, reject that approach. What sort of example is this to hold up to our own Aboriginal community? If it is good enough to tell the people in South Africa that we understand when they use violence and we are not going to condemn them for it, it is good enough for the Aboriginals. What the Government is doing, in words of one syllable, is giving the green light to a person, such as Mansell, and saying, `It is all right; you use violence'. In return people can say, `We are sick and tired of the economic situation of Aboriginals, we are sick and tired of the social degradation that they live in and we are sick and tired of the political climate that we have to live in, so we will use violence'. I hope that the next speaker on the Government side will tell us where the distinction is. What will he say to the Aboriginal people who resort to violence? Heaven forbid that that should happen, but if it does, how will he say, `We were only talking about the blacks in South Africa, we were not talking about you. If you use violence it will be put down.'? That is one of the reasons why we say that this is an utterly irresponsible position for the Government to take. It has given the green light to terrorism and to murder in South Africa, and in any other country, including Australia. The Government should be ashamed of this position it has taken. We have made it perfectly plain that this refusal to condemn violence will breed only more violence, and the statement in the Government's policy to that effect should be roundly condemned. I want to reserve my strongest condemnation on this matter for the Prime Minister and for his utter hypocrisy over this whole issue, and indeed the whole issue of South Africa. He revels in condemning South Africa, but at the same time what is he about to do? He is about to fly off to the Soviet Union. He is going off, flying his double standards, as he normally flies them, to forge closer links with a dictatorship that rules, as it always has, by terror. It is a dictatorship which has systematically, as an instrument of policy, exterminated millions of its own citizens and keeps its entire population in slavery with a denial of the most elementary of human rights. When the Prime Minister goes off to the Soviet Union, is he going to say to the oppressed millions of that country, `Rise up and throw off your chains. If you use violence to get democracy and human rights we will not condemn you, but we will understand you and will tolerate you for doing this.'? Is that what he is going to say when he goes to the Soviet Union? Of course not. What is he going to do when he gets there? Believe it or not, one of the things he is going to do is to try to get the Soviet Union further involved in our aluminium production and in enriching our iron ore-we are going to have an iron ore Bob. When he has dealt with that, what is he going to do? He is going to forge closer sporting links between Australia and the Soviet Union. The Prime Minister has just spent the last two days pouring his venom over Pat Cash for having the audacity to play tennis in South Africa, but he is going off to this dictatorship, turning a blind eye to its 70 years of denial of human rights, to the slavery that it practices as an article of policy, and he is going to forge closer sporting links between the Soviet Union and Australia. We say to him: What utter hypocrisy. What moral outrage, which he selectively directs at South Africa but which he will not raise a finger or a word of protest about when he goes to the Soviet Union or when he meets with his other friends around the world. As far as I am concerned, Mr Cash deserves a medal for playing tennis in South Africa and not simply because he is playing tennis. He deserves a medal because he is standing up and not allowing himself to be intimidated by the hate industry on this issue. It is about time the Prime Minister started to apply some general principles, instead of applying this selective moral outrage, directed only at one country. While he is at it, he might look at some of the other countries in Africa. If we look at all the tests that have been applied, whether they have been applied by Freedom House or by the Economist's World Human Rights Guide, we will find that there are many countries in Africa which are well down the scale of human and political rights compared with South Africa. How is the human rights commission in Chad doing these days? When was the last election in Togo? Who is the leader of the opposition in Burkina Faso? How is the equal opportunity board in the Ivory Coast going? When did the last election take place in virtually all of those countries on the continent of Africa? What we are saying is that if the Prime Minister is going to get on to the international stage on these issues, he ought to be consistent and then we will listen to him. But we will not listen to this hypocrisy and to this selective morality. We will not allow him to get away with giving the green light to terrorism. We will not allow the Government to get away, without censure, in taking a position which says, in substance, `If violence and murder are perpetrated, we understand that and we will not condemn it'. We believe that the overwhelming majority of Australians are on our side on this issue. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr CHARLES(Isaacs)(3.37) —The apartheid system itself is the root cause of the great tragedy that is occurring in South Africa today. In this House today the Opposition, via the honourable member for Menzies (Mr N.A. Brown), came forth with a very strong supporting speech in favour of everything that is happening there, in favour of the South African Government. There is never any condemnation of the South African Government from the opposite side of the House. Drivel is all we hear from that side of the House, never any condemnation at all in regard to the South African question. Mr Downer —You are a liar. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member for Mayo will withdraw that accusation. Mr Downer —I withdraw. Mr CHARLES —It seems to me that the Opposition is totally one sided in this debate. When we see black atrocities that do occur, there is great condemnation. But when the white South African Government commits its massive amount of atrocities that are itemised in many papers around the world and verified by, for example, Amnesty International, in an article in 1984 on South Africa, Opposition members never come in here and condemn those happenings. They always go around the point and slink out of it. Amnesty International's report in 1984 said of South Africa: There was considerable evidence to show that political detainees were commonly tortured and ill-treated during interrogation by security police in South Africa during the period under review. Later in that same report, reference is made to one particular person and it says: The Appeal Court accepted that he had been convicted largely on the basis of a confession which he agreed to make only after he had been subjected to electric shocks and had had some of his teeth pulled out with a pair of pliers by his security police interrogator. Those are some of the issues that have been identified by Amnesty International. Many members of this Parliament-from all political parties-are members of that organisation. As the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) said yesterday, and I have just said again, apartheid itself is the root cause of the tragedy that is occurring in South Africa. Opposition members are looking at the end result of apartheid and saying, `Isn't that dreadful?'. Yes, the problems in South Africa are dreadful. The terrorism and the atrocities that occur on both sides are wrong. We do not condone those actions. But to people who have no rights-no civil, political or social rights-who are crushed completely and continually into the ground, we say that we understand why they are reacting. How do uprisings occur in the world? They have been going on for thousands of years. History records the French Revolution, the American Revolution and so on right down to Poland, six years ago. The Opposition was in government at the time and it thought the Polish uprising was wonderful. Fortunately it did not lead to violence. An uprising occurs when people are continually denied human rights. In South Africa we have the worst case of that in the world today. Mr Peacock —And this from the Government that recognised the Pol Pot regime. Mr CHARLES —We have a frustrated foreign affairs spokesman opposite and fortunately for Australia he will not be back into a ministerial position. This Government's position is as the Prime Minister enunciated quite clearly yesterday and as Ambassador Woolcott enunciated in the United Nations two days ago. They put the matter very clearly. I quote the Prime Minister's words yesterday. He said: . . . the apartheid system in South Africa is the root cause of the violence in South Africa. There is no informed person on the tragic situations in South Africa who disputes that fundamental point. I make it clear that the Australian Government does not condone the use of violence, whether by the South African authorities or by their black opponents. The Minister for Trade Negotiations (Mr Duffy) quoted some interesting points from Ambassador Woolcott's speech and other documents, some of which were very important. Having pointed out that apartheid was the root cause of the problem, Ambassador Woolcott said: The insidious nature of the apartheid system is no longer an internal problem; it is a moral problem with universal dimensions and its resolution will require the efforts of the international community. As has been pointed out in this House before, the tragedy that exists in South Africa can only end in one way if people are unwilling to bend and communicate and come to some resolution. If that does not occur there will be a tragedy of immense proportions-a bloody revolution will occur eventually. It will happen one day-it may be years off, but it will occur. No one wants that because South Africa would be worse off. A South Africa with a black government will need the European experience and money and the continued investment of the people who are there today. I found the speech of the honourable member for Menzies rather interesting when he was trying to compare South Africa with the Aboriginal question in Australia. He appears to forget that there are a couple of very fundamental and important differences. As I have already pointed out, one is that the situation in South Africa is such that black people have absolutely no rights whatsoever, social, moral or otherwise. The Aboriginal question is rather different. One would hope-and I believe this is correct-that the Aboriginal people have the same rights and privilege as anyone else in this country. Certainly, they have major problems and we and our forebears are partly to blame for that. But I believe that this Government, as other governments have attempted beforehand, is getting to the cause of that problem and is seeing a significant improvement in the lot of the Aboriginal people. That is completely different from the tragedy in South Africa where the black people have no rights whatsoever. That is the point that the Prime Minister made so clearly yesterday: they have no rights whatsoever. Out of that comes a frustration amongst the people concerned. Thus, we have these acts of violence, or uprising-call it what you may. They do occur and one feeds on another. The apartheid system in South Africa was born around 40 years ago. I sincerely hope it is not another 40 years before we see it disappear. Continued pressure must be put on the South African Government to come to its senses to bring about a peaceful solution to the massive problems it has created for itself. I am sure that this Government will continue down that path. I sincerely hope that the international community-via the United Nations in particular-will continue the pressure in many directions to bring the South African Government to its senses, so that it gets rid of apartheid and gives the rightful privileges and human rights to the black population of that country. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The debate is concluded. [COGNATE BILL: CUSTOMS TARIFF (COAL EXPORT DUTY) AMENDMENT BILL 1987] Debate resumed from 7 October, on motion by Mr Barry Jones: That the Bill be now read a second time. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) —I understand it is the wish of the House to discuss this Bill concurrently with the Customs Tariff (Coal Export Duty) Amendment Bill. There being no objection, I will allow that course of action. Mr SINCLAIR(New England-Leader of the National Party of Australia)(3.48) —I want to address the House predominantly on the Customs Tariff (Coal Export Duty) Amendment Bill. The other part of this cognate debate relates to a much wider legislative embrace. It covers everything from vegetables to textiles, from motor vehicles to pharmaceutical products and from handbags to plastic industries. My colleague the honourable member for Ryan (Mr Moore) will direct a few remarks to those matters shortly. Suffice it to say, customs excise legislation always covers a wide range of matters. Our concern is always to ensure that if there are anomalies they be resolved and that if there are consequences of changes in laws that may not have taken account of other practices or procedures in this country-as I understand there are in this instance in the design of motor vehicles-they also be accommodated. I want to address a few particular remarks to the chamber on the Customs Tariff (Coal Export Duty) Amendment Bill because it is a piece of legislation that has relevance to a number of matters that I think are of fairly prime political importance at this time. After all, we have heard about the special deal, the Unsworth benefit, that has been negotiated by the Treasurer (Mr Keating) with Mr Unsworth against the advice of the Minister for Primary Industries and Energy (Mr Kerin). We understand that there has been some sort of conclusion on the basis that the New South Wales Government has said that it may do something about rail freights and will try to help the industry. But we all know that if it had not been for a New South Wales election in prospect, the whole of the bungling of this Federal Government and the New South Wales State Government in handling the problems in the coal industry would have continued. Frankly, I am very suspicious that the handing out of $40m of taxpayers' funds on a one for one basis will not in any way resolve the fundamental problems that beset the coal producers in the Hunter Valley. Our first settlers discovered coal in Australia in 1797, only nine years after first settlement. By 1799 coal became one of Australia's first exports. Indeed, at that stage we were sending it by sailing ship to India and Chile. It took 178 years and a Labor government to hit on the bright idea of taxing those exports and the coal export levy is now a part of the consideration of the way in which the industry operates. The levy was really the brainwave of the late Rex Connor. Introduced in August 1975, it has cost the coal industry in total about $1 billion. That is an enormous burden on any exporting industry-more so when we realise that those exports are the only way that we shall be able to restore something like ordinary living standards. Those standards have been plagued as a result of the inadequate budget of the Treasurer, the failure of this Government to address spending cuts at the Federal level and general mismanagement which has led to a funding of our living standards by borrowing abroad. A tax burden of $1 billion on the industry is enough. It is time for the duty to end. Unfortunately, that is not the reason for the introduction of this legislation. Although there is no doubt that the Bill is designed to ameliorate some of the circumstances of the application of duty, this Bill does not lift the duty; it only varies its incidence. The duty, which originally applied to all export coal, was progressively limited to coking coal. In addition, duty rates were reduced progressively from $6 to $3.50 a tonne for high quality coking coal, and from $2 to $1 a tonne for other coals. Revenue from the duty has fallen from a high of $121m in 1975-76 to a low of $52m in 1986-87 with $60m expected to be gleaned from it in this financial year. Under this Government, the only previous change to the duty came in May 1984. At that time exemption from the duty was extended to include otherwise dutiable coal blended with undutiable coal won underground. As a result, two Queensland mines then paying the duty were relieved of the burden. This Bill takes a similar step. Changing world coal markets have produced a market for blends of steaming coal and less refined coking coals for steaming use. That is part of the concern of the industry in Australia as it goes through a period of self-scrutiny-self-scrutiny which could have been facilitated if this Government had had enough get-up-and-go and comprehension to ensure that the New South Wales Government got off the back of the Hunter Valley coal extractors and off the mine workers before it handed out its $40m bail-out package. Instead, we have had some wishful thinking and a few hopeful dreams from the Treasurer that in his negotiations something might turn up. Micawber-like I am afraid the Treasurer may be, but the reality is that in a changing world market, with work practices having been established in a different climate, there is no way that we can live with the circumstances in the New South Wales coal industry without significant adjustments taking place. Under the formula used to determine whether a coal is liable for the duty, a blend of two otherwise undutiable coals from Utah's mines at Gregory and Blackwater in Queensland has become liable to the duty, at $3.50 a tonne. This legislation commendably corrects this anomaly, and the Opposition supports it. This debate, however, gives us all an opportunity to ask a couple of interesting questions. The first is why the Commonwealth should be taxing coal exports at all, given our chronic current account deficit and the particular problems facing the industry. In 1986 Australia exported 92 million tonnes of coal, making us the world's largest coal exporter. In spite of all the problems I have spoken about, we all recognise that coal is still a major contributor to Australia's export revenues. If the Government were not just host to the Australian Council of Trade Unions, as we have found so often it is-certainly as the Treasurer tends to be to Mr Kelty-and if the industry were handled sensitively and adequately, I believe that it would not have to look just to a long term future. It could take the view that around the corner there was the prospect of lifting sales and restoring employment. We all accept that there has to be adjustment in the industry. I am only sad that in providing assistance the Government did not use muscle, as the Minister for Primary Industries and Energy suggested. If the payment of $40m had been used as a catalyst to ensure a change in work practices and the incidence of State taxes, there would have been a chance at least of ameliorating the present downturn. The whole industry could have been in a position in which in the short term prices would come good and the industry could have maintained employment. There is a need for technical upgrading of the mines. There is no doubt that underground mines are at a disadvantage. There is a change in demand around the world to which I referred a moment ago. It is also true that the coal industry is affected by the international price regimes that affect other energy sources. I have no doubt that as a result of the problems in the Persian Gulf, the degree to which there have been so many incidents affecting tanker traffic through the Straits of Hormuz, the degree to which Iran and Iraq seem intransigent about recognising the necessity for the continuation of the oil trade for the rest of the world, as well as other factors, there will be a resurgence in the price of oil. As the price of oil moves up, I have no doubt that so too will the price of coal. Australia's exports of 92 million tonnes of coal in 1986, as I said, made it the world's largest coal exporter. In terms of 1986 that raised $5.2 billion or 16 per cent of our total export income. Not only did it do that, but through large areas of Queensland down to the Hunter Valley and the south coast area of New South Wales, as well as in the brown coalfields in Gippsland in Victoria and in coalfields in every State, coal has contributed to development, growth, settlement and employment. It has made an enormous difference to the overall infrastructure opportunities in this country. The Opposition is concerned to ensure that coal remains as important in the future in Australia as it has been in the past. The only way to do that is to recognise that maintaining a tax on exports is a genuine disincentive. When we look at what the Government might have been able to do with a $40m package, we should also consider whether it should not have included the removal of this tax at the same time. This Government is giving $20m federally from taxpayers' funds to match the $20m that Barrie Unsworth's Government is contributing to try to alleviate the political difficulties which Labor sees in the forthcoming State elections. It would have been far more sensible to have lifted this levy altogether and for the Government to seek to remove all the problems in the New South Wales State Rail Authority. That Authority is in drastic need of review. The Government should have done something about handing back to the private industry the coal loaders in Newcastle and let the private sector run the coal industry, instead of seeking to keep its sticky fingers in private industry's till. The second question is why the tax should amount to a levy, as it now is, on one efficient producer, Utah. I am delighted that some of my colleagues from the National Party of Australia in Queensland are now present in the House for they represent the areas concerned. There is no doubt that Utah has made a great contribution in developing the infrastructure both at the port side and inland. Yet Utah is the one producer that has been affected as a result of the application of this particular levy. The only mines to be subject to the coal export duty are those operated by Utah in central Queensland, on behalf of the Central Queensland Coal Association and Gregory Joint Ventures. They are the mines at Goonyella, Peak Downs, Saraji, Norwich Park, Blackwater and Gregory. The answers to those two questions go to the heart of the contradictory and damaging policies on resources development that we see being developed by this Federal Government. The basic assumption behind these policies is that miners are plunderers, and mostly foreign plunderers at that, ripping out the nation's wealth as fast as they can and selling it cheaply overseas. In turn, the basic response to that assumption is deep suspicion of any mining project expressed by a range of regulatory barriers and the determination, if projects do manage to surmount these hurdles, to tax them so highly as to deter others from trying. There are one or two exceptions. The first is gold. The Australian Labor Party fears the loss of Federal and State seats in Western Australia if it reneges on its commitment not to impose a gold tax. I would not urge anybody in the gold industry to hold his breath. The way this Government is running out of money at the moment, I would not be at all surprised if a gold tax were around the corner. Mr Lloyd —The honourable member for Burke, one of their own members, is advocating a gold tax at the present time. Mr SINCLAIR —It is as my Deputy Leader says. The second industry is uranium. There is no doubt that Labor's paranoia about mining is nothing compared with its paranoia about nuclear matters. There is a place for exporting Australia's uranium resources. The Liberal and National parties in government, introduced proper safeguards to ensure that the handling and processing of Australian uranium exports were subject to criteria that ensured that they could properly be used, and were used, for power generation. There is no way in which Australia's uranium exports, from whatever mine they come, can be used for other than that purpose. If the Government wants to try to ensure that that is going to continue to be so, I suggest to it that the proposals now under way by which it might be possible to receive nuclear waste back into Australia, to process and to treat it and to store it in Australia are a way by which we can guarantee that the uranium exported, processed as it has been, is never used for other than power generation. I suggest that there are ways now, thanks to the work done, I think by Professor Gregory at the Australian National University, in Synroc development, by which one can safely store nuclear waste. That is a way by which this country can help to ensure that those nuclear safeguards that the Liberal and National parties put into place are further processed and by which there can be a guarantee that power generation, and power generation alone, is the outcome of Australia's uranium exports. What has happened under Labor is that we have had an extraordinary dichotomy of decisions as to what sort of uranium will be exported. Somehow or other, there is good uranium in South Australia, bad uranium from Queensland, bad uranium from Western Australia and bad uranium from the Northern Territory. In one particular instance in the Kakadu area, the Government has prevented the development of what is said to be one of the richest uranium deposits in the world. There is little doubt that, at some future stage, that mine will be allowed to develop. However, the Government is going out on the question of world heritage listing and there are all the doubts of whether, by the application of adequate conservation measures for the protection of the environment, the mine will not in some way affect the environment. I say to the House that the only way by which we will allow this country to develop is by recognising that there must always be a blend between development and conservation. No one in the mining industry today can afford to leave around the slag heaps that so desecrate this country; no one would want mining to be done on that basis, including the miners. No one would want the development of mines, be they in Kakadu or wherever, unless there was a proper forward plan and a recognition of the impact on the environment. Equally, there should be no determination by a Labor government that mines can go ahead at Roxby Downs but, for example, Pan Continental's mine at Kakadu, or indeed any of those other mines from which exports are prevented today, cannot go ahead. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mrs Darling) -Order! I point out to the Leader of the National Party that he is getting very far from the content of the Bill. Mr SINCLAIR —I would like you to explain to me, Madam Deputy Speaker, how that might be so. I thought energy and coal were synonymous. If you do not understand that energy that is generated from coal is used for power and power comes from nuclear generation in the same way as it comes from coal, that is exactly what I am talking about. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The Leader of the National Party will respond to the Chair. Mr SINCLAIR —I am responding to the Chair, and I am just explaining that uranium is the basis from which power generation is developed and coal and power are identical. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The Leader of the National Party will respond to the Chair with the dignity that is accorded to the Chair. Mr SINCLAIR —Power generated from coal and power generated from uranium are the same, and it is on that basis that I am proceeding. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The Leader of the National Party will take his seat while the Chair is standing. Mr SINCLAIR —I was not sure whether you were standing or leaving the chamber. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! I ask the Leader of the National Party to give due accord and due dignity to the position of the Chair, which I am holding. The Leader of the National Party has been here long enough to know better. Mr SINCLAIR —Come on! Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! I ask the Leader of the National Party to stick to the content of the Bill and to take direction from the Chair without such response. Mr SINCLAIR —The contents of this legislation relate to the use of coal for power generation. I think it important that one understands that uranium used for power generation-- Mr Barry Jones —On a point of order, Madam Deptuty Speaker: This is really quite a narrow economic Bill and I do suggest that, while the normal courtesies are extended to the Leader of the National Party, it is really drawing the net a bit wide to talk as if this is a general debate about the future of power generation in this continent. The Bill is really quite narrow in scope, and it has to be read in context with the other piece of legislation that the House has before it. Mr SINCLAIR —It is wide in scope. Mr Barry Jones —It covers a lot of areas. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The Minister-and I thank him-has made his point of order regarding irrelevancy, which is upheld. I ask the Leader of the National Party to adhere to this ruling. Mr Sinclair —I will talk to the point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. As you are aware, the House is dealing with a cognate debate that covers a very broad phase. As I started my speech, I drew your attention to the fact that the House is dealing with everything from vegetables to luggage to handbags to reconditioned automotive engines to pharmaceutical products; we are covering everything that relates to industry in Australia. We are not dealing purely with one piece of legislation. We are dealing with an excise tariff Bill plus a coal tariff Bill. That I happen to choose to direct my remarks to one part of that cognate package does not deny the validity with which I can talk to other matters that relate to the cognate debate. As I proceed, it is important that we understand-- Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The Leader of the National Party will come to order. The Chair is well aware of the content of the Bill and the diversity of it. I ask the Leader of the National Party to have the grace to accept a ruling from the Chair regarding relevancy without having to go through all this nonsense. Mr SINCLAIR —If we are talking about nonsense, it is about time we got back to the Labor Party, and that is exactly what I have been talking about-the nonsense that is the Labor Party and the nonsense that is suffered by the producers of Australia thanks to an export tax on coal which, unfortunately, is disadvantaging one particular company in this instance. It is disadvantaging, however, the whole coal industry; it is also disadvantaging export receipts into Australia as a result of the fact that the Government persists in maintaining a levy which we do not believe is justified. The Government equally proceeds with policies in wider areas related to the generation of other mining opportunities which, in one particular instance, relate to the development of uranium mines while others relate to the development of potential for other forms of energy derivatives. So far as the coal export duty is concerned, there is no doubt that the Minister for Primary Industries and Energy is only just now coming to grips with the energy part of his portfolio. I think this is perhaps best demonstrated by his statement to me only a few weeks ago in a debate on a matter of public importance in this House that the increasing costs of oil imports from the early 1990s did not matter, because they would be offset by export earnings from the North West Shelf. That statement, of course, while not specifically related to coal exports, was equally irresponsible because it shows that, so far as the current account deficit is concerned, we need to do much more than just find a new export source to offset growing imports in a crucial area such as fuel. It was also wrong. Treasury figures show that oil production from known fields will fall from 400,000 barrels a day now to about 280,000 in 1990-91 and about 160,000 barrels in 1994-95. Over the same period, demand is expected to rise to about 680,000 barrels a day. All that relates to the extent to which we in this country will need alternative sources of energy. We need to develop them. In no way can there be a tax on one, whether it be coal exports or any other, without an interrelationship with the others. The cost in today's dollar terms and today's oil values far outstrips income estimates for the North West Shelf, which will not be in full production until the mid-1990s. The Government's approach on coal mirrors the failure of the Minister for Primary Industries and Energy to understand, let alone adequately respond to, the massive problems we face in oil self-sufficiency as a result of the Government's policies. The coal export duty is an example. As I noted, this tax falls only on mines operated by Utah. Its ideological basis-a super-tax on rich profits by an overseas owned company-no longer applies. Production from Utah's efficient open-cut mines in Queensland is still profitable, in contrast to the situation facing the industry in New South Wales. But current world prices represent no bonanza for anyone. If world prices pick up, Utah can certainly expect to increase profits. Why should it not? It had the initiative to develop these mines and has the management skills to keep costs low, and, if it makes profits, those profits are available for increased spending and development to the nation's benefit. Utah is now part of the Broken Hill Proprietary Co. Ltd. empire. The general question of the type and level of taxation on the coal industry is one matter. However, the Commonwealth has no business imposing a discriminatory and unfair tax on one efficient producer which has to compete in a global market with others that pay no such duty. With this principle in mind, the question of ownership of the mines should be very secondary. It is, however, as I said, a fact that the mines are almost all wholly Australian owned. The Gregory mine is 100 per cent Australian, the mines of the Central Queensland Coal Association are 80 per cent Australian, and there can be no further justification for this duty. However, I have a suggestion to make to the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce (Senator Button) who, I understand, is responsible for the duty. The Government is now undertaking a review of business taxation. If it wants to demonstrate a commitment to equity in that review, one of a number of actions it should take is to abolish the coal export duty. Of course, that is only one step of many it must take to revitalise the coal industry as a whole. The coal industry, which today is facing enormous pressure in international markets, is in the midst of massive rationalisation. The coal producers are biting the bullet and this Government is not doing a great deal to help them. The unions have yet to face up to the fact that, without a complete overhaul of work practices, many more jobs will be lost than are now threatened. The New South Wales Government must take concerted action to reduce the costs it imposes on the industry and create a competitive environment in which the mines, particularly those in the Hunter Valley, can operate. The Unsworth Government is not facing up to that responsibility. The New South Wales Government has just been given $40m and that $40m has been given without the obligations that we see as necessary to ensure that the State Government gets off the underground mines in the electorate of the honourable member for Hunter (Mr Fitzgibbon). The trouble with the New South Wales Government is that, in particular, it has allowed the State Rail Authority to impose costs which, the honourable member should know, are totally disadvantageous to those extracting coal in the Hunter Valley, as well as anywhere else in Australia. The Unsworth Government is not facing up to that responsibility. The coalition, which will take office in New South Wales after the next election, has already outlined comprehensive proposals to build a stronger and more competitive minerals industry in that State. No wonder Mr Unsworth sought relief, when he knows there is a way by which those coal mines can be helped as an alternative to the assistance being provided by his Government. The Commonwealth also must play its part. As well as abolishing the coal export duty, it should abolish coal export controls and repeal the Coal Industry Act and the Coal Excise Act. There can be no justification for keeping the Coal Industry Tribunal. Average weekly earnings in the coal industry are about $750-double the average for all industry. Yet industrial disruption, measured by work days lost per 1,000 employees, was over 40 times higher in the coal industry in March this year than in all other sectors of industry. In 1986, general industry lost an average two hours a year through industrial disputes: the coal industry lost almost two hours every week. Even taking into account the special problems facing the coal industry, that is an appalling record. As the Opposition has consistently argued, the Coal Industry Tribunal must be abolished and the industry put on the same footing as all other industry sectors. The coming months will be the measure of how genuine the commitment of the Government is to playing its part in rebuilding the coal industry. The coal export duty, which is the subject of this debate, is only one of the many Government imposts in the industry. In the scale of things, and in the light of the fact that it applies only to Queensland coking coal it might be seen as minor. However, that ignores the very real costs it imposes on the mines operated by Utah. It ignores the approach to resources policy demonstrated by the duty. The Bill is a technical one which corrects an anomaly in the application of the coal export duty. As I said, it is not opposed by the Opposition. However, the Minister representing the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce could demonstrate the Government's commitment to the coal industry and the resources sector as a whole very simply today. He could do so by announcing the abolition of the coal export duty. That would be a start-relatively small, but important. It is a move which the industry would welcome and the Opposition would support. I commend it as a positive suggestion to the Minister for Science and Small Business (Mr Barry Jones), who is at the table. Mr MARTIN(Macarthur)(4.18) —The whole question of the coal industry in Australia today is one that has exercised the minds of a number of honourable members, not least some of my colleagues-the honourable member for Throsby (Mr Hollis) and the honourable member for Hunter (Mr Fitzgibbon). As honourable members would know, the Government has a coal industry task force which is charged with the responsibility of advising the Government on the problems in that industry and offering solutions to the Government. I suggest that, over the past 12 or so months that the task force has been in operation, some of its suggestions, which have been adopted, have been eminently sensible and eminently successful. The purpose of the Customs Tariff (Coal Export Duty) Amendment Bill 1987 is to give effect to the Government's decision to amend the Customs Tariff (Coal Export Duty) Act 1975 to ensure that certain exports of coal to steaming coal markets at the lower prices operating in these markets do not attract the coal export duty, which is currently set at $3.50 a tonne. A number of mines in my electorate are affected by the fact that they are steaming coal producers as well as weak coking coal producers. It is interesting that through the whole debate on the coal industry and its problems, people constantly say that the New South Wales mines are nowhere near as productive as Queensland mines, that the underground mines are falling over themselves and should be shut down as a method of improving efficiency, that miners' wages are far too high in light of the work miners do in the mines, that the Coal Industry Tribunal should be knocked over, and so forth. The same sorts of arguments are trotted out all the time by those opposite and by representatives of the coal producers in endeavouring to come to terms with the problems in the industry. Those problems are great and a clear set of guiding principles is needed to overcome them. Despite what the Leader of the National Party of Australia (Mr Sinclair) had to say, this Government, and particularly the Minister for Primary Industries and Energy (Mr Kerin), is giving that direction. As honourable members would be aware, a draft strategy paper has been prepared on the future of the coal industry. It may well be that the question of totally removing export duties could be picked up as part of that strategy. I would support that proposition, and I would support it even more strongly if those on the other side of the House would get behind the Government's desire to develop resources rent taxes to replace those sorts of duties right across the board. I put it to honourable members opposite and the spokespersons for the various aspects of minerals and energy development in Australia that some thought should be given to that suggestion. It is profit based and would not impose taxes or duties on companies that were not doing so well at a particular time. It is profit based and, therefore, should be examined. I would be more than happy to take up the matter with my task force. I would take it to the Minister tomorrow and suggest that we get rid of these duties if a rent resources tax could be put in its place. The Leader of the National Party in his contribution today went on to ask why the Government did not make a real contribution by lifting this duty and taking away the customs tariff. I put it to him: why did the Liberal-National Party Government of 1975-1983 not lift that duty in those days? It did not do so because they were the good times in the coal industry. A hell of a lot of money was rolling in for the government of the day because of that duty. But not any more. The good times are well and truly gone. I instance the prices Australian producers have to suffer these days at the hands of international purchasers. Purchasers in Japan, Korea, and so on gang up in little groups and say, `Okay, what will we try on these Australians today? Don't let them band together and try to sell their product in one group. We will pick them off one at a time and get the best, the lowest price we possibly can'. Progressively we have seen steaming coal and coking coal prices go down. This has had devastating effects on the local areas where coal mines are to be found because companies have to try to reduce their costs. The Leader of the National Party, in his contribution, talked about adjustment being needed as part and parcel of the coal export duty in a wider perspective. He said that work practices had to be tackled, that we should get rid of the Coal Industry Tribunal and he suggested a range of other measures. He said that in that way we would come to terms with this very important industry to Australia. It is an extremely important industry to this country. Over the last year or so $5.4 billion of export revenue has been earned. The answer is not as simple as the Leader of the National Party suggests. In the Hunter and the western and southern districts of New South Wales real efforts have been made to try to reduce the cost burden on producers. In the western district, for example, tolerance time and a range of other so called restrictive work practices have been lifted. At the South Bulli colliery in the southern district the miners took a 52 per cent cut in bonus payments to save the mine and to make the operation of the pit a lot easier. We do not hear honourable members opposite talking about those concessions. All we hear is their harping, `Why does the Government not do something?'. Why does the Leader of the National Party not have a look at the constitutional responsibilities that lie with this Government and see what it can effectively do in the coal industry? He criticised the Government for trying to help the New South Wales industry to save jobs, to save families' anguish and to save coal communities in the Hunter, the western and southern districts of New South Wales-all through New South Wales-by putting in place a $40m rescue package for the industry, this Government providing $20m. If the Leader of the National Party believes that it is wrong for this Government or, indeed, for any government to go to the rescue of an industry which needs assistance he should not belong to this place, purporting to represent the people of this country. Honourable members opposite represent coal-producing areas in Queensland and New South Wales. They should be in here, lending their support to what this Government and the Unsworth Government are going to do to alleviate some of the problems in the industry. Returning to the major point of the Bill before us today, this duty was introduced in August 1975 at a time of high industry profitability. It was seen as a way of distributing to the wider community the windfall profits accruing to coal exporting companies. Again, I come back to the fact that it was done in the good times for the coal industry. It was never repealed by those opposite when they were in government because the money rolled in for them. Over the years the duty has been modified to recognise changed economic circumstances in the industry, which is exactly the point I am making. It has to be recognised that circumstances are changing. That has certainly been recognised by the trade union movement. The sacrifices it has been prepared to make to lower its standards have been well documented for anyone who has been prepared to listen. Equally, management practices have to be tackled. Representatives of the Australian Coal Association will agree. I agree with what the Leader of the National Party said about the need for a concerted effort in terms of State charges. He is absolutely right. Something like $1.4 billion, for example, accrued to the New South Wales Government last year from the coal industry. About $300m has accrued to this Government over the last three years from the industry. So to say that the Commonwealth Government is reaping all these great benefits from the coal industry and that it should drop the duty components and not give assistance to an industry that is in trouble is skirting the issue. The New South Wales Government is now attempting in a very real sense to look at the cost question. It is looking at its rail freight system. The $40m package that has been worked out will require Commonwealth Government consent for the processes that will have to be gone through, despite what the Leader of the National Party had to say about our giving it all away. That is not so. The package will be one way of attacking the problem of freight rates, port charges and other charges which affect coal companies in New South Wales. Hopefully, it will alleviate some of the problems that exist in places like the Hunter and the western district of New South Wales. The policy objective of this Bill is to make suitable only high quality coking coal destined for world steel industry markets. This coal attracts a price premium relative to steaming coal which is exempt from the export duty. Despite what the Leader of the National Party said in his contribution today, we are lifting the burden from the Utah company. We are not imposing another burden. As a result of changing demand in the international market-place, some Australian mines producing coking grade coal are presently unable to sell all their production in the coking coal markets. However, they are able to sell a less highly refined or washed version of the coal in the steaming coal markets at the lower prices applying for the product. The existing parameters defining the characteristics of the coal on which duty under the Act is based are having the unintended effect of rendering the lower quality product liable for duty. As a result, this Bill has been introduced and a decision taken by this Government to alleviate the problem. It is important to reflect upon the fact that the problems in the industry, the over-supplied world markets because of other producers coming on stream such as Columbia, China, South Africa, other countries in South America, and Indonesia, are all compounding the problem for Australian producers. Yet, interestingly, Australia is still exporting more and more each year. It is because of the combined efforts of the companies and the trade union movement, which are prepared to look at some of the restrictive work practices and make some concessions and because of the attitude displayed by this Government in ensuring that the prices that are accepted by coal buyers overseas are reasonable, that we are exporting greater volumes of coal. I totally reject the assertion that the $40m package for the industry by this Government and the Unsworth Government is a pork-barrelling exercise aimed at coal constituencies because of an impending State government election. This package has been argued for, as has a rational attack on some of the State government charges by members of the Caucus coal industry task force and other Government members for some months. It was not dreamed up overnight because of a pending State government election. The Minister for Primary Industries and Energy, the Minister for Resources (Mr Peter Morris), the Treasurer (Mr Keating) and the New South Wales Premier should be congratulated for developing a program which will be put to good effect and which, hopefully, will bring relief to the coal producing areas of New South Wales. As I said at the outset, the problems in the coal industry are manifold. The solutions are not easy. It does no good for anybody to suggest that we should take radical, New Right type approaches to solving problems. We need to sit down with the major parties in the industry, the unions, the producers and the various levels of government and work through these problems constructively, in a logical and rational way. If we do not do that we will see Australia's major export earning industry go to the wall. We will see coal mining communities such as those in the Hunter Valley and the western and southern districts of New South Wales go to the wall. We will see thousands upon thousands of jobs lost and families thrown on to the unemployment scrap-heap, and we will see the communities, because of multiplier effects, decimated. Those of us who represent the south coast of New South Wales have gone through that once before, in the early 1980s. A combination of downturns in both the steel industry and the coal industry absolutely decimated the economy of the Illawarra. We cannot-indeed, we must not-allow that to happen again. We must put every effort and all our energy into developing a long term strategy for the industry so that we smooth out these bumps that occur from time to time. But, most importantly, what we should do is look to relief measures such as the one that we are debating this afternoon to bring immediate relief, in a real sense, to many areas of New South Wales, Queensland and other coal producing areas of Australia. These Bills are the first step. As the Minister for Science and Small Business (Mr Barry Jones), who is at the table, has indicated to me privately, they go some of the way. This Government would be prepared to remove duties and other excise imposts on the coal industry if we could get agreement on a resource rent tax. Why do not honourable members opposite give that some thought? I address my remarks particularly to the shadow spokesman for science and energy, the honourable member for Bass (Mr Smith), because he and I have debated this issue with respect to petroleum products in the past. I just ask to him to give that matter some thought, and this applies also to the honourable member for Dawson (Mr Braithwaite), who is sitting at the table. Mr MOORE(Ryan)(4.32) —I wish to address my comments to the Customs Tariff Amendment Bill (No. 2). Mr Barry Jones —Nothing on coal? Mr MOORE —No, not after the dissertation on coal, which seemed to be rather misleading. I think it is best to press on to the next area of conjecture. The Minister for Science and Small Business (Mr Barry Jones) moved his amendments in what I would call a sensational speech. When he moved his amendments to correct the previous harmonising action amendments he said: Madam Speaker, I move the amendments circulated on behalf of the Government. He then went into a summary of the amendments as follows: (i) Overcome legislative deficiency contained in the principal Act; (ii) Correct some assistance anomalies which have been brought to notice following the passage of the principal Act-- Mr Barry Jones —I haven't done it yet. Mr MOORE —Nevertheless, there is quite a catalogue of errors. The list went on: (iii) Correct printing and proofreading errors contained in the Customs Tariff Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1987. I must say to the Minister that that is not a bad way to kick off a set of amendments-to admit that a raft of problems and errors have crept into-- Mr Barry Jones —I take full responsibility. Mr MOORE —Goodness gracious, in the next act I will find a Labor Minister resigning. In view of the startling admission that has come from the Minister, may I just say that the Bill embraces some of the other matters that have arisen since the previous legislation was passed by the Government. It gives effect to some Industries Assistance Commission decisions-particularly decisions affecting vegetables, luggage, handbags and similar containers, chemicals, plastic industries, reconditioned automotive industries, passenger motor vehicles, textiles, clothing, footwear, sectional policies, pharmaceutical products and certain other goods. It is a wide bag of things that only the Minister could handle. Because of that I wish to address myself to four items. Firstly, there is no doubt that the harmonising of tariffs was a step in the correct direction. As I said previously, the process started many years ago as the culmination of negotiations with the customs union and all the major customs countries. The move has brought about a number of changes which probably need to be addressed. Certainly, I get comments from agents and other users within the customs area that a degree of complexity has been introduced into the wording of the new requirements of the harmonised tariff that probably was not there before. I suggest to the Minister that another look be taken at the memorandum and regulations in a genuine attempt to put them in clear English so that some of this rather remarkable catalogue of errors of the past can be addressed. If the Minister can find that number of errors, I am quite sure that the users, who have to put up with bureaucratic language from time to time, would find it even more distressing than the Minister does. Secondly, as a result of this action certain goods which were previously free of duties are now being brought into dutiable categories. In particular I refer to detergents, under proposed section 3402 (20). I am informed that prior to these measures taking effect detergent was admitted to Australia duty free except for the 2 per cent income duty. As a consequence of this particular action they are subject to a duty, which was previously 20 per cent but which has now been reduced to 15 per cent. I have no doubt that there will be other instances of this as a consequence of moving towards a uniform tariff. A tariff has been inadvertently placed on goods where the industry did not seek assistance. Goods which were previously free of tariff now have tariffs applied. Probably the difference is not very great for an importer or user of these products, but the facts of life are that, in present economic conditions, the imposition of a tariff duty on an import in respect of which a tariff was not previously required for economic reasons is a matter that needs to be addressed. Also, it raises once again the whole question of tariff protection and trade policy. We certainly will not go into that this afternoon. But within these amendments and changes there is certainly this element of items being brought into a tariff protection area. There are also other areas where tariffs of a lesser amount or certain imports have been rounded up. I can understand that uniformity is a desirable feature, but it might well be that a 2 1/2 per cent to 5 per cent or 7 1/2 per cent increase in a tariff is a substantial amount of money to consumers, depending on the price of the product itself. I would be grateful if the Minister would address himself to this matter when he introduces his rather spectacular amendments. Thirdly, I notice that in the proposals some special consideration is given to automotive engines. We will be moving an amendment to the second reading motion in respect of this matter which has been circulated in the chamber. It addresses the matter of engines and the item I was just speaking of. In respect of second hand engines a particular practice has been developing within Australia. Because of the requirements on Japan's motor industry, cars in Japan have a life of about 10 years, after which deregistration occurs. In many cases the engines used in those cars are sold purely as scrap; they have no other purpose. Such engines are being exported to Australia where they are used extensively within the Australian reconditioned engine market. I am informed that these engines do not really live up to the emission control standards required and there are a number of other complexities associated with their use in Australia. The amendment is directed towards that matter. In light of this practice, the Government has a responsibility to address the question of Australian motor car design in relation to these engines. It has a responsibility to address itself to the question of emission control in these engines as opposed to those that are produced and used in Australia or imported from other sources and used in Australia. When looked at in that respect, there has to be an element of dumping in the process. If the engines are sold as scrap in Japan, the cost at which they arrive in Australia must quite clearly be substantially less than that of some Australian engines. I know that dumping questions are enormously complex and take an enormous amount of sorting out, but the argument could be used that they are sold as scrap-item (a), and come to Australia as engines-item (b)-and are therefore unrelated. I do not really see how that can be a reasonable argument because an engine is an engine and should be recognised as such. On behalf of the Opposition, I move the following amendment, which will be seconded by the honourable member for Bass (Mr Smith): 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 the Government should (a) ensure that second hand engines imported meet the full requirements of Australian design rules and (b) correct anomalies that result in upward adjustment before phasing down of tariffs'. I urge the Minister to look at the amendment. It pertains to engines, to the reconditioned engine market in Australia and also to the question of inadvertent tariff impositions as a result of the harmonising of duties in Australia. Mr Smith —I second the amendment. Mr FITZGIBBON(Hunter)(4.41) —I will confine my remarks to the Customs Tariff (Coal Export Duty) Amendment Bill which relates to the coal industry. Perhaps one day the Leader of the National Party of Australia (Mr Sinclair) will come into this House and make a constructive speech without playing cheap politics and kicking the workers. However, it is not surprising that the Leader of the National Party would wish to flay the backs of the workers, particularly the miners. They are not in his class; he is so far removed from the working class that he regards workers in the same way as he would regard creatures from another planet. It is a good indication of the Opposition's concern for Australia's coal industry that it sends the Leader of the National Party to lead for it in this debate. The Leader of the National Party would not go too well addressing an aggregate meeting up at Branxton or down on the south coast. I am pleased to have the opportunity to join in the debate on this Bill. Let me say at the outset that, while this legislation does not impact on the Hunter Valley coal industry, the bulk of which is in my electorate of Hunter, I am speaking on this Bill because of my interest in the coal industry as a whole. The crisis in the coal industry has widespread ramifications. In the Hunter electorate the downturn is now spreading to service industries, to small business and to real estate. Job losses are being experienced not only in the Hunter coal industry but also in service industries. During August the Government's coal committee visited the Hunter electorate and held discussions with mining companies and unions in order to gain an insight into the problems affecting the Hunter coalfields. I was very pleased that the Minister for Employment Services and Youth Affairs (Mr Holding) was also able to visit the Hunter electorate, with staff from the Commonwealth Employment Service and the Department of Social Security, to discuss the Government's coal assistance package for retrenched miners. We held discussions with unions and local government representatives. The Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) and the Minister for Primary Industries and Energy (Mr Kerin) in particular have been extremely active in trying to bring about a satisfactory solution to the problems which beset the industry. I am confident that their actions will improve the long term position of the industry. The Bill validates Customs Tariff (Coal Export Duty) Proposals No. 1 of 16 May 1987. The history of coal export duty is that it was first introduced by the Whitlam Government in 1975 at a time when our minerals export industry was far more profitable than it is today. At that time the then Treasurer, now Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade (Mr Hayden), stated that coal prices, especially for high quality coking coals, had risen dramatically in the two previous years. The Whitlam Government believed that a portion of the large windfall profits being made by export coal producers should be channelled back to the community. Initially, the export duty was levied at $6 per tonne on high quality coking coals, those with a carbon content above 85 per cent on a dry ash-free basis, and $2 per tonne on other coals. But, some two months later in October, it was found that the duty had the effect of pricing certain high ash steaming coals out of the West European market, so this type of coal was exempted from the duty. In 1976 the Fraser Government declared its intention to remove the coal export duty, but stated that this would have to be done gradually because of budgetary reasons. It was its intention to phase out the duty over three years, but of course that did not happen. (Quorum formed) Because the Opposition has chosen to waste valuable time by calling a quorum, it will be necessary for me to cut a great deal from my speech. However, I was mentioning that the Opposition, when it was in Government, promised to cut the coal export duty. But, of course, when the then Treasurer, now the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard), found that he was liable to fulfil that promise, he pleaded budgetary constraint and, of course, that was another promise that was never delivered. I will not necessarily go through the history of the development of this Bill, but will say only that this Bill seeks to remove an anomaly in the definition of coking coal characteristics. This anomaly resulted in an unintended effect on those coals attracting duty. This Bill reflects the Hawke Government's recognition of changing economic conditions in the industry and is an indication of the continuing trend to reduce government taxes on coal. We are endeavouring to reduce Government charges on coal so as to assist the industry. As outlined in the second reading speech of the Minister for Science and Small Business (Mr Barry Jones), as a result of the changing demand in the international market, some coal producers, mainly in Queensland, are unable to sell all their production into the coking coal markets. However, they are able to sell a less highly refined or washed version of the coal into steaming coal markets at the lower prices applying to this product. This lower quality product is currently liable for coal export duty. The present policy objective of the Customs Tariff (Coal Export Duty) Act 1975 is to make dutiable only that high quality coking coal which is destined for the world steel industry market. By changing the parameters on which duty is based, by reducing the prescribed ash content of the coals from 12 per cent or less to 10.5 per cent or less, and by raising the crucible swelling number from over three to over five, these lower quality coals will no longer be dutiable. Although this change will mainly benefit Queensland, my Hunter electorate coal producers have said that they welcome the change in this legislation as it will boost Australia's export earnings. The Hawke Government is doing its best to give concessions to the coal industry. As well as concessions, the Federal Government has committed substantial funding towards research in the coal industry. For instance, during the last two weeks a total of $7.4m has been allocated for coal research projects to improve the efficiency and safety of the industry. I was delighted to see included among the projects a grant of $98,000 for the Hunter Valley Mines Rescue Station to research means of making dangerous coal mine atmospheres inert through the injection of nitrogen. Research of this nature is vital if we are to prevent disasters such as the Moura mine tragedy. The Federal and New South Wales governments have also committed a further $2.6m for building and trialling an Australian designed machine for tunnelling road ways in underground coal mines. But having said this, some State governments, especially Queensland, retain high imposts on the coal industry. The Queensland Government retains, in particular, high rail freight rates. Last weekend the New South Wales Premier, Mr Unsworth, announced a $40m package, of which the Federal Government will contribute $20m, aimed at reducing rail freight charges. This package was deplored by the Leader of the National Party. Queensland in particular is using its rail freight system as a pseudo resource rent tax to cream profits off the Queensland coal industry. It is true that the Queensland Government has made some concessions, but the Queensland Premier's argument that Queensland is the lowest taxing State is absolute nonsense. The Queensland Government has ridden on the back of the coal industry by gaining very high revenues from rail profits. In a sense, the Queensland National Party Government has been a parasite on the Queensland coal industry. The crisis in the coal industry, particularly in the Hunter electorate, has the potential not only to reduce our export earnings and cause job losses, but also to destroy local economies. As a member of the Government's coal committee I have worked with my colleagues the honourable member for Macarthur (Mr Martin), the honourable member for Charlton (Mr Robert Brown), the honourable member for Throsby (Mr Hollis) and honourable members from other areas of the Commonwealth to take part in discussions with John Maitland, General President of the Miners Federation, and representatives of the Australian Coal Association. Australia is the most efficient coal producer in the world and, unlike the European Economic Community countries, our coal is not subsidised. However, it is true that our industry still needs to reduce production costs and to implement better management strategies and better work practices in order to make it more viable in the face of ever-increasing international competition. It is unfortunate that there will be job losses in the industry but these can be minimised with the co-operation of the mining unions, governments and the coal owners. Industrial unrest in the industry will achieve little and only add to the problems and destroy our reputation as a reliable supplier. I am very conscious of the fact that I was asked to speak for only 10 minutes on this legislation. As a result of quorums I have somewhat overrun my time. However, in conclusion, I congratulate the Minister for Primary Industries and Energy for his efforts on behalf of the coal industry. I also express my appreciation to the Minister for Resources (Mr Peter Morris) for the work he is doing to resolve the problems in our most important export industry. Mr SMITH(Bass)(4.56) —It is always interesting to hear the honourable member for Hunter (Mr Fitzgibbon), even though his speech was curtailed. He defied all the odds to come back after the last election. Mr Martin —And he will continue to do so. Mr SMITH —We will wait and see. As the Customs Tariff Amendment Bill (No. 2) and the Customs Tariff (Coal Export Duty) Bill are being debated cognately, I will talk on the coal element of the legislation. As the Leader of the National Party of Australia (Mr Sinclair) said, the Customs Tariff (Coal Export Duty) Bill only varies the incidence of the export levy; it does not lift the duty. The tax on exports is still there. Our view is that, although we do not oppose the legislation and we support the Government, we would like to see the abolition of the coal export duty. The purpose of the legislation is to correct the anomaly of a blend-coking coal and thermal coal-which is less refined and of a lower quality, therefore attracting a lower price attracting a levy which was meant for high quality coking coal. The levy formula will apply as originally intended only to high quality coking coal destined for world steel markets. Whilst coal lacks the glamour of oil, it must not be forgotten that the Western world rode to wealth on the productive capacity provided by this fossilised sunlight. Coal-the fossilised remains of ancient forests-contains, after millions of years, some of the solar energy stored by these plants. When coal is burnt, heat energy is released from the highly combustible carbon it contains. In estimated recoverable reserves, Australia ranks ninth in the world. These reserves account for at least 5 per cent of the world's economically recoverable reserves. In Australia the economically recoverable resource-34,000 million tonnes of black coal and 42,000 million tonnes of brown coal-is enough to last hundreds of years at current and forecast production rates. So when talking about legislation that imposes, as this does even though it addresses an anomaly, an item that is extremely important to our export industry, one has to put into perspective the nature of this resource and the extent of the reserves. As I said, coal is Australia's most abundant source of energy and accounts for about 95 per cent of Australia's commercial recoverable fossil fuel. Australia's coal resources span a wide range of coal qualities. Our resources suit the changing technological requirements of the coal-based electric power generation industry, the steel industry, the wide range of industrial uses and possible future synfuel applications. Fortunately most Australian coals do not contain significant amounts of sulphur, which produces acid rain. However, its burning releases carbon dioxide, which contributes to the warming of the atmosphere-the so-called greenhouse effect-which I know is something that concerns the Minister for Science and Small Business (Mr Barry Jones), who is at the table, and it ought to concern all of us in this House regardless of our perspective on politics. It is a growing problem that we ought to be addressing far more seriously than we have. We should start listening to the experts and making sure that the experts and those who are doing research into carbon dioxide in the atmosphere and the ozone layer, which is a related matter, ought to be properly funded. I had something to say about that earlier in the week in another context. Coal can be liquefied for use as a liquid fuel substitute or gasified for use as a gas substitute. Therefore, it is likely in the future to become much more important as the world's and Australia's oil reserves diminish. On research, I note that a recent Press release by the Minister for Resources (Mr Peter Morris) announced some research funds through the National Energy Research Development and Demonstration Council. Whilst that is welcomed, I think there is an opportunity for the Minister to provide for more research into coal and its various products, the various problems facing the industry and the opportunities, because of the massive reserves, for the use of coal in such things as liquid fuels and synthetic fuels. We will certainly be needing it in the future. As the honourable member for Macarthur (Mr Martin) rightly said, we have had debates in this place over recent weeks about oil. Indeed, he would be aware that we are looking, not too far down the track, to a window of crisis as our domestic oil supplies decline because of the declining level of reserves. I pick up a point that was made by the honourable member for Macarthur in the Parliament recently about the resource rent tax (RRT). He said that, if the Opposition had supported the RRT legislation and it had been passed, we might see the Government acquiesce to our suggestion of an abolition of the coal export duty. I do not think that bargaining about taxation ought to be conducted in that vein. In any event, it would be interesting to put that to the industry, because many companies are in both coal and oil. To say to one, `You work out which is the most profitable and we will tax it accordingly', I do not think is an appropriate way to go. I wish the honourable member had raised that issue earlier than today as we might then have been able to give it a little consideration. I know-and I say this in a bipartisan way-that he is concerned about the problems in the coal industry, as indeed we all are in this chamber. The contribution of coal to the economy is very significant. Coal supplies Australia with nearly 50 per cent of its total energy needs. In terms of domestic consumption, 75 per cent of black coal is used for electricity generation. This electricity in turn has encouraged industrial growth and also earns millions of dollars for the railways and trucking and port handling facilities in Australia. Another 14 per cent is used in the iron and steel industry, and 11 per cent in industries such as cement, pulp and paper. To mention that figure again, 14 per cent is used in the iron and steel industry. With the announcements yesterday, which were reported today and about which there was a lot of discussion in the House earlier, about the problems at Port Kembla, it is interesting to see how important the coal industry, and the continued reliable supply of coal to the steel industry, is integral to that industry's being successful. We have industrial problems in both industries, which I want to talk about in a moment. As I said, coal is Australia's largest single foreign export earner, representing 16 per cent of export revenue last financial year. Black coal earned $5.4 billion in the financial year 1986-87. Of this, coking coal comprised $3.4 billion, and steaming coal $1.9 billion. Commonwealth Government revenues from coal amounted to nearly $60m and State Government revenues amounted to $233.4m, with royalties of $55.8m, payroll tax of $7.3m, and the Queensland railways profit, included in rail freight charges of $170.3m. On top of this must be added the millions paid in income tax, and of course, other company taxes. So, again, there is a dramatic reliance by government on the coal industry to raise taxes, both at the State and Federal level. For the industry to remain competitive on world markets, it must have an amelioration of this dramatic impost through State and Federal governments. We in this chamber can address the issue of export coal levies and the States can address the problems that have been talked about by my colleague the Leader of the National Party-the transport problems and associated costs, in particular in New South Wales. That leads me to discussion of the $40m package that was announced the other day to help the New South Wales coalfields. That is obviously a short term measure. One has to be a little cynical, and, unfortunately one, has to be political, when one looks at the way the announcement was made. I was sitting eating my toast on Sunday morning, watching the Sunday program, when Barrie Unsworth came on making all sorts of commitments, saying that he was not in danger and that he was not worried about re-election. Then, out of the blue, he announced that a deal had been struck between the Commonwealth and himself for a $40m package. To suggest, as the honourable member for Macarthur did in this contribution, that that is not politically inspired defies all logic. Premier Unsworth announced it as soon as he possibly could because he did not want the Federal Government to walk away from it. Indeed, he has just taken over the role as Chairman of the Economic Planning Advisory Council, on the two year cyclical arrangement for State Premiers. Obviously at the last meeting he had an opportunity to whisper in the ear of the Treasurer (Mr Keating) to make sure that he got this money. I do not know when the New South Wales State election will be. I would expect it to be some time in February or early March, at which time I am sure the $40m will be used in the election campaign and will be referred to in all the marketing, in statements such as, `Barrie saved us'. But that package is a short term measure, and that is the problem. We are talking about a long term industry. That is what this Bill is really about. It is about taxing a long term industry, and we have to look at it in that way. We had in this country a little while ago an Energy 2000 policy review conference, which discussed coal, as it ought to have. I would like to talk about some elements in that review. Taxation is an important issue relating to the future of coal policy. The Commonwealth and State taxes and charges, borne at present by the coal industry, require examination with a view to introducing a more equitable and rational taxation regime. There is a need to ensure that coal supply and demand are kept in balance and that the proposals for the development of new capacity must be based on rational and realistic criteria. Changing demands for coal types need to be met quickly, and prices for export coal must be high, but not higher than those of competitors. It is vital that transport and supply must be reliable. In regard to the environment, visual, water, soil and air pollution have to be controlled at the mine site and during storage and transport. In the area of technology, industry must be competitive and must make the most effective use of new technology. Any adverse socio- economic affects arising from the introduction and use of such technology must be addressed carefully by Government, industry and the unions to ensure a smooth transition. Lastly, there is infrastructure. Governments must ensure that suitable infrastructure is developed to cater for the future requirements of the industry. Indeed, since the Energy 2000 conference, industrial relations disputes in the coal industry have caused considerable disruption and put in jeopardy the implementation of many of the conference's recommendations. We are yet to see the finalisation of the Energy 2000 conference. If I may make a plea to the Minister at the table, the Minister for Science and Small Business. I ask him to talk to the absent Minister for Primary Industries and Energy (Mr Kerin) about accelerating consideration of those issues. Whether they be oil, uranium, natural gas or coal, they are all vitally important for this nation to determine where we are going and what our strategies are going to be in the future in regard to energy policies. We are charged in this place not just with caring about what happens today, but with a trust to ensure that future generations can also enjoy the lifestyle that we have. If there is one element that is central to lifestyle in the Western world, and to this country, it is energy in all its many forms. I believe this needs to be a high priority for consideration by government. Unfortunately, this Government, although it started well by putting into place the Energy 2000 discussions, has gone off track. It is now time for it to get back on track and to get involved. The severe crisis in Australia's coal industry is the result of the failure of governments, companies and unions to come to terms with these events and the fundamental and recurring problems of the industry. The entrenched attitudes of employers and employees, and the lucrative revenues flowing to the Queensland and New South Wales governments, make progress towards a viable and internationally competitive coal industry an extremely painful one. The honourable member for Macarthur will notice that I mentioned employers. I see employers as having a role to play to improve management practices. Indeed, anyone who takes a sensible view of the problems in the coal industry would be duty bound to admit that. The industry itself, as the honourable member mentioned, also agree with it. I think the greater part of the fault, or the route by which we can address the major difficulties that we have, lies with the unions. They are the ones that must come to the party more quickly than others to try to address those problems. As I said, the coal mining unions in particular have been slow to come to terms with the fact that, after a decade of boom, the industry is close to a big bust, and that, should that occur, mine closure and job losses will follow-something that none of us want. I would like to bring to the attention of the House some issues with regard to work practices, and in particular something that caught my eye this morning and which I have since been checking out. I understand that this morning a man called Arthur Scargill arrived in Australia. Many people in this chamber would know who he is. He is a former leader of the coal mining unions in the United Kingdom. My advice to Mr Scargill is that he is not wanted here and that he should go home. The Australian coal unions will do their cause no good whatsoever if they entertain discussions with the likes of Mr Scargill. In my view he is best described as a union terrorist-one who does nothing to contribute positively to the problems in the coal industry in his own country. Indeed, he tried to bring the industry to its knees. He has really been sent here to do nothing but stir up trouble. The International Miners Organisation is sponsoring his trip here. Those who want to take the time to inquire into and investigate the International Miners Organisation will find that it is a combination of eastern European radical miners and some elements of western European mining unions. In diplomatic circles it is described as a Moscow front. If the unions in Australia are going to entertain discussions with or take any advice from the likes of Arthur Scargill, then this country will be in a very sad position. We will wait and see. The Australian coal fields will either strike just before Christmas or just after. That is something which none of us in this place want. My advice to Arthur Scargill-and I hope that some members on the Government side take a similar view-is to go home and do so quickly. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mrs Darling) —I allowed the honourable member for Bass to finish his sentence because there has been some flexibility in this debate. Honourable members have mentioned different politicians and difference areas, but there must be some limits to this. The Leader of the National Party went beyond those limits when he went outside the coal and other issues within the Bill and entered a debate on uranium mining. The honourable member for Bass also went right beyond the limits when he talked about international affairs which are in no way related to the points that we are discussing in this chamber. I ask him to adhere to that ruling for the rest of his speech. Mr SMITH —I thank you for your indulgence, Madam Deputy Speaker. I take it that my point has been made. I return to the coal levy and the importance of ensuring that such levies are removed. One of the ways in which coal levies may be removed is if work practices within the coal industry are such that that industry is operating on viable basis. If that is so, because of productivity, the excellence and the volume of the product that is being exported and because it can compete on competitive markets in the world, there is no need to put on levies because the income that governments need can be taken from income tax or other normal taxes and not extraordinary taxes such as coal levies. Work practices are the key to removing coal levies such as this. Coal mining, unlike iron ore mining, is a Monday to Friday operation. This means that very expensive capital equipment is also forced to take the weekend off. Mines work fewer than 230 days a year and that is without strike action. According to Ian Storey, a mining analyst in Sydney, underground mines operate only 52 per cent of available hours in a full year due to work practices such as the 35-hour week, won back in 1970, before the rest of the work force had even caught up with the idea; five weeks annual leave; crib breaks, often requiring additional travelling time back to a central lunch spot; shower time, which is referred to in the union awards as tolerance time; travelling time to and from the site; overtime, which must be done in full seven-hour shifts rather than in one or two hours. Indeed Dr Barry Ritchie, the Executive Director of the Australian Coal Association, was reported in the Australian newspaper of 25 September as saying that he supported employers' claims that certain work practices added an extra $3 a tonne to New South Wales coal on the export market. He estimated that only about five out of every seven hours of a shift was actually used for production. Other restrictive work practices are known to include demarcation restrictions such as exclusive use of tools by tradesmen, exclusive allocation of tradesmen to separate work areas and qualified staff-deputies or tradesmen-unable to assist in production by operating machines through the crib time, inflexible manning arrangements such as multiple operators on draglines, shovels and drills, refusal to work away from original work places, limitations on the use of contractors such as restrictions on the hours of work, weekend work and type of work, payment for work not done, the refusal to do work other than required and a minimum payment regardless of actual work time involved. All of those issues are what we ought to be focusing on in determining how we are to help the coal industry. By far the best help that government can give is to ask the coal industry to help itself. The big player in the industry that needs to help itself the most and to address these work practice issues is the union movement. It does not want to take advice from the man from England, Arthur Scargill, whom I have advised to go home and to go home quickly. If we want to get rid of coal export duties we need to have an efficient, productive industry which, through its own efforts, can be taxed in a fair way and not in an unfair way. If it is productive and profitable it will return funds to government commensurate with the activity that is actually undertaken. We will not need these unique and extraordinary levels of taxation. If we do that we will get somewhere in this country with an industry that must be seen as a very long term one. Without a successful coal industry in the future, this country will suffer mightily. I say to those members on the other side of the House that when they are talking to their colleagues in the coal industry they should let them know that in this place we try to encourage people to make sure that Australian citizens benefit from all ranges of export industries. We want the coal industry to succeed; we need it to succeed. But it is up to the people in the industry to make sure that they play their part. Then governments will not have to do what this one is trying to do now-give short term palliatives at the expense of other taxpayers in the community. Mr HOLLIS(Throsby)(5.16) —In taking part in this cognate debate, I will confine my comments to the Customs Tariff (Coal Export Duty) Amendment Bill. Like my friends the honourable member for Macarthur (Mr Martin) and the honourable member for Hunter (Mr Fitzgibbon), I represent some of the coal mining areas of New South Wales. I was very interested in the comments of the right honourable member for New England (Mr Sinclair)-a great coal miner and friend of the coal miners!-who made his usual attack on the unions. When he attacks the workers in the coal mining industry he is really attacking my constituents. I get a little tired of his unfounded and unsubstantiated attacks. Why does he not come down to my electorate of Throsby and make those attacks there? Any of us can stand in this place and make an attack on workers. It is a little bit more difficult-as the honourable member for Macarthur and I know, having been many times to the Wollongong, Camden and other showgrounds-to speak with the miners directly. We have not attacked them, but I must say that they have attacked us. Mr Martin —We have been attacked. Mr HOLLIS —Yes, we have been attacked once or twice ourselves. (Quorum formed) After the forming of the quorum, my colleagues may like to stay to hear about the coal mining industry. There is an unofficial and informal agreement in this place that members limit speeches to 10 minutes. The Opposition, for reasons best know to itself, has called a quorum on me and that arrangement is off so far as I am concerned. I had allowed 20 minutes for my remarks and I shall take that time to deliver them. I heard with interest the speech of the honourable member for Bass (Mr Smith). He was not particularly controversial, so I shall not be so either. But if Ian Storey and the honourable member for Bass think that it is so good to work in a coal mine, why do they not work in one? We hear about the conditions in the coal mines, but I have not heard that Ian Storey has given up writing to take advantage of the wonderful things that are supposed to be happening in the mines. Mention was made of recent disputes in the industry. The honourable member for Bass said that the unions should shake up their act. In the recent negotiations the people who gave all the concessions were the unions. Mr Simmons —Particularly in the west. Mr HOLLIS —In the west and in the south. The producers gave no concessions at all. Those who gave big, meaningful concessions were the miners. The producers stood hard and fast and gave no concessions at all. I do not know whether Arthur Scargill is in this country, but one understands from the honourable member for Bass that he is here. I thought that we were trying to promote international tourism in this country. When the honourable member for Bass says that Mr Scargill should be sent packing, I do not know what the Minister for the Arts, Sport, the Environment, Tourism and Territories (Mr John Brown) would say about that. Apparently a conference on peace is being held in this country by the International Miners Federation. Miners, like everyone else, have an interest in peace and I suppose Arthur Scargill has come out here to attend that conference. I have sent the conference fraternal greetings. Mr Robert Brown —So have I. Mr HOLLIS —Indeed, most Labor members have sent fraternal greetings. Mr Braithwaite —How would you address it-`Dear comrade'? Mr HOLLIS —I do not intend to address the conference. I just sent greetings. We all aware that there has been a crisis in the coal industry. Over the weekend the Government announced a package to assist this important industry through a difficult period. Ever since I came into this House I have heard Opposition members time and time again arguing for assistance to industry. They always want assistance to be given to industry, and whenever industry gets into trouble they accuse the Government of not providing assistance. But immediately the Government gives assistance, as happened over the weekend, Opposition members accuse us of pork-barrelling. They cannot have it both ways. Either they want the Government to give assistance or they do not. Quite frankly, $40m is not a lot of assistance to that industry. Mr Miles —Just before an election it is. Mr HOLLIS —My electorate will get nothing, or very little, out of this. It will be for the specific purpose of assisting coal freight in viable mines. It is a narrowly targeted amount of assistance and is being given by both the State and the Federal Government. Conditions are being put on this assistance, as the Treasurer (Mr Keating) said in reply to a question the other day. Therefore, let us forget this nonsense about pork-barrelling and the New South Wales State election. I do not know when the election will be held, although people seem to be so expert on the subject and we have heard all sorts of dates put forward. Regardless of when that election is held, Labor will win again, and that is without question. Labor would win even if this assistance had not been provided to the coal mining industry. Let me turn to the specific provisions of the Bill. It is not the most momentous piece of legislation ever to come before this chamber. However, it is important to the coal mining industry. The purpose of the Bill is to give effect to the Government's decision to amend the Customs Tariff (Coal Export Duty) Act 1975 to ensure that certain exports of coal to steaming coal markets, at the lower prices operating in those markets, do not attract the coal export duty, which is currently set at $3.70 a tonne. The coal export duty was introduced in August 1975, at a time of high industry profitability, as a way of distributing to the wider community windfall profits accruing to coal exporting companies. Over the years, the duty has been modified to recognise changed economic circumstances in the industry. The present policy objective of the Act is to make dutiable only high quality coking coal destined for world steel industry markets. These coals attract a price premium relative to steaming coal, which is exempt from export duty. As a result of changing demand in the international market-place, some Australian mines producing coking grade coal are presently unable to sell all their production into coking coal markets, but they are able to sell a less highly refined or washed version of the coal into steaming coal markets at the lower prices applying for this product. However, the existing parameters defining the characteristics of the coal on which duty under the Act is based are having the unintended effect of rendering this lower quality product liable for duty. Because of this, the Government has decided to change the parameters on which the duty is based by reducing the prescribed ash content of dutiable coal from about 12 per cent or less to 10.5 per cent or less. These changes will ensure that the policy objective of the Act, which is to make only high quality coking coal subject to duty, is continued. In short, the Government has recognised a problem in the industry and is introducing measures to overcome it. As all honourable members who have spoken in this debate have said, the coal industry is Australia's most important export earner and is going through a very difficult period. The honourable member for Macarthur and I experienced the social and economic consequences in our area a couple of years ago. We also experienced a downturn in the steel industry, which we are also very worried about again at present. This is a difficult situation and we cannot stand by and watch the important coal industry being decimated. There has been a lot of criticism of the Government's action-or inaction, as some people might say-on the coal industry. My position is that whatever action the Government has recently taken-and one hears about partial deregulation and so on-the coal industry would still have found itself in difficulty. The world faces an oversupply of coal. For example, China is selling coal on the world market at very low prices just to obtain foreign currency. Furthermore, new mines are coming into operation in Canada, as well as in Latin American and in Indonesia, coal is also produced cheaply in South Africa. Undoubtedly there is a world oversupply of coal. Let me make my position quite clear. I support a national coal authority-not a marketing authority-and I have always supported such a body. I also support the work of the Caucus coal committee, of which I am a member. We are seeing the results of lack of strategy and planning in the industry. We are still living through the talk-up of the resources boom under you know who. It was said that we were about to have a great resources boom which would solve all our problems. Another tragedy is that this country has no national energy policy. We heard about Energy 2000, but we have no national energy plan. Until we get a national energy plan, until we know where we are going in energy, until we stop this competition between States and until we have a rational exploitation of our industry, and not this willy-nilly system we now have we will suffer from cyclical booms. I have always supported the idea of a national energy plan in Australia. The coal mining industry is going through difficult times and there is no easy solution to the problem. However, this Government has to come to terms with the problem and at least has recognised it. Its actions over the past weekend will go some small way to solving this very difficult problem in the industry. I commend the Bill to the House. Mr BRAITHWAITE(Dawson)(5.31) —Although the previous speaker, the honourable member for Throsby (Mr Hollis), said that the Customs Tariff (Coal Export Duty) Amendment Bill is not a momentous Bill, it is certainly a Bill of principle and it provides an opportunity to debate in this House the importance of the coal industry to Australia. Let us not look at the problem as being a division between one State and another; let us look at it as an industry that is producing at the moment 16 per cent, in value, of Australia's exports and an industry that is facing tremendous problems within international trade-problems that are not just those of oversupply in the world market, as the honourable member for Throsby said. The problems are more diverse than that. I suggest that there are environmental problems that must be answered in the international sphere. Technology is changing, particularly in the steel industry, and there is a need for some types of power as opposed to the traditional sources that have been used in the past. While we can cast blame on one another, it is very important that we use Bills such as this to try to unite behind an industry, and the management and workers within that industry, to say that there is a future, and we must make the best endeavours to enhance that future. I want to state the obvious, which comes from the second reading speech of the Minister for Science and Small Business (Mr Barry Jones). He gave a history of the introduction of the levy and said: The coal export duty was introduced in August 1975, at a time of high industry profitability as a way of distributing to the wider community windfall profits accruing to coal export companies. I shall refer to some of the comments made by members of the Government, particularly the honourable member for Macarthur (Mr Martin). I credit him with being a person who believes in the future of the industry and who does everything he can to enhance that future. However, in this regard, he said that if the levy had been imposed at a time of high profitability, why was it not removed during the time of high profitability in the Fraser years. That is not quite correct because the levy was reduced during the Fraser years from $6 to $3.50. However, the inference to be drawn from the honourable member's remarks was that during a time of low profitability, which all companies and industries are now facing, it is all the more reason for the levy to be in place. That was not a logical argument from an accounting point of view. If a levy is imposed originally in times of high profitability, in times of low profitability it should not be maintained or increased but removed. I shall come back to the matter of principle. The levy is one of many charges that are made by State and Federal governments which are hindering the industry from getting its market share and maintaining profitability. The honourable member for Throsby commented that, at this stage, the workers have given away everything. I come from a business background, and I suggest there is such a thing as the bottom line. When one goes under the bottom line, one can give nothing more, other than a direction to a liquidator that one is going bankrupt-out of business. I am not arguing that miners have not given away certain things at this stage. However, one of the problems we are faced with today is a decision made by the Coal Industry Tribunal in mid-1985 to increase the wage of miners by $60 plus per week across the board. I believe that was given on the basis of an undertaking that there would be no more industrial disputation. If one considers the history of the industry since 1985 when the massive pay out blew away the competitiveness of the mining industry and the subsequent industrial disruption that occurred during that period, one can see the genesis of the problems and with whom the blame lies. However, we should get away from arguing about with whom the blame lies. Certain things can be done to maintain the industry. The first is the removal of this levy. When the levy was introduced, regardless of what was said in the Minister's second reading speech, there is no doubt that it was an attack by the late Rex Connor on Utah, and he made no secret of that. `Utah' was a dirty word in the industry. I hope it is no longer thought of as dirty when international companies come to this country to assist in the development of our resources. At the time the levy was applied, Utah was the bad boy in the industry. The levy is still attached to the company, even though it has lost its internationalism by coming back to an Australian owned company. For that reason, I believe this is a Bill of principle. It is a bad principle to levy a discriminatory tax on one company simply because it is international, it was profitable at the time and then decide that, because the levy already exists, it will stay. The principle is the same: if it was a bad tax then, it is a bad tax now and it should be removed. I shall also mention some of the other areas that are very important to the recovery of this industry. Some of the prices recorded in the digest of the Bill, and it is interesting to make a comparison of the prices of coal over the years. The Australian industry has survived through its efficiency and because it has cut costs. The problems of the New South Wales mines are unique. I would say that the Australian coal industry has survived only because of the basic cost effectiveness of the open mines in Queensland. The figures I have show the tremendous increase in domestic production, in export production and also in the production in terms of man hours per shift during the period of 1974 until this time. That was based on the fact that Australia was able to export coals in a most efficient method. However, in saying that, I do not say that we should walk away from the other long established coal mines. These are the types of things the industry is facing in the light of this charge and the many others imposed by the Government: the price of hard coking coal-the highest quality coal-has fallen from $US54 a tonne in 1983 to $US43 in 1987. That is a real decrease of $US14 in a period of four years. The fall in prices has been reflected in other qualities of coal, with the price of soft coking coal falling from $US48.50 a tonne to $US38 a tonne. The price of steaming coal has fallen from $US35.50 to $US29.40 during the same period 1983-87. That is one of the problems. In contrast to that, if one takes the period from 1973-74 to 1986-87, the domestic sales in Australia increased from 26.3 million tonnes to 53 million tonnes, an increase of 200 per cent. Export sales have increased from 28.4 million tonnes to 95.7 million tonnes, an increase of 350 per cent. Total sales have increased from 54.7 million tonnes to 148.7 million tonnes, an increase of 300 per cent. I come back to the point of why this Bill is important. We should reflect on the place the coal industry has in Australia's economic survival. I put it to the House that if Australia did not have a coal industry and it did not benefit from the export sales of coal that are now engendered, Australia would be looking down the barrel. We would be placed in a hole out of which it would be hard to climb. The export value of coal in 1973-74 was $154m. In 1986-87, the year just completed, the export value was $5,400m. Anyone who suggests that, in creating that type of result, firstly, the unions in Australia have been negligent in their attitudes, or, secondly, the entrepreneurs in the country have not produced the most efficient businesses to produce that coal, ought to re-examine the coal industry. I shall put on record the comments made by the Minister responsible for industrial affairs in Queensland about the results of the industry over a 12-month period: Industrial Affairs Minister, Vince Lester has congratulated Central Queensland Coal Mining Unions for putting aside industrial problems, and producing the State's best coal output, in the year to August. Both underground and open-cut mines showed an improvement . . . The Queensland Coal Board says the central region's miners are the most productive in Queensland . . . These miners have had pressure put on them, in an industrial sense, but they have decided to keep working . . . So, there are some conservative Ministers who are prepared to acknowledge the work of those people. I have only one real complaint about the industrial situation in mining in Australia. Government members have said that they represent coal producing areas, and I suggest that coal producing areas have basically fostered generations of Australian families and have cemented life around mining towns. It was suggested that no member of the Opposition had ever faced up to a meeting of miners. I place on record that approximately eight years ago, when I had less sense than I have now, I faced up to a meeting at Blackwater about the old difficulty associated with the taxing of miners' housing benefits. Yes, members of the Opposition have been on the stump and have faced miners. I have spoken with miners, especially coal miners, in my time. I have the satisfaction of knowing that the division of Dawson exports more coal than anywhere else in Australia. Dawson has three ports and on aggregate exports about 35 million to 40 million tonnes of coal to world markets. The coal would not be exported to those markets unless we had a work force that was interested or unless we had entrepreneurs who were prepared to battle the elements. Let us not get at arm's length from the issue in this debate and start bashing each other. I shall quote from the digest about the problems in New South Wales; it is said that some of the problems are government induced: The cost of production of Australian coal includes a number of government charges. In addition to the customs tariff, which was introduced when the industry was highly profitable, the States impose a number of charges which are higher than the cost of providing the services to which the charge relates. For example, in early October the NSW rail freight charge was $10 per tonne and the port charges were $5.30 per tonne. Production costs could also be reduced if the industry worked on a 24 hour a day . . . basis. One Government member took great delight in slamming the Queensland Government for its rail freight rates. I do not walk away from that, but let us not be hypocritical and cast blame in just one area. Without a doubt, governments are taking too much from the industry. In referring to what the Government takes, I mention the fringe benefits tax. Mr Hollis —Oh, no! Mr BRAITHWAITE —The honourable member may say, `Oh, no', and everything else. Mr Hollis —We are not talking about fringe benefits tax. Mr BRAITHWAITE —I am talking about government-induced charges. The honourable member should wait and listen. I have said what I want to say about the morality of the fringe benefits tax, but assessments in the mining industry are made on benefits which are not fringe benefits. I defy anyone to tell me that, for a person working at Mount Newman, Paraburdoo, Dampier or in the mining towns in the electorate of Dawson, a house at a certain rental is a fringe benefit. Mr Robert Brown —Of course it is. Mr BRAITHWAITE —It is not. The honourable member would not go there. Honourable members talk about people who work down mines, but they would not do so unless the mines were air-conditioned. The miners work in temperatures of 40 to 45 degrees. Miners also face the greatest difficulties in educating their children. I defy anyone to say that, in the proper sense, air conditioning or the opportunity to send one's children to Perth, or a central city, for education are fringe benefits. The Government should be able to consider certain cases realistically, because that tax must be paid whether the company makes a profit or not. If the Commonwealth Government were really interested in helping the mining industry, especially the coal industry, this is one of the areas in which it could bring some relief. My quotation was obviously a reference to rail freights, harbour board dues, and everything in connection with State governments, which also have a part to play. I return to other problem areas. I mentioned earlier that the Tribunal had granted the miners $65 a week for industrial peace which was not delivered. The industrial relations history of the mining industry would horrify anyone. The latest industrial dispute figures show that, in the 12 months to July 1987, 190,000 working days were lost in the coal industry, an industry that was guaranteed protection from this type of thing. This represents 17 per cent of working days lost in all industries in the same period. It is said that the coal industry in the year to May 1987 lost 23.5 times more days through industrial action that any other industry. Obviously, there must be some give and take if we are to ensure that the industry survives. When the industry survives the differences of approach between the States and the impact of additional charges in a lost situation, we will have to be able to forget the differences and consider the more mammoth problems it is facing. The Bill results simply from the fact that coking coal is no longer the coal that our exporters are looking for. They are turning from coking coal to thermal coal. Basically, the Bill is about taking the levy off a type of coal being legitimately used for another purpose. We must consider the manner in which the world wants its coal and the manner in which other countries are producing it. Environmental problems like acid rain must be considered. No doubt Australian coal must add, in some sense, to the problems already evident overseas, although our coal may not have the type of content to produce those problems. An earlier speaker was ruled out of order for mentioning nuclear energy. If one is looking for a source of power, coal is fine; but it has its problems and those problems will continue to increase if the world is going to address environmental matters. Perhaps a reference to energy from uranium is not out of place at this time. In connection with the Coal Industry Tribunal, it is a nonsense to suggest that a one-man commission should dictate the future of the industry. Unless the New South Wales and Commonwealth governments together realise the effects of that nonsense and bring the industry into the mainstream of industrial relations, the mining industry will have a heck of a burden to carry. As I see it, the decisions made by that commissioner have not been made with any degree of economic rationality and too often the commissioner has given into promises which were not honoured. This Parliament cannot afford to make this measure the cheap political stunt some people want it to be. We have to appreciate the efforts of the workers to increase their productivity and the efforts of producers in trying to sell to a very difficult world market. I agree with the content of the Bill. As the Minister said, in some cases there is a relaxation of the levy. However, it still picks $60m from an industry that cannot afford it. I welcome the opportunity to have the broader debate which I believe the Parliament should have had years ago. Mr BEDDALL(Rankin)(5.51) —I wish to confine most of my remarks to the Customs Tariff Amendment Bill (No. 2). As somebody who represents an electorate where a small amount of coal mining takes place, I would like to congratulate the speakers in the debate. It has been a very informed debate and I have listened to it intently. I pay special tribute to the honourable member for Macarthur (Mr Martin), the honourable member for Throsby (Mr Hollis) and the honourable member for Hunter (Mr Fitzgibbon), who have addressed the problems of their areas and the coal industry at large. The Customs Tariff (Coal Export Duty) Amendment Bill recognises some of the problems faced by the coal industry. I have seen at first hand in the West Moreton fields, which border my electorate and which are partly within my electorate, the dislocation that takes place when coal mines close. Due to the energy policies of the Queensland Government, many mines that were viable when they were supplying coal to places such as the Swanbank power station are no longer viable and underground mines are finding it very difficult to compete with the big open cut mines in the electorate of the honourable for Dawson (Mr Braithwaite). As has been said throughout the debate, the coal industry is of vital importance. It is Australia's leading export earner and one that we cannot afford to let go by. Mr Lloyd —Actually, wool has now replaced it. Mr BEDDALL —I am not sure about that. The Customs Tariff Amendment Bill (No. 2) clearly reflects the intention of the Hawke Government to revitalise Australian industry. This will be achieved by a reduction in the reliance of industry on protection and regulation. The Customs Tariff Amendment Bill (No. 2) contains a number of amendments to the Customs Tariff Act 1987. The original Act introduces a new tariff structure for Australia from January 1988. From this date, the country will be adhering to a new international harmonised tariff system developed by the Customs Co-operation Council. The new system will increase the number of good classifications from 2,700 to 5,019. However, goods will then be classified by their function and not the material from which they are made. Split tariffs will also be abolished. The amendments to the Customs Tariff Bill fall into three main categories: firstly, to implement government decisions on the development of the pharmaceutical products and the chemicals and plastics industries; secondly, to correct anomalies which have occurred with switching to the harmonised tariff structure; and, thirdly, to clarify the intention of the convention and correct errors in the original legislation. Once amended and operational, the system of common categories will greatly simply international trade. Each country, including the United States, which is a signatory to the convention, will implement the system. The Government's agreement to implement the harmonised tariff system further illustrates our policy to encourage internationally competitive Australian industries. Encouragement will be given by reducing trade barriers and the reliance of industry on tariffs and other measures for protection. In the past, Australian industries, especially manufacturing industry, have been reliant on protection to survive. As a result, industries became inward looking, catering for the domestic market rather than pursuing overseas opportunities. (Quorum formed) Due to this failure, Australia now faces a terms of trade crisis. Real prices for our traditional exports of mineral and rural products have fallen dramatically, as has been mentioned today in regard to the coal industry. The lack of foresight of previous governments has brought us to the current situation. It has now become urgent for Australian manufacturers to become export oriented to offset the decline in income from traditional exports. Australian industries have to become internationally competitive. I am pleased to say the Hawke Government has given them the opportunity to do this. We have embarked on a series of policies which are designed to revitalise Australian industry and set it on a new path. These Customs tariff Bills are part of that path. This Government has been fortunate to have in Senator John Button a Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce who has been forward-looking and relentless in his drive to improve the effectiveness and efficiency of Australian industry. The devaluation of the Australian dollar has lead to a great improvement in the competitiveness of our industry. It has allowed manufacturers to sell their goods overseas at lower prices, thus enabling them to establish overseas markets. However, the devaluation is only one of a number of policy initiatives the Hawke Government has undertaken. Incentives for industries to spend more time and money on research and development have been introduced. A 150 per cent tax concession was introduced from 1 July, 1985. In response, business expenditure on research and development increased dramatically. In 1985-86, after the incentive was introduced, expenditure increased by 54 per cent. It is anticipated that it will increase by a further 27 per cent in 1986-87. Small, innovative firms are eligible for grants under the industry research and development scheme. This scheme provides for 50 per cent of the cost of research projects to be met by the Government. Research is a vital area to the improvement of Australian industry. Development of that research is equally, if not more, important. What good is a new innovative product if no Australian companies will develop or manufacture it? There are many examples of Australian products having been sold in the past to overseas manufacturers who have then proceeded to make huge profits, selling the same product back to this country. The use of superconductors could very well be a future example of this. Will Australia allow overseas countries to develop the product and then use Australia as the main supplier of the raw materials needed? Will this country again miss out on the opportunity to reap the benefits? We must encourage our businesses to develop, manufacture and market their own products rather than rely on foreign technology. Australian companies have advice and assistance close at hand. The National Industry Extension Service, established by this Government, provides small and medium sized firms with the opportunity to improve their efficiency and to develop marketing and promotion programs. The Hawke Government has also established the management and investment companies (MICs) scheme, which aims to increase the availability of venture capital. The Australian Industries Development Corporation has had its role expanded to ensure that finance is available. The Corporation's lending to industry has increased from $248m in 1982-83 to $1,559m in 1985-86. This Government has shown a commitment to provide incentives for private investment. I believe the MICs are one way of achieving a goal of more self-reliance in industry. This is a dramatic departure from policies of the past which saw tariff protection as the only solution for our industrial ills. Another Government initiative is the creation of the Business Regulation Review Unit. The Unit aims to cut regulations which hamper the efficiency of Australian companies. The record of the Fraser Government was nothing short of abysmal in the tariff area. Despite its rhetoric, in the seven years the Liberal-National Party coalition governed this country, protection for industry only increased. There was little or no advance in the reduction of tariffs. There was no overhaul of the system as is now occurring with the introduction of the harmonised tariff system. In the Liberal Party of Australia policy speech of 1975, Malcolm Fraser said: `We will give Australian industry the protection it needs'. He also accused the Whitlam Government of `disruptive changes in exchange rates, tariff levels and other protective devices'. The Fraser Government had an opportunity to reform the tariff system but failed to do so. In 1977, the Industries Assistance Commission presented a report to the Government on the need for wholesale restructuring of the textiles, clothing and footwear industries. Malcolm Fraser's only response was to call for an inquiry into the future of the Commission itself. In November the textiles, clothing and footwear industries were given further assistance. The dinosaurs continued to be protected under the previous Government. It is worth emphasising that the industries which have in the past been most heavily protected by high tariff barriers have been the ones which, in the 1970s and 1980s shed the most jobs. Fraser campaigned during 1977 on his Government's record of industry protection. He even made the statement that to consider rapid structural changes for industry is in practical terms sheer nonsense. Blame for the non-reform of the industrial structure can also be extended to the current Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard) who was then the Treasurer. Fraser and his Government definitely had what observers called a credibility gap. While overseas Fraser advocated tariff reform, yet in Australia his rhetoric never matched his action. The record of the Fraser Government on tariff and industry reform was one of procrastination and non-action. Despite all the talk, assistance for the textile, clothing and footwear and transport and rural industries rose. That record compares unfavourably with that of the Hawke Government. In addition to the introduction of the harmonised tariff system, this Government has tackled the problem of assistance to the dinosaurs-the car, textile, clothing and footwear and steel industries. Plans to reform the chemical, plastics, heavy engineering, ship building, aerospace and computer industries have also been put in motion. The plan to cut costs and boost quality of steel production was introduced on 1 January 1984. Despite the current problems of that industry, I am sure that without those reforms the industry would not now be viable. It has already been a great success with productivity soaring and the Broken Hill Proprietary Co. Ltd now being one of the world's lowest cost steel producers. The Button plan for the car industry-introduced in 1985-aimed at increased modernisation and exports. Key features of the plan include the reduction in the number of manufacturers and models produced and the gradual phasing out of quota restrictions on imported cars. The plan is making good progress, with Ford commencing exports of cars to the United States next year. The textile, clothing and footwear industries are also being reformed under a plan announced in November 1986. The plan involves the gradual phasing out of import quota restrictions and a decrease in tariffs to 60 per cent by 1996. The Hawke Government's reforms show signs of success. The decline in employment in manufacturing-180,000 jobs lost in the decade to 1983-has been arrested. Investment and expenditure on research and development have grown strongly. Rates of export for manufactured goods have risen by 9.8 per cent in 1984-85 and 8.4 per cent in 1985-86. Reduced reliance on tariffs and other protectionist measures is vital for Australian industries. The Hawke Government has shown that it will not back away from industry reform, unlike conservative governments. The Customs Tariff Amendment Bill (No. 2) is another step in that reform, and I commend the Bill to the House. Mr BARRY JONES(Lalor-Minister for Science and Small Business)(6.04) —I thank honourable members for their contributions. I think it could fairly be said that the debate was wide-ranging. We thought that the Customs Tariff (Coal Export Duty) Amendment Bill was a quite narrow one but, of course, as soon as the noun `coal' is seen in the title it becomes an open sesame. Let me deal with the matters raised on the subject of coal first. Then I want to deal with the amendment to the second reading motion in respect of the other piece of legislation, the Customs Tariff Amendment Bill (No. 2), moved by the honourable member for Ryan (Mr Moore). I begin by addressing some of the comments from the Opposition, particularly the Leader of the National Party of Australia, the right honourable member for New England (Mr Sinclair). He argued that the whole excise duty should be abolished. The coal export duty (CED) was introduced in 1905, as has been said, to distribute windfall profits from coal exporters. In a sense, that is not something to which we would be strongly opposed. There is certainly an argument for abolishing differential taxes which apply to one particular industry. We would prefer a general regime, a resource rental tax, which is applied right across the board. I am not altogether in agreement with what the honourable member for Dawson (Mr Braithwaite) said. He made the point that if we have a tax which is imposed on an industry when it is going through a boom we ought to change the whole basis of the tax when it is not going through a boom. Of course, if the tax is sensibly calculated and graduated, it ought to be self-correcting. That would happen if we had a resource rental tax. If the Opposition wants to persuade some of its colleagues of a like persuasion in the States that we ought to have a resource rental tax regime throughout, taxes like this could in fact be abolished. but at this stage, in a period of very difficult budgetary circumstances, the CED makes a very important contribution to revenue and it has not been possible to dispense with it. I noted with interest that the honourable member for Bass (Mr Smith) appears to have an open mind about the resource rental tax. Maybe he can assist in convincing his State colleagues to consider the national interest. The honourable member for Macarthur (Mr Martin) and the honourable member for Hunter (Mr Fitzgibbon), who know the coal industry very well, made valuable contributions, as did the honourable member for Rankin (Mr Beddall). I especially acknowledge the work of the back bench coal industry task force in its efforts in conveying to this Government the concerns and anxieties of the people of the Australian coal fields-especially those people working on the New South Wales coal fields. Recognising the concerns that these honourable members have for the people and the industries in their electorate, I just want to outline very briefly the assistance being given to the New South Wales coal producers. Most important, of course, is that the Government, through its broader economic and industry policies, has produced a climate which is assisting Australian industry to compete effectively in international markets. I refer to the freeing up of the financial markets, floating the currency and generally moving towards a less regulated business environment. As was said earlier, the Government has negotiated arrangements with the New South Wales Government aimed at improving mine viability by reducing the impact of State government charges on the industry. So $40m has been granted to the New South Wales Government, a measure designed to alleviate the cost of freighting the coal to export ports. All these measures are designed to give relief to areas such as the south coast and Hunter Valley of New South Wales. The Commonwealth is taking steps to protect our overseas coal market by opposing the continued subsidisation of coal production in major consuming countries and protecting Australia's coal trading interests in major markets. In a characteristically thoughtful speech, the honourable member for Throsby (Mr Hollis) pointed out the long term perspective in the coal industry. Honourable members will have noted, I think just in the last couple of days, that wool has now come back as the primary export earner, and that coal will have serious problems. As the honourable member for Rankin remarked in his speech, the implications of the development of the superconductivity revolution which I have been talking about somewhat has the potential for a very serious impact on the coal industry. If it is possible to double the usable energy out of every tonne of coal, of course this will have a very detrimental effect on coal prices. So we have to be concerned about the long term implications for the industry. Mr Miles —And the environmental factors. Mr BARRY JONES —Well, the environmental factors mentioned by the honourable member for Braddon certainly have always been very serious. The total question of the implications of our coal exports for acid rain throughout the world will certainly force the world to rethink the question of alternative energy use and also energy conservation. Nuclear energy is one of the things that have to be looked at, but there are other alternatives. As recent experience has indicated in Europe and in Brazil, there are still peculiar difficulties with the nuclear industry. It would be foolish to understate the significance of that. I thank honourable members for their contribution to this debate. I turn now to Customs Tariff Amendment Bill (No. 2) and to the amendment moved by the honourable member for Ryan, which states: 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 the Government should (a) ensure that second hand engines imported meet the full requirements of Australian design rules and (b) correct anomalies that result in upward adjustment before phasing down of tariffs'. The view of the Government is that, while we understand the sentiment behind the amendment, it is not necessary and so we will oppose it. The Australian Design Rules are developed jointly by the Commonwealth and State governments and are then codified in State legislation; their administration is a State responsibility. The overwhelming majority of used engines entering Australia originate in Japan and almost all are designed for use with unleaded petrol. It would seem that most used engines installed here are being connected to original emission control equipment, fitted at the time of the vehicle's manufacture, rather than to catalytic converters designed for use with these engines. I am advised that, while no empirical tests have been undertaken, the nature and level of pollution emitted by an engine designed for use with a catalytic converter but connected to an earlier form of emission control is such that the engine would probably not meet the Australian Design Rules requirement for the vehicle in which it is installed. It is also my understanding that the level of pollution emitted from such engines can be considerably less than from the engines they are replacing. In considering the matter earlier this year-- Mr Moore —It can be considerably more, too. Mr BARRY JONES —Well, I am making a broad generalisation. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Millar) —I think the Minister perhaps slightly understates. Mr BARRY JONES —That is a very partisan comment from you, Mr Deputy Speaker. The Joint Commonwealth-State Committee on Vehicle Emissions and Noise concluded that the environmental effects are insignificant and did not warrant its intervention. It is also interesting to note that none of the State government instrumentalities dealing with such issues considered it necessary to give evidence at the Industries Assistance Commission (IAC) inquiry into the engine reconditioning industry. The issue of infringements of emission regulations associated with the importation of used engines would, therefore, appear to be based on a question of principle and self-interest rather than on broader community interests. The relevant State instrumentalities have the legislative power to enforce these regulations and, at least in some States, I understand are doing so at annual registration checks. So, against this backdrop, the Government does not consider the tariff to be an appropriate instrument for addressing the environmental issues associated with the importation of used engines. On the second issue that has been raised, the process of introducing the harmonised tariff has involved a comprehensive inquiry by the IAC, early circulation of its draft report and final report, early circulation of the draft working tariff pages and final working tariff pages to be used by the public, and this amendment Bill which contains the compelling industry cases which have been considered necessary. The acceptance of the IAC's option 2 for the harmonised tariff involved streamlining of descriptions of goods into their new groupings. The Government considers the ultimate benefits associated with acceptance of that option are of prime importance. However, already essential compelling industry cases have been considered by the Government and are incorporated in this Bill. I add that further consideration of individual compelling cases, each on its merits, will be provided until 31 December 1987. Amendment negatived. Original question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. The Bill. Mr BARRY JONES(Lalor-Minister for Science and Small Business)(6.16) —by leave-I move: (1) Clause 2, page 1, line 8, omit ``and 2'', substitute ``, 2 and 3a''. (2) After clause 3, page 2, insert the following new clause: Repeal ``3a. Section 28 of the Principal Act is amended by omitting subsection (1) and substituting the following subsection: `28. (1) Each of the Acts referred to in Schedule 6, and any Act passed in 1987, to the extent only that it amends an Act so referred to, is repealed.'.''. (3) Schedule, page 11, omit- ``4002.92.90 - - - Other 15% DC:10%'', substitute- ``4202.92.90 - - - Other 15% DC:10%'' (4) Schedule, page 23, omit- ``8714.19.10-Exhaust systems and parts thereof 8714.19.90-Other DC:15% 2%' '' substitute- ``8714.19.10-Exhaust systems and parts thereof 20% DC:15% 8714.19.90-Other 2%' '' (5) Schedule, page 23, after amendment No. 123 insert: ``123a. After Additional Note 1 to Chapter 90 add: `2.-This chapter does not cover gas pressure regulators (so called) of the piston or diaphragm type, of a kind used with compressed gas cylinders or reticulated gas pipeline systems, incorporating a pressure reducing valve or the like, whether or not combined with a pressure gauge (8481).'.''. (6) Schedule, page 24, after amendment No. 126 insert: ``126a. Omit 9306.10.00-substitute `93206.10.00-Cartridges for riveting or similar tools or for captive-bolt humane killers and parts thereof 20% DC:15%' ''. ``126b. Omit 9306.30.00-Substitute `9306.30.00-Other cartridges and parts thereof 20% DC:15%' ''. (7) Schedule, page 24, omit the heading ``Amendments of Part I of Schedule 4'' together with the two amendments listed under that heading, substitute the following: ``Amendment of Part I of Schedule 4 Omit item 16.'' (8) Schedule, page 24, omit- `` `36a Goods classified under 3503.00.10 of Schedule 3, as prescribed by-law 2% DC:2% 36b Goods, as prescribed by by-law, classified under a heading or subheading of Schedule 3 specified in the Table below, entered for home consumption on or before 31 December 1991: 2% DC:2% THE TABLE 1519.30.00 2905.19.10 3503.00.10 3702.92.00 2827.20.00 2905.29.00 3701.30.00 3702.93.00 2836.23.00 2905.39.00 3701.91.00 3602.94.00 2836.20.00 2912.60.00 3701.99.00 3702.95.00 2903.40.10 2915.39.10 3702.32.00 3814.00.00'', 2905.12.00 2915.70.00 3702.39.00 2905.14.00 2915.90.00 3702.44.00 2905.17.00 2921.45.00 3702.91.00 substitute- `` `36a Goods classified under 3503.00.10 of Schedule 3, as prescribed by by-law 2% DC:2% 36b Goods, as prescribed by by-law, classified under a heading or subheading of Schedule 3 specified in the Table below, entered for home consumption on or before 31 December 1991: 2% DC:2% THE TABLE 1519.30.00 2905.19.10 3503.00.10 3702.92.00 2827.20.00 2905.29.00 3701.30.00 3702.93.00 2835.23.00 2905.39.00 3701.91.00 3702.94.00 2836.20.00 2912.60.00 3701.99.00 3702.95.00 2903.40.10 2915.39.10 3702.32.00 3814.00.00''. 2905.12.00 2915.70.00 3702.39.00 2905.14.00 2915.90.00 3702.44.00 2905.17.00 2921.45.00 3702.91.00 In summary, the amendments are necessary to overcome a legislative deficiency contained in the principal Act, to correct some assistance anomalies which have been brought to notice following passage of the principal Act, and to correct printing and proof-reading errors contained in Customs Tariff Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1987. Amendments (1) and (2) propose a technical drafting change to section 28 of the principal Act. This section currently repeals the Customs Tariff Act 1982, its amending Acts and any Acts passed in 1987 which amend those Acts. The section was reworded to provide for Acts passed in 1987 which amend the Customs Tariff Act 1982, in addition to other Acts. The recently passed Sea Installations (Miscellaneous Amendments) Act 1987 is an example. The amended section will repeal only that part of the 1987 Act which amends the 1982 tariff, leaving the balance of the Act operational. This amendment will have effect from the date of royal assent. Consequential to this amendment, amendment (7) deletes proposed amendment 1 of part I of schedule 4 to the principal Act, which is now redundant. Amendments (3), (4) and (8) correct printing and proof-reading errors contained in the Customs Tariff Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1987. Amendment (5) restores the current assistance level for local production of gas regulators and clarifies the harmonised system intention that these goods not be treated as pressure gauges. This amendment is necessary following a recent decision by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal. Amendment (6) redresses another assistance anomaly which has become apparent following publication of the harmonised tariff. It proposes to restore general assistance levels for certain ammunition by increasing duties on these goods from the 10 per cent and 15 per cent in the principal Act to 20 per cent. Amendments agreed to. Bill, as amended, agreed to. Bill reported with amendments; report-by leave-adopted. Bill (on motion by Mr Barry Jones)-by leave-read a third time. Consideration resumed from 23 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 Barry Jones) read a third time. Mr Young-Mr Deputy Speaker, I suggest that the sitting be suspended now until 8.30 p.m. as honourable members have to go outside the House for refreshments. Sitting suspended from 6.21 to 8.30 p.m. Debate resumed from 23 September, on motion by Mr Kerin: That the Bill be now read a second time. Mr LLOYD(Murray)(8.30) —The purpose of the Wheat Marketing Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1987 is, first of all, to allow the responsible Minister to issue guidelines to the Australian Wheat Board, which in turn will allow the provision of 50 per cent of the cost of the operational expenses of the Grains Council of Australia from Wheat Board funds. This is to compensate the Council for the cost of preparations for consultations between the Council and the Board, as required by the legislation, in addition to the travel expenses incurred by the Council for those consultations. This is a reasonable arrangement and it is in line with other statutory marketing arrangements; and it certainly has the support of the Opposition. The second purpose of the Bill concerns the composition of the selection panel for membership of the Wheat Board. That will be altered to replace the Chairman of the Board and two representatives from the National Farmers Federation with wheat growers selected by the Grains Council. The Grains Council supports the change, but there is some unhappiness in the industry about the removal of the Chairman of the Wheat Board. This is particularly so in Victoria. The Minister for Primary Industries and Energy (Mr Kerin) has indirectly acknowledged this by commenting in his second reading speech on ways in which the views of the Chairman may be included, such as in the selection criteria. I also note a Press release, dated two days ago, by the Acting Minister for Primary Industries and Energy, the Minister for Resources (Mr Peter Morris), announcing the appointment of the new Australian Wheat Board Selection Committee, which actually rather predates the legislation. I do not think there is any point in getting too uptight about that, particularly when people in the Government were spreading the completely false rumour that the wheat industry legislation may not be passed this session because of the tactics of the Opposition. The third purpose of the legislation is to incorporate the Government's policy of positive discrimination, or affirmative action as we in the Opposition would correctly call it-the Government calls it equal employment opportunity-into the requirements for employment for the Wheat Board. This is similar to the procedures that have been forced on the Australian Meat and Live-stock Corporation and the Australian Wool Corporation. It is equally unnecessary for the Wheat Board, as it is for those other statutory marketing authorities, and I believe it is counterproductive to the purpose of the Wheat Board. It interferes with the technical skill requirements for staff for that organisation and it also belittles any woman or other person classified by the Government in the legislation as disadvantaged who, in the normal way, would be employed by the Board. This legislation comes at an interesting time for the Wheat Board, because there are two very significant Federal inquiries into the wheat industry and the Wheat Board, both pertinent to this present legislation. There is the Royal Commission into Grain Storage, Handling and Transport and there is the Industries Assistance Commission (IAC) inquiry into the wheat industry. Both of these inquiries have issued preliminary reports and, if the final recommendations are anywhere near the preliminary recommendations, they will have major implications for the future of the industry. I first mention the point of the Royal Commission. It has identified cost efficiencies amounting to significant savings in the transport, storage and handling of grain, depending on which of several operations will finally be adopted and, for that matter, which it finally recommend. In this inquiry there is considerable and, I believe, justifiable criticism by the wheat industry of the double standards applied by State rail authorities to the rail transport of grain compared to other commodities and, in particular, compared to suburban commuters. I largely exempt from this criticism Australian National because in South Australia it has to compete in open competition with road transport, which is not the case in other States. In South Australia the road transport of grain is really the most competitive because of the shorter hauls and the range of grain terminals, which does suit road transport. Australian National has been forced to compete and, to my knowledge, competes reasonably well. Its total loss is about $70m a year, and I think only about $20m to $25m of that is accountable from its South Australian operations. We can compare that with Victoria, where over 100 per cent cost recovery is forced on wheat growers, while at the same time there is less than 40 per cent cost recovery from suburban rail commuters. I think the situation in New South Wales is much the same. In other words, there is a monopoly requirement for grain to be transported by rail in these two States-and to a lesser degree in other States. Overcharging follows that monopoly. Of course, this is what the Royal Commission is drawing attention to. In total in our State rail systems there is a $3,000m annual operating deficit. I believe, and the Royal Commission believes, that competition is the only way in which to make our State rail authorities efficient. The question of road damage is raised when one considers open competition for grain between road and rail. I am not aware of any information or evidence from South Australia that this is so, but one can argue that anything that makes the State rail authorities more efficient and reduces their deficits should allow for the provision of more assistance for road construction and maintenance. The Industries Assistance Commission has delivered its draft report for the wheat industry for the next five years, commencing 1989. I make the point that they are only draft recommendations at this stage. Put in simple terms, the major recommendations are: to terminate underwriting; to remove domestic marketing from the control of the Wheat Board; and to reduce its export marketing monopoly. If these same recommendations are in the final report, I believe they would be unfair. They are unfair to one of the most efficient industries this country has, one of the least assisted industries. Underwriting is triggered only about every ten to fifteen years, but it does provide, by that security net, an ability for both the Wheat Board and individual wheat growers to borrow more easily than would otherwise be the case. I would similarly argue against not just the removal of underwriting but its reduction to about 80 per cent, which would have largely the same effect as removing it. I believe the wheat industry should be very cautious about accepting a reduction in the role of the Wheat Board, even if the final report of the IAC recommends that way, because the wheat industry still has the same problem that has bedevilled similar industries for many years, that is, many sellers and few buyers. We have plenty of examples of other primary industries in Australia suffering that fate at the present time, and the wheat industry should not be forced to return to that position. Because of seasonal situations in Australia, the forecast is considerably reduced production of wheat for this year, down several million tonnes. That will mean fewer exports, with implications for our balance of trade as well as for the cash flow for individual growers. I think every wheat producing State has examples of where the season has been rather cruel to the wheat growers. That is perhaps still to occur in some areas where harvesting has not commenced and where the actual extent of the yield reduction is not known, but in some States, particularly in the northern section of the wheat belt and in parts of Western Australia and South Australia, such as the Eyre Peninsula, this is now known. The bad news is there. In some areas, such as the Eyre Peninsula, already marginally viable wheat growers are facing very serious cash flow and viability problems because of the seasonal situation. In other words, they will not have a harvest, they have no income and they have all these expenses. This situation brings with it increased requirements for the rural adjustment scheme. Several of the States, including South Australia, to my knowledge, have already made requests to the Minister for Primary Industries and Energy for increased rural adjustment assistance for wheat growers. I think the real problem for rural adjustment at the moment is with the wheat growers. In the Budget the Minister announced what sounded good-an increase in allocations for the rural adjustment scheme. But in fact-and his Press release indicates this-there will be only half the number of loans possible this financial year compared with the average of the last two years when the rural adjustment scheme has been operating under the present arrangements. The Minister has indicated that there will be a review of the future and the role of the rural adjustment scheme. But I want to reiterate the point made by the wheat industry and State Ministers for agriculture that the time to act is now in order to provide more assistance through the rural adjustment scheme and to lift the total lending and borrowing ability through the scheme so that these wheat growers can be assisted. Not only is the reduction coming both in wheat stocks and in the wheat harvested in Australia, but also there is a reduced world stock of wheat. That means that, if the wheat export industry or wheat exports were operating in a logical and purely commercial situation, international prices should be increasing. The biggest single problem inhibiting this situation is the export enhancement program of the United States of America and, to a lesser extent, the export policies of some other countries, particularly the European Economic Community (EEC). These countries are reducing the price or keeping the price lower than it needs to be in a most unnecessary way. There is the ability-and Mr Condon of the Wheat Board has indicated this on a number of occasions-to get more out of the market so that, irrespective of which country may be providing these export subsidies, there is some relief for the taxpayers of those countries. One can use as an example the recent sale from the United States to the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics of 2.4 million tonnes of wheat where there is a $30 a tonne subsidy to the Russian consumers. That is one of the ironies of the export enhancement program. The American wheat growers-more particularly, the American taxpayers-are subsidising the Russian consumers. I would like to refer to the October issue of Farm Journal, which is one of the leading United States farm magazines. It states that for the two years of the export enhancement program, of which wheat is a significant part, $US1.5 billion has been provided in sales through the enhancement program for only an additional $2.2 billion sales of total product. That means that in that export enhancement program there has been a 68 per cent subsidy component to generate those additional sales. That means that even though there may be reduced stocks or availability in Australia, there will still be difficulties in selling our wheat or selling it at a commercial price. Because Australia has this devastating international debt of $110 billion to $120 billion, we should be encouraging every efficient and worthwhile export that we possibly can in order to reduce this terrible debt. That means that the Australian Government should be doing all that it can to encourage wheat exports. But in fact the very opposite is happening right here and now with wheat exports. Egypt is our third largest wheat export market, yet at this very moment sales to Egypt are being jeopardised by changes that this Government has recently made to the export finance insurance cover-the extent of cover and the cost of the premiums for the sales. I am advised that our ability to retain this market in Egypt is continuing to deteriorate. It is in even greater jeopardy today than it was two to three weeks ago when this problem first surfaced. The Government has reduced the level of cover from 85 per cent for the first year on repayment and 95 per cent on subsequent years to a flat 80 per cent. It has increased the premium being charged to the Australian Wheat Board by 50 per cent and has reduced the maximum tonnage to 1.5 million tonnes from over two million tonnes. Egypt has a debt problem-that is internationally recognised-but my information is that it is meeting its schedule of repayments to the Wheat Board. Therefore, this additional restriction on our exports, particularly to Egypt, should not be necessary. This situation can be compared with that of our major competitors in the Egyptian market, such as Canada and the United States. The governments of those countries provide complete cover for that type of market and the EEC, of course, automatically covers it through its restitution program. Mr Peter Fisher —It is short sighted. Mr LLOYD —It is terribly short sighted and terribly unfair. For example, we have just had the announcement that $20m is being provided to the coal industry, which I acknowledge is a great export industry of this country. It deserves to be and must continue to be, as the honourable member for Dawson (Mr Braithwaite) indicated this afternoon. But this $20m is really going to-- Mr Hawker —Pork-barrelling. Mr LLOYD —That is right. It is really going to the New South Wales railways and there will be no improvement in practices in return. An amount of $140m is being provided to the gold industry because no taxation is required from that industry. Mr Braithwaite —What does the wheat industry get? Mr LLOYD —The wheat industry is basically getting nothing, yet increased premiums and reduced cover are required of it for our third largest export market. It is so unfair to see the double standards that have been applied to exports from this country. The Opposition parties will support this legislation with the exception, as I noted earlier, of amendments in relation to affirmative action, positive discrimination, or, as the Government likes to call them, the equal employment opportunity measures. These amendments will be moved in the committee stage. In conclusion, I appeal to the Government to do two things to assist the wheat industry at this time: first, to review the level of assistance for the rural adjustment scheme with a view to increasing it, as many of these wheat farmers will be facing a very grim future without that assistance; and, secondly, to review its situation with regard to the penalties being applied to the Wheat Board for sales to Egypt. Mr CAMPBELL(Kalgoorlie)(8.48) —The Wheat Marketing Amendment Bill (No. 2) contains some very commonsense measures. I agree with the general thrust of the remarks of the honourable member for Murray (Mr Lloyd), although there are a couple of points to which I take exception. I begin with the area of equal opportunity. By and large, this is something for which we should strive, and I support the thrust of the Bill. However, I am told that in New South Wales-and it often feels like a foreign country to me-there was a case recently involving the New South Wales legislation which forbids women in employment to lift more than a certain weight. A large company in that State did not employ women because of this restriction and was promptly taken to court under the anti-discrimination legislation and fined heavily. That seems to be a rather bizarre way of going about things. I hope that that is not true but, unfortunately, it has a ring of truth about it. I believe that the wheat industry has been able to adjust itself to increasing competition and I pay tribute to it for doing so. Certainly in Western Australia and South Australia it is an industry which is showing signs of getting its act together in terms of storage and transport, and that is highly commendable. The honourable member for Murray mentioned the Australian National Railways, but he failed to mention Westrail, which is doing an excellent job in containing costs in rail transport. It is interesting to note that it is receiving a lot of support from farmer organisations for the very good job that it is doing. (Quorum formed) Before I was interrupted I was commenting on the initiative and efficiency introduced by Westrail into grain carting. Recently in this House I gave credit to the former Minister of Transport in the Burke Government, Mr Julian Grill, who I thought had done an excellent job. It was drawn to my attention by the Commissioner of Westrail that the initiatives were all the work of the railways, and I apologise for this oversight, but I would make the point that the railways did not show this efficiency before Mr Grill became Minister. One of the problems I have on the subject of road transport is that the Royal Commission into Grain Storage, Handling and Transport and the Bureau of Transport Economics both showed a large cost under-recovery from road transport. There is no doubt that the damage to some of our roads, particularly our rural roads, by heavy vehicles is severe. Clearly it is not light vehicles but heavy vehicles that damage roads. I think that we must address this problem and consider the total social cost. If damage by trucks means that the system is not paying its way, I believe that there should be an adjustment. It is not good enough simply to say that rail must become more efficient so that it can subsidise road construction. There is not a lot to be said on this Bill, so I hope the Chair will not mind my ranging over initiatives taken by the industry. At Esperance, which is in my electorate, a Mr Colin Bielkin is an engineer who has made a potential contribution to efficiency in the wheat industry in this area. He has adopted a process developed by the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation (CSIRO) and has negotiated with the State Energy Commission to use its waste heat. He proposes to put up a grain drier at the Port of Esperance terminal which would enable wheat growers to deliver wheat at 15 per cent water content against the present requirement of 12 per cent. In an area such as Esperance this would reduce harvest time by a third. If that happens, costs can be reduced more than proportionately, with the potential to save a lot of lost wheat and production. The system is cheap to operate and can handle about 50 tonnes an hour 24 hours a day on a three months continuous basis. Indeed, it could handle the entire crop in the Esperance area. This process has been well researched and documented by the CSIRO; I understand that it involves a fluidised bed drying mechanism. It is fully supported by the CSIRO and by the Western Australian Farmers Federation, but I am afraid the co-operative bulk handling organisation is dragging its feet. That organisation is ultra-conservative and it should show some responsibility and move quickly so that the harvest in the Esperance area can be accepted at higher humidity levels. Obviously the process could be applied throughout Australia in areas with similar climates and will be a big project in future. This is particularly the case as I expect wheat production to move slowly but surely into high rainfall areas, with the advent of high yielding grains which are being used in Europe. Mr Peter Fisher —What will happen to quality, Graeme? Mr CAMPBELL —There is a trade-off in terms of quality, but I am told that the quality loss in some of these new varieties is not that high. Obviously the industry must keep abreast of the latest technology. I believe that we will come under increasing pressure in the world in respect of chemical residues in grain. The world will start demanding very stringent conditions far beyond what is reasonable. However, this is a fact of life that will occur, and I believe that the day will come when we shall have to consider irradiating our wheat for sale on the world market. That irradiation will have to be with cobalt 60 and it is essential for Australia to keep abreast of that technology. The other aspect of the Bill that I would like to mention relates to the provisions enabling the Australian Wheat Board to give funds to industry bodies. Clearly it is important for industry bodies to be adequately financed, but because the money the Board receives comes from contributors or from the sale of a product that is compulsorily acquired, the figures have to be carefully audited. It is essential that the money is not used for agro-political purposes. One can imagine the damage that the National Farmers Federation (NFF) could have done if it had had access to this sort of money. There is no doubt that the blatant political campaigning of the NFF in the last election campaign did that organisation enormous damage, from which it may not fully recover. The provision in the Bill is wide and ironically probably provides protection for the NFF in view of its performance in this regard. In regard to the Industries Assistance Commission (IAC) report into wheat handling, I agree with the honourable member for Murray. I think that it would be a backward step if wheat growers were cajoled into going away from the present position of the Australian Wheat Board. One can make a superficially attractive argument for it, but I do not think that the argument would stand up in terms of practical experience. I hope people will be cautious before jumping into a decision that would weaken the powers of the Board, if that is recommended by the IAC. In conclusion, I too want to say something about rural adjustment because it is a very important area. A little complacency has been creeping into some areas of the rural sector now that most of the rural sector has been going much better and it is only the wheat industry that is still in diabolical trouble. The rural adjustment guidelines must be broadened. We must be prepared to finance farmers who are obviously in a non-viable situation because of a one-off mistake. Farmers who have a proven record of production should not be lost to the industry, because we cannot afford to lose any more efficient producers. These people are efficient producers, they have never produced grain inefficiently; they are in trouble because of a decision they made which, in hindsight, was unfortunate or silly but which seemed quite reasonable at the time. We must be prepared to look at the producers with good records of production and who are in a non-viable position because of a one-off mistake. If necessary, the cost of that mistake must be written off in some way so that the producers do not have to endure the whole impact. Conversely, some people in the industry should not be in it, and we should look at financing those people out of the industry on a more generous basis. Those people might want to retire to a country town, and we should look at every means possible to allow them to do that. If we do not, there will be a continual decline in country towns, and that will be very regrettable. Without doubt, one of the greatest dangers faced in this country is the growing dichotomy between the city and the country. If we stopped to think about that, we would realise that it is a risk and danger to this country that far exceeds the debt or any other financial problems that might confront us. Accumulation of interest is another area which must be looked at. Cases exist where interest continues to accumulate on debt when farmers are in an impossible position. There is absolutely no doubt that some of those people are in that position because financial institutions gave them advice which caused them to be in that position. For some of them, there must be a moratorium on the continuation of piling interest on the debt burden, thereby compounding the problem. Quite frankly, that is a responsibility that some of our financial institutions must face; it is, in fact, one which they have a moral obligation to face. I would certainly support legislation in this House to force them to do so. Mr HAWKER(Wannon)(9.03) —I was very interested to listen to the words of the honourable member for Kalgoorlie (Mr Campbell); in fact, I agreed with most of them. I agree with all of the words he said about the support for farmers and about the efficient farmers. I was particularly interested when he started talking about the possible application of irradiation to the wheat industry. I wonder how he squares that off with some of his colleagues, but, no doubt, he would like to talk about that with them in private. However, I take exception with one point: towards the end of his speech, the honourable member spoke about interest rates. He must accept the fact, as most people in Australia do, that it is his Government that has been responsible over the past 18 months or so for some of the highest real interest rates in the history of this country. We cannot get away from that fact. It is something with which the honourable member will have to live for quite a while. When he talks about farmers who have a problem because of high interest rates, he must look in the mirror. The Wheat Marketing Amendment Bill (No. 2), as the honourable member for Murray, the Deputy Leader of the National Party of Australia (Mr Lloyd), pointed out, relates to a number of matters regarding wheat marketing and the Australian Wheat Board. As he mentioned, some amendments will be moved during the committee stage to the equal opportunity provisions of the Bill to make absolutely sure that they cannot be interpreted as positive discrimination provisions. As he mentioned, the Bill also proposes changing reference to the Australian Wheatgrowers Federation to the Grains Council of Australia. It will also allow the Minister for Primary Industries and Energy to issue guidelines to the Australian Wheat Board governing the provision of any assistance the Grains Council might be given in relation to consultations. There are also to be changes to the membership of the Australian Wheat Board Selection Committee which will bring it into line, as the honourable member pointed out, with the set piece the Minister likes to have for all his statutory marketing authorities. It is important to realise that the wheat industry is one of Australia's most efficient, low cost export industries. Its relative efficiency can be seen in an effective rate of protection which varies from a negative figure to about 5 per cent, compared with the average effective rate for manufacturing of about 24 per cent. Therefore, it is not an industry that gets a lot of assistance, and it certainly is not an industry that cannot stand on its own two feet. Having said that, I think some of the comments about the marketing of wheat made by the honourable members for Murray and Kalgoorlie are very pertinent. The wheat industry is currently facing three major issues. The first, and obviously most immediate, is the fact that wheat growers have been suffering low prices for some time now and, in some cases, that has been absolutely devastating. I have to support the words of the two previous speakers with regard to the rural adjustment scheme having additional funds to help those people. Some people have been in the industry for 20 years or more and have been devastated by the effects of bad seasons and high interest rates. The effect not only on their businesses but also on their whole families has to be seen to be believed. It really is heart breaking to see what it has done to some people. The second big issue facing the wheat industry is the Royal Commission into Grain Storage, Handling and Transport, which is now reaching the point where it will produce a report to the Government towards the end of January next year. All honourable members who are interested in the wheat industry are looking forward with considerable interest to what that report will have to say. The third big issue facing the wheat industry is the renewal of the Wheat Marketing Act, which is not due until the middle of 1989. In the meantime, the Industries Assistance Commission (IAC) has brought out its draft report on the matter, and that draft report is now up for discussion. It has caused considerable concern among a number of wheat growers and a number of people who have spent a lifetime in wheat growing. Some of the recommendations send shudders down their spines, to put it mildly. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mrs Darling) —Order! I ask the honourable member for Wannon to cease for a moment. I point out that the level of conversation is a little high. I do not know whether honourable members are aware but their discussions are amplified. Although they are very interesting, they distract me from listening to the speaker. Mr HAWKER —I am greatly honoured that you, Madam Deputy Speaker, want to listen to just one contribution. To realise the size of the wheat industry and to put it into perspective we can look at the last Quarterly Review of the Rural Economy issued by the Bureau of Agricultural Economics, which shows that the gross value of production in wheat in the current year is nearly $1.9 billion. It is a big industry; it is the third biggest primary industry and the third biggest export earner in Australia. Although it has fallen back quite considerably since the peak year of 1983-84, it is still a very major contributor to our export income. It also produces about 10 per cent of the total gross value of rural production. It is interesting to note that the wheat production estimated for the coming year is just under 13 million tonnes compared with the 1983-84 figure-the big one-of 22m tonnes. When we look at the effect of low prices, we see that the area that is sown to wheat in the current year has fallen quite dramatically from the 1983-84 season. It is down to just over 9 million hectares, and the drop in the current year is more than the total drop for the previous three years. Farmers have responded quite dramatically to the fall in prices over the past year or so, and where possible they have moved heavily out of wheat into other primary industries, particularly crops and also some of the livestock industries, particularly sheep. Mr Tim Fischer —And work very hard in the process. Mr HAWKER —As the honourable member says, they work very hard. It is interesting also to look at the size of the industry in relation to the number of people involved; there are 45,000 wheat growers. The industry is quite big by any measure. The point I should like to make is that those people have worked damned hard to get where they are. I would also like to point out the relevance of the Royal Commission into Grain Storage, Handling and Transport and its importance when we consider what has happened to the price of wheat as a result of off-farm charges imposed on the wheat industry. Ten years ago wheat was priced at approximately $126 a tonne and off-farm charges represented approximately 15 per cent of the average price. Today wheat is priced at just under $150 a tonne-the increase is fairly small; only about 20 per cent-and off-farm charges represent nearly 38 per cent of the average price; an increase of more than 250 per cent. Obviously the charges increased at the rate of inflation but returns per tonne to wheat growers have not. I have a table which outlines the position on a year by year basis. I seek leave of the House to have the table incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. The table read as follows- GROWER PAYMENTS Average price Average charges (deductions) Off-farm charges as a percentage of the price of wheat Average net return to growers $/t $/t % $/t 1986-87... 144.70 (-17.8%)...54.83 37.9 94.00 (-22%) 1985-86... 175.17 54.27 31.0 120.90 1984-85... 183.06 49.79 27.2 133.25 1983-84... 163.77 41.96 25.6 121.81 1982-83... 176.45 25.00 14.2 151.45 1981-82... 156.44 34.25 21.9 122.19 1980-81... 155.13 30.45 19.6 124.68 1979-80... 153.08 20.36 13.3 132.72 1978-79... 126.91 19.56 15.4 107.35 Source: ACIL Australia. Mr HAWKER —I thank the House. It is pertinent and timely that the Royal Commission is holding this inquiry because obviously the off-farm charges are rising dramatically and seriously impacting on the industry. In its modelling and in its discussion papers, of which it has produced five now, the Royal Commission has estimated something of the order of $8 a tonne could be saved by improving the efficiency of handling, storage and transport of wheat. I am sure the issue will be debated at some length at a later stage when the Royal Commission brings down its major report. I allude to the Royal Commission at this stage because it has done a terrific job and produced a lot of good information. It has analysed the wheat industry probably in more depth than has ever been done before. We will look forward to some strong recommendations from the Royal Commission and I hope the Government will act swiftly on those recommendations because a saving approaching $200m a year is a saving worth having by any measure. As the wheat industry is one of the major export industries, it is very important that when the recommendations of the Royal Commission are brought down they be implemented and implemented quickly. Some of the difficulties the wheat industry is facing, especially the oversupplied world markets and the distortions of the markets created by various countries subsidising wheat growers-in particular the European Economic Community (EEC) and, to a lesser extent, the United States of America-have already been pointed out. It is interesting to see what is happening in some countries. For example, in Saudi Arabia, the Government pays a Saudi Arabian wheat grower $1,000 a tonne to produce wheat just because Saudi Arabia wants to be self-sufficient. Yet the Saudis could probably buy grain on the world market for approximately $US80 a tonne. That shows some of the stupidity that goes on around the world. I shall mention some of the initiatives that have been taken by the Grains Council of Australia, particularly its Chairman, Mr Charles, who initiated a forum to be held in Australia, possibly in April next year, to try to get together wheat growing organisations from five of the major wheat growing countries, namely, the United States of America, Canada, Argentina, those of the EEC, and Australia, to discuss the problems of overproduction that are affecting the industry and dramatically affecting the price. It is to the credit of the Grains Council that it has taken this initiative. One hopes that it will achieve something worth while through that initiative. I said earlier that I would mention the IAC report, which has sent shudders down many wheat growers' backs and has unnecessarily raised concerns among many growers, particularly those who have been in the industry for 30 years or more and who can remember what it was like before the Australian Wheat Board was established. Although the Opposition commends the IAC for the creating further debate, I shudder to think about what would happen if the Government took up all its recommendations. As that report will again be a matter of debate some time hence, I shall not go into detail on it. The wheat industry is to be commended for the way it has handled itself through an extremely difficult couple of years. Unfortunately, some wheat farmers will not see through the downturn. I repeat: those individuals have suffered greatly; their families have suffered greatly. It has to be seen to be believed what the downturn has done to some of the farmers. Nonetheless, the wheat industry is a major export earner and will contribute to our balance of payments. There are some prospects for gradual improvement but it will take time. I hope the Government will accept the recommendations of the Royal Commission and act on them promptly because it is inevitable that the objectives will be worth while. The Royal Commission has already highlighted some inefficiencies in the handling, storage and transport of grain. The IAC draft report will stir up a lot of controversy but I hope that, because of that controversy, we have a much more sensible Wheat Marketing Act which can be implemented before June 1989. In principle, the Opposition supports these minor modifications to the present Wheat Marketing Act but, as pointed out by the honourable member for Murray, the Opposition would like to strengthen the section on equal employment opportunity to make absolutely sure that there is no positive discrimination. Mr O'KEEFE(Burke)(9.17) —When one goes to the core of the arguments in the debate on the Wheat Marketing Amendment Bill, one recognises there is very little disagreement between both sides of the House. Both sides of the House recognise that the wheat industry has had some traumatic experiences and that the amendments in the Bill are necessary and represent an ongoing evolution of new approaches to our world marketing policies and the growing policies associated with the world market-that is, relating the producer's activities to the markets we can secure fairly consistently. I am not surprised that the Opposition has expressed concerns again about the introduction of the equal opportunity components in the legislation covering the activities of these statutory authorities. The Opposition seems to be concerned about equal opportunity every time it arises. It is something we have to learn to live with. The Opposition has a particular view of the place of women in society and the way they ought to be treated in the work force. Everything the Government does progressively in the area seems to attract little protest from the Opposition. Also, I was in accord with the comments made by my colleague the honourable member for Kalgoorlie (Mr Campbell) about the activities of banks and the banking sector and the way they have gone about lending. I also wanted to comment on some of the activities in the electorate of the honourable member for Wannon (Mr Hawker) who preceded me in the debate because he made some points of interest. I shall touch upon the lending issue raised by the honourable member for Kalgoorlie. In our activities as members of the country task force of the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke)-- Mr Robert Brown —Good members, too! Mr O'KEEFE —Yes, a very committed group of Government members who represent a large number of rural constituents. I shall return to that in a moment. We have met with people in the wheat industry all around Australia, we have become involved in making representation to the Royal Commission into Grain Storage and Handling and we have had a look at the grain handling issue. One of the things that struck us was the activity of the banking sector and the way in which it was loading up loans to farmers who were having difficulty in meeting their repayments. We were successful in having the Prime Minister address this issue directly with leaders in the banking sector. To the extent that it was possible, some discipline was brought about in the area. I want to make an observation about the approach of honourable members opposite. If the honourable member for Wannon will forgive me, I cannot help but refer to events in his electorate. Prior to his election-his predecessor was the Prime Minister at the time-he oversaw large scale protests in the electorate of Wannon, including, if I remember correctly, a blockade of the saleyards. The protests were about the fortunes of the cattle industry. Farmers in the area were very discontented with the activities of the previous Government, which was responsible for the structure of the whole approach to the marketing of primary producers' commodities. Primary producers were experiencing difficult times then, so much so that in the honourable member's electorate there was considerable unrest. If he has a short memory on these matters he might discuss them with the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs (Mr Hand), who is at the table. Before his election he spent a lot of time-- Mr Hand —I put the blockade on for him. I had to help him out. Mr O'KEEFE —The Minister, in fact, organised the blockade. Mr Hand —At the request of the farmers. The only time the farmers ever spoke to me was when I pulled a strike on outside the yard. Mr O'KEEFE —At the request of the farmers. To refresh his memory about the activities of the rural sector in his electorate prior to this Government's election perhaps the honourable member ought to consult the back issues of the Warrnambool Standard and the Hamilton Spectator. Many Government members, including my colleague the honourable member for McEwen (Mr Cleeland), who has been very active in the country task force-- Mr Tim Fischer —Has it been reactivated? Mr O'KEEFE —Yes, it has. It is visiting the Warragul district next week to look into a number of issues related to the Gippsland area. The honourable member for Gippsland (Mr McGauran), who has just entered the chamber, will be pleased to know that I cannot help but take this opportunity to respond to some comments made by his brother, the newly-elected senator for Victoria, Senator McGauran, who in the other place described my seat of Burke as the Government's gerrymander and went on to talk about-- Mr Peter Fisher —Madam Deputy Speaker, I take a point of order. I am enjoying this, but surely to goodness we are speaking about wheat tonight and not about the gerrymander that exists in the electorate of Burke. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mrs Darling) —Order! I take the point of order, although I point out that, since I have been in the chair, I have exercised some flexibility in regard to comments by honourable members on both sides of the House. Nonetheless, I ask the honourable member for Burke to return to the question to hand. Mr O'KEEFE —Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I am sure that as I develop what I am saying you will see that there is great relevance in what I am saying because the fact is that my electorate has a heavy rural component and that, as honourable members know, I have been very active in representing my country constituency, including having been a member of the urgent all-party trade delegation to Washington in May to address issues relating to wheat. Yesterday, in his comments about wheat and agriculture, the new junior senator talked about the National Party approach to rural activities and policies. He made some comments about wheat. So you will see, Madam Deputy Speaker, that my retort is very relevant. The honourable senator spoke directly about my electorate and my activities in this area. The National Party claims to represent country people, yet in the new Parliament who does it bring in as new senators? Firstly, it brings in an ex-Treasury boffin, a former Canberra bureaucrat-- Mr Tim Fischer —Madam Deputy Speaker, I take a point of order. Interesting whilst this might be-and all honourable members were forced to dine out tonight, I remind the House-I ask that you direct the honourable member to return to the contents of the important Bill before us. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER —I take the point of order and ask the honourable member for Burke to get back to the content of the Bill. Mr Hand —Madam Deputy Speaker, I take a point of order. There is an implication behind the comment about dining out. Some of us did not get the opportunity to dine out. If Opposition members dine out, that is their problem. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER —There is no point of order. Mr McGuaran-Madam Deputy Speaker, I take a point of order. I ask you to rule on whether the honourable member's use of the word `buffoon' to describe an honourable senator is unparliamentary. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER —I missed the word. Most certainly it would be an unparliamentary expression regarding any member of this or the other chamber. I ask the honourable member for Burke to withdraw the comment if he used the word. Mr O'KEEFE —As the Hansard report will later be able to confirm, Madam Deputy Speaker, I did not describe the Senator as a buffoon, as the honourable member for Gippsland has obviously done. I described him as a Treasury boffin and mandarin. I return to the relevance of National Party policy. Honourable members opposite who have spoken in this debate about this legislation claimed to know about country people. In my electorate, which has a 70 per cent rural constituency, the National Party polled less than 4 per cent at the last election. Not only did it choose as one of its candidates the Treasury mandarin I spoke about but also it went ahead and elected from Victoria a Melbourne city councillor and motel owner, claiming that he represented country people. Mr Peter Fisher —Madam Deputy Speaker, this is all very interesting but I want to hear what the honourable member for Burke knows about the wheat industry. He is being totally irrelevant, and offensive to your ruling. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER —The honourable member has raised a valid point of order regarding relevance. Although I have exercised flexibility, I expect members to address the issue to hand. They may introduce other matters but they should not make a speech on them. Mr O'KEEFE —Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. Returning to the Wheat Bill, I will refer to the comments made by Senator McGauran on wheat. Mr Hand —Is he related? Mr O'KEEFE —He is. He is part of the clan, I gather. I understand that they spent something like $250,000 getting him here. I will be very interested to see where Senator McGauran stands on the Wheat Bill. His voting record in the other place-(Quorum formed) Just before the Opposition called the quorum on me I was mentioning that I would be very interested to see how Liberal Senator McGauran votes on the Wheat Bill-- Mr McGauran —National. Mr O'KEEFE —Yes, he is a National senator. It is my understanding that he has not been turning up for divisions in the Senate-and one can check the records on this. The family has spent $250,000 getting this Melbourne city motel owner here, purportedly to represent country people, and he has not been turning up. Mr Peter Fisher —Mr Deputy Speaker, I raise a point of order. On three occasions now I have had to take a point of order on the honourable member. I am sorry, but he has to be relevant to the Bill. The previous Deputy Speaker has already ruled that he was not relevant and he is continuing in the same vein. Mr Peter Morris —Mr Deputy Speaker, on the point of order: I have listened to the debate during the evening. The Bill itself is very narrow. Most of the debate on both sides of the House this evening has been fairly wide of the mark. A considerable degree of latitude has been extended by the Chair, and I suggest, Mr Deputy Speaker, given your background, long experience and wisdom in these matters, that it should continue. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Millar) —I remind the Minister that we are talking about a wheat Bill. There is no room for corn. The honourable member for Burke is required to be relevant, but I request him not to cast his seed too far. Mr O'KEEFE —Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I am winding up. I was drawing attention to my interest in how this Bill will fare in the other place. I was explaining that a National Party senator has not been attending divisions, and I have found out why. I understand that, having just come here, he cannot stand the sound of the bells in his room-so he has taped them up. He cannot hear the bells and he is missing the divisions. Mr Peter Fisher —My Deputy President, I raise a further point of order. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! Happily, I think the honourable member for Burke has concluded his remarks. Mr O'KEEFE —No, Mr Deputy Speaker. There was a point of order. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —The Chair has acknowledged the point of order and taken the matter into its own hands. I was just rather hoping that the honourable member for Burke had concluded his remarks. If that is not the case, he is entitled to proceed, but I require him to be strictly relevant. Mr O'KEEFE —Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I think I have made the points I wanted to make, so I will wind up by saying that I support the legislation. Mr PETER FISHER(Mallee)(9.37) —I rise to speak on the Wheat Marketing Amendment Bill (No. 2), a very important piece of legislation. Listening to the last speaker, the honourable member for Burke (Mr O'Keefe), one would not have thought it was important. He treated this Bill on the wheat industry with absolute contempt. He did nothing but laugh and joke his way right through his speech, and I am appalled that we are getting this sort of view tonight from some members of the Australian Labor Party on what is a very significant piece of legislation. This Bill amends the Wheat Marketing Act, and the Government is implementing certain provisions that arose out of Government policy contained in the White Paper Reform of Primary Industry Statutory Marketing Authorities. The Bill also seeks to incorporate in that Act provisions consistent with the Government's policy on equal employment opportunity. The Bill basically has four purposes. First of all, it intends to introduce equal employment opportunity policy to the Australian Wheat Board's functions. I have to say here and now that we oppose this part of the legislation, not because the National Party of Australia does not believe that we should take all action possible to remove discrimination against women, whether it be discrimination on grounds of sex, marital status, race, religion, financial matters or any other grounds, but because we believe that any appointments in employment, no matter where they are, should be based on merit alone. That is the reason why the clause dealing with this aspect will be opposed. The second thing that the Bill does, of course, is to change the name of the Australian Wheat-growers Federation to the Grains Council of Australia. It also allows the Minister for Primary Industries and Energy to issue guidelines to the Australian Wheat Board governing the provision of funds to the Grains Council of Australia in relation to consultation between that Board and that organisation. I support this measure as it is important that all wheat growers pay for the activities of their organisations, and not just the members of those organisations. It is a welcome measure. The fourth change made under this legislation involves alterations to the membership of the Australian Wheat Board selection committee to bring it into line with the committees for other marketing statutory authorities. I recognise that the Grains Council of Australia agrees with this particular proposal, but I raise a query as to why it is necessary for the Chairman of the Australian Wheat Board to be removed from a role on the selection committee. If he were there he would not have a majority position, but he would be able to influence the decisions taken by that Board by virtue of the knowledge that naturally the Chairman of the Australian Wheat Board has in relation to this industry. I have absolutely no complaint about the new Wheat Board selection committee as it was announced on 16 November, but it is interesting to me that this new selection committee, which is being set up under this particular piece of legislation, has in fact been announced before the Bill has gone through the Parliament. I find that difficult to comprehend. The Australian wheat industry has made one of the most significant contributions of all the rural industries to the gross value of Australia's rural production in recent years. Over the period from 1981-82 to the present time the wheat industry's average gross value of production has been very close to $3 billion. This represents approximately 19 per cent of the gross value of total rural production. The corresponding figures for wool and beef over the same period are in fact significantly less than this, although we all recognise that over the last 12 months the wool industry has moved ahead of the wheat industry and is today our largest rural income earner. The wheat industry's prominent place in Australia's rural production has been mirrored in this contribution to rural exports. This contribution has in recent years averaged 23 per cent of total rural exports. It is important for honourable members on the other side of the House, members of the Government, to recognise that this represents about 8 per cent of total Australian merchandise exports over this period. What I am trying to say to the House is that, without the Australian wheat industry and without Australian rural exports, this economy would be in much worse shape than it is at present. Mr Braithwaite —The contribution of wheat must be nearly as good as that of sugar. Mr PETER FISHER —The wheat industry's contribution is very significant. I think it is ahead of that of the sugar industry, but sugar, of course, is very important as well. The one thing we must recognise about the wheat industry in Australia is that it is internationally competitive. It is an export orientated activity which, prior to the triggering of the underwriting arrangements in 1986-87, operated with minimum levels of assistance. While activities beyond the farm gate are subject to extensive regulations, negligible regulation applies to the industry. Such adjustment assistance as it receives has been within the context of general arrangements for the rural sector and has been minor in terms of the overall adjustments which have occurred within the industry. By almost any criterion wheat growing must today be judged as one of Australia's most efficient activities. Today the wheat industry is carried out by some 45,000 independent growers, decentralised farm businesses located over a wide range of regions. The words that I have just used come directly from the draft report of the Industries Assistance Commission (IAC) on the wheat industry that was recently made available to us. Having stated those words, I really ask the Parliament and the IAC why, when the IAC has given such commending reports on the Australian wheat industry, they have moved to recommend major changes to the wheat industry which have today thrown it into a state of great apprehension, concern and dismay. As we have seen over the last few years, world wheat prices have followed a downward trend in real terms. Agricultural policies throughout the world have had a depressing effect on world wheat prices. The policies of the United States of America and the European Economic Community (EEC) have caused declines in the world wheat price of up to 10 per cent. As I have said, the most influential countries that have taken this protective action have been the United States and those of the EEC. These policies have been estimated to have reduced real net farm income in wheat growing areas by some 3 to 5 per cent. In its draft recommendations, the IAC has basically recommended that the Australian Wheat Board lose its monopoly power in wheat marketing and has also recommended that the guaranteed minimum price as a form of evening out fluctuations in prices in the wheat industry be abandoned. It is my view that the guaranteed minimum price for wheat has been the crown jewel of orderly marketing even on a global scale and it must be retained at all costs, with the Australian Wheat Board firmly lashed to its helm. In my view-I know it is the view of most wheat growers both within Australia and throughout the world-the Board is without peer as a selling agent in the world market-place. Last year Australia was the only major exporting nation to sell all of its wheat on what was a hopelessly bloated market. Therefore, it is beyond my comprehension why anyone should recommend that an efficient selling machine, which has the absolute confidence of wheat growers and the respect of Australia's customers, should be replaced. It is my view that, if the Australian farmers lose as a result of the IAC recommendations-that is, lose by the ending of the guaranteed minimum price and by the curtailing of the marketing functions of the Wheat Board-this efficient Australian industry will be exposed further to corrupt world markets, with no capacity to cushion farmers against price and production fluctuations. We need continually to remind ourselves in this Parliament-I direct my comments particularly to some of the younger wheat industry producers-of the stability that they have known and that has prevailed in the Australian wheat industry over decades and to remember that the Australian Wheat Board has a unique marketing role and record. As I have said, we were the only major exporting nation last year to have exported all our wheat, and at a time when the Australian wheat industry was the least protected and the least assisted industry in the world. Mr Braithwaite —And selling into the most subsidised markets. Mr PETER FISHER —As I have said, we are selling into corrupt world markets. Even at the domestic level protection amounts to about 2 per cent compared with approximately 26 per cent of protection that we still provide for manufacturing industry in this country. If governments wish to institute changes, I believe that the greatest benefit that can flow to the Australian wheat growers will come from decisive action following the tabling of the report of the Royal Commission into Grain Storage, Handling and Transport and not by destroying one of Australia's most successful governing bodies. The Australian Wheat Board has provided a unique stability. I believe I can say that with tremendous confidence, because I think I am the only wheat grower who has so far spoken on this Bill tonight. The Wheat Board has provided enormous confidence to the industry. It has given equity to Australian wheat growers. In other words, irrespective of the geographic position in which the wheat is grown, it has received a similar price. There are few industries in this country or throughout the world that could claim that such equity applies in their industry. The great difficulty lies with domestic costs. These probably fall into two major areas. The first is the cost of transport. It is a tragedy that in my home State of Victoria we have seen alarming reports recently of slashed charges by the Grain Elevators Board and V/Line to try to stop the flow of Victorian grain into the cheaper handling systems of South Australia and New South Wales. In fact, I believe growers were under instructions even to remain silent about concessions of up to $5 a tonne in freight reductions that were being offered if they would continue to use the Victorian rail system. Of course, this is a direct result of increases in grain freight charges which were announced just a fortnight ago by the Minister for Transport in that State, Mr Roper. It was absolutely certain that some perhaps half a million tonnes of wheat would go to the cheaper South Australian and New South Wales grain handling systems, which of course would mean a loss of about $10m in freight and perhaps $7m in handling charges to our State. Mr Neil Simpson, who is President of the Grains Division, said that V/Line, the State Transport Authority, had invested some $125m in grain haulage in Victoria since 1983 but that this investment would prove to become a monument to folly if the system could not obtain grain volume to justify that outlay. I emphasise that the area of transport is a most significant one in which this Government can take charge and ensure that some of the domestic costs, which include the cost of fuel, are lowered for the Australian wheat grower. I do not intend to speak a great deal longer on this piece of legislation but I would like to raise one or two issues that I believe are important for the wheat industry, which I hold in high regard but which I believe has to take note of these if it is to retain its position of quality on the world market. The world market for the wheat industry and for the whole grain industry is today becoming very sophisticated. It was interesting for me to listen tonight to the honourable member for Kalgoorlie (Mr Campbell) who made an excellent speech in this debate. He is obviously not a clone of the Australian Labor Party, as are the rest of his other mates, and is not seeped in the ideology of that Party. Some of his comments tonight were both enlightening and worthy of understanding and implementation by the Minister for Primary Industries and Energy (Mr Kerin). For the first time for some years, world wheat usage today is more than production. Of course, a lot of this can be related to the wet weather that has been experienced by the EEC. But it is very obvious that the quality of Australian grain is gradually declining, probably due to a general deterioration in our soils, but probably more importantly due to the massive increase in productivity that this industry has experienced over the last few years. As we all know, the higher the yield, the lower the protein content. There is not the slightest doubt that Australian wheat growers today face the issue of quality. Over the years we have led the world in the colour and cleanliness of our grain and the world has a high regard for it. But Australia has to acknowledge that our grain quality is declining and, unless we ensure that its quality increases, we will have difficulty selling our grain on most of the world's demanding markets, particularly that of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. It is obvious that breeding and improved varieties are only a short term solution because, as I have said, as production goes up, quality goes down. It is also obvious that artificial fertilisers such as nitrogen, which are very expensive, are not the answer as grain growers would need a high premium for their wheat at a time when grain prices are under extreme pressure. There is no doubt that rotation and going back to mixed farming techniques, where advanced agronomy practices are reintroduced, would be the answer to some of the quality problems that the wheat industry is experiencing. I mention these points because I believe that some of the difficulties farmers are experiencing today in retaining their quality, in ensuring that the fertility of their soils is improving rather than declining, are very much related to domestic policies here in Australia. Declining quality, in my view, is very much the result of the enormous social and economic pressures that have been imposed on Australia's farming community, particularly with fuels, with tariffs and, of course, unfortunately, with the need for the use of chemicals. It is therefore of great interest to me and I commend the Australian Wheat Board for its moves in trying to establish a quality payment scheme whereby farmers will be paid on the protein quality of the wheat they deliver to the terminals. I acknowledge that this is a very important initiative by the Board and I am pleased to see that the wheat growing industry is responding to it. I conclude my remarks by mentioning that primary production in this country is not just a matter of production; it has to have the support of government. One of the new legislative measures coming before the Parliament this week will impact on the viability and fortunes of Australian farms. The assets test on the qualification for unemployment benefits has today been made mandatory at a 2.5 per cent capacity of a property to produce and is no longer discretionary, as it has been over the past few years. The downturn in the Australian wheat industry over the last few years, particularly in my electorate of Mallee-I know the electorate of the honourable member for O'Connor (Mr Tuckey), who is in the House, has been affected as well-- Mr Tim Fischer —And Farrer. Mr PETER FISHER —And Farrer. Many farmers have been able to fight through the last 18 months with some support from the social security system. I am concerned that this Government has taken action at this time to remove the opportunity for self-employed people, whether they are farmers or people in other forms of business, to participate in the social security system when absolutely necessary. I am very concerned about this measure and I ask the Minister for Primary Industries and Energy, when he returns from overseas, to look at some of the recommendations that have been put forward by rural industries, by rural counsellors and by social welfare organisations in rural Australia to try to meet this need that will be so inevitable if some of the natural disasters and economic downturns that occur from time to time in rural Australia are not met with the same sort of compassion as we seem to be able to give to other sections of the community. Mr ANDREW(Wakefield)(9.53) —I am pleased to have the opportunity to make some comments on behalf of the electors of Wakefield on the Wheat Marketing Amendment Bill (No. 2) currently before the House. It is rather timely that the Bill should be discussed tonight. While we discuss this in the House the farmers in the electorates of Wakefield, Farrer, Murray, Mallee, O'Connor and many other electorates are preparing to harvest this year's wheat crop. For many of them harvesting this year's wheat crop will mean having to go round and round in ever diminishing circles, hoping to come to the end of what ought to be a productive paddock. From what was a very frivolous address to this House earlier tonight from the honourable member for Burke (Mr O'Keefe), it is obvious that the Government fails to recognise-- Mr Tim Fischer —It was disgraceful. Mr ANDREW —I agree entirely with the honourable member for Farrer. The Government has failed to recognise that for many farmers this year's wheat crop will not be what they wish it to be. The reality is that to much of the nation a poor finish to the season means that crops will be well below average. This year the Australian Wheat Board predicts that the harvest will be something like 2.2 million tonnes, which will be the lowest harvest since the 1982-83 drought. As the honourable member for Wannon (Mr Hawker) has already said, the reality for the majority of wheat growers across Australia is that, while prices have risen by 20 per cent, costs are up by 250 per cent. So it is scarcely surprising that the acreage sown to wheat-and the acreage sown to barley for that matter-has fallen dramatically and that the fall in acreage and the reality of a season that has not finished as well as most farmers would have hoped mean that we face this disastrously low harvest. I do not wish to delay the House unduly tonight as I am conscious of the hour and of the fact that there are other members who want to speak. I will endeavour to avoid being repetitious. I endorse entirely the remarks made by the honourable member for Wannon and the honourable member for Mallee (Mr Peter Fisher) about the McColl Royal Commission into Grain Storage, Handling and Transport, about the interest rates that farmers currently have to service and about the fall in production that is the reality for the majority of grain farmers. In particular, I support the reference made by the honourable member for Mallee to the dilemma that farmers face over transport costs. I want to refer to two other quandaries faced by Australian farmers. The first is the inescapable problem of plague locusts. I was rather astonished to discover that farmers in south-western New South Wales, as reported in this week's Australian, are facing a real plague locust problem. Precisely the same thing is happening in my electorate. The plague locust swarm is moving north from the station country closer and closer to the grain country around Orroroo. I was astonished, when talking with those who are responsible for controlling the plague locusts as they move closer and closer to the key wheat producing areas of Wakefield, to discover that it is calculated that spraying to date has killed 6,000 tonnes of plague locusts. One can imagine the number of plague locusts it takes to make up 6,000 tonnes. That is the sort of figure the House should ponder when considering what is currently being done to protect not necessarily this year's wheat crop, because much of that has advanced beyond the point at which major damage will occur, but all other green feed material which is so important to the mixed farmers as we go into the summer. Having made that comment, I refer to the fact that much of the plague locust control that is so important to farmers around Australia currently takes place using the chemical fenitrothion. It is that chemical which is being used in south western New South Wales and in my electorate. It is on that note that I refer to the concern that has been brought to the attention of the wheat industry over the whole threat of pesticide residues-one of the pesticides, oddly, being fenitrothion even though, in the form it is used for plague locusts, it is relatively safe. To take up the point made by the honourable member for Mallee, if we are to continue to have markets for Australian wheat and sell our wheat on a quality basis it is necessary for farmers to recognise the danger they face with less than discriminate use of pesticides, herbicides and weedicides. There is no doubt that what makes it possible for us to market wheat on the world market is our quality. We must continue to be vigilant, lest the sort of reputation-unfair, I might say, but nonetheless a reputation-that the Australian beef industry currently has to bear be carried by the Australian wheat industry. I make those remarks without intending to be in any way critical of the wheat industry or, may I say, of the beef industry. As you would have noticed, Mr Deputy Speaker, in today's Australian, it is reported that the beef industry in Australia is currently in a safer state than is the beef industry in any other part of the world, and that pesticide residues in Australia have been reduced from 0.5 per cent to 0.1 per cent which is lower than the world average of 0.4 per cent of locatable excess residue. It is important that the grain industry, in endeavouring to maximise its export markets, take every precaution against pesticide residues which could cost it export markets, not necessarily because the farmers have been careless in their application but because those who would compete with us for valuable export markets for our grain choose to use what would be seen as infringements as good reason to erect unfair trading barriers. The legislation before the House frankly endeavours to achieve four things. It brings into the Wheat Marketing Amendment Bill for the first time equal opportunity provisions which will apply to the functions of the Australian Wheat Board. It changes the reference to the Australian Wheatgrowers Federation in the Wheat Marketing Act 1984 to the Grains Council of Australia. The legislation is designed to allow the Minister for Primary Industries and Energy (Mr Kerin) to issue guidelines to the Australian Wheat Board governing the provision of funds to the Grains Council of Australia in relation to consultations between the Board and that organisation. Finally, it makes alteration to the membership of the Australian Wheat Board Selection Committee, to bring it into line with committees of other major statutory marketing authorities. As has been said by the previous speakers, the Opposition does not oppose the thrust of this legislation, but the honourable member for Murray (Mr Lloyd) will move an amendment which will mean that the equal opportunity provisions will then apply in a manner which we believe is entirely proper. They will focus totally on merit, and on merit alone. I, along with the rest of the Opposition, support the changes to the Bill proposed by the Government, and also support the amendment to be moved by the honourable member for Murray. Mr TUCKEY(O'Connor)(10.01) —As the member for the electorate of O'Connor, I represent one of the largest wheat growing areas in Australia, certainly in area if not in actual tonnes of wheat grown. Western Australia is a major wheat producer, and the electorate of O'Connor probably encompasses 90 per cent of those wheat growing areas. It has not been a particularly good year for wheat growing in Western Australia, just as it has not been for all of Australia. I understand that we are probably looking at a situation in which 12 million tonnes is the best we can anticipate compared with good years which produce 16 million tonnes. Of course, it is the 4 million tonnes that is the profit or the margin for wheat growing. The cost of producing a crop is practically the same whether the farmer produces one bag or 10 bags. The only difference is the slightly higher freight charge to get it away from the farm. It is quantity that counts in these hard times. It is not a good time and unfortunately in the electorate of O'Connor, although the rains, peculiar as they were, were carrying the crop through in excellent style until the end, we did not get the finishing rains. I have considerable fears for the welfare of many wheat growers who have been subjected to very low prices in recent times. We are debating wheat marking legislation. I have heard a number of honourable members tonight speak with great concern about the Industries Assistance Commission's report and its recommendation for the Australian Wheat Board. I have to say, on behalf of growers in my electorate, that they also wish the Wheat Board to be retained and I think they wish it to retain its powers of acquisition. I am their representative and I always respect that my personal views are not the ultimate in my responsibility. My responsibility, as always, will be to the people who put their trust in me when they elected me. Nevertheless, they frequently say to me, `I would not like to go back to the days of the Depression'. It was in the Depression that they got 1s 6d a bushel or something like #2 14s a ton when they could pay a working man #2 a week-in other words, one week's wages for one ton of wheat. They should compare that with today when they are netting, if they are lucky, $115 a tonne. They are very fortunate if they can get in gross terms, particularly with the addition of the fringe benefits tax and all the other things that this Government has imposed upon them, a worker for $300 a week. In other words, in relative terms they have slipped to a position of half of that which applied previously. We know there are international circumstances causing that, but we should not say, for instance, that centralised marketing has been our salvation in terms of price. Our salvation has been the fact that back in those days of the Depression we could grow about 500 acres of wheat if we were very lucky. Probably it was more like 200 acres because we put it in with teams of horses. We were subject to the time it took to achieve that compared with the great speed now. There are now machines available and operating in my electorate that can plant an acre of wheat in a minute and, of course, we have the advantage of chemicals, spray seeding and all sorts of other techniques today. Nevertheless, on the other side of the equation we have seen a great distortion occur in who gets the profit out of the wheat. It is amazing to think that that when men walked up huge stacks of wheat and carried wheat on their backs, it was relatively substantially cheaper to shift that wheat to market than it is today. I add that those fellows, for some unknown reason, did not get repetition strain injury, either. We might take some account of the very spartan conditions of employment in those days and the health of the workers, although no doubt, as was very evident in many farming areas, there were a lot of bad backs. But hard work did not always affect people in the way that we now find that easy work affects them. When I look at the Royal Commission into Grain Storage, Handling and Transport instituted by this Government, I wonder why we need a royal commission to tell us what we already know. But I thank the Government for the initiative, because the Royal Commission's evidence might be believed. It has become very clear that a huge burden is placed on wheat growers today. According to the Royal Commission, 52 per cent of the sale price of a tonne of wheat is presently being consumed in freight and handling charges. That is plainly ridiculous when we consider the cost inputs of producing a crop of wheat today, the up-front taxation that must be paid and, more importantly, the risk factor. It is downright heartbreaking to hear some of the remarks that have been made and some of the evidence given by the various government and semi-government authorities relating to their position in all of that. Road transport is used for wheat to a degree in Western Australia. I do not want to be critical, but I was interested to hear the honourable member for Kalgoorlie (Mr Campbell), who also has some responsibility to grain growing areas adjoining my electorate, mention tonight that it is his belief that road transport does not pay a sufficient contribution to cost recovery on the road system it uses. He suggested, as is the myth in our society, that road transport does not pay its fair share compared with rail in terms of cost recovery. That is patently false, because it is not up to road transport to dictate where its taxes are spent. I have in front of me evidence that I get updated every year from owner-drivers in my State that continues to support the fact that 30 per cent of the revenue of an owner-driver truck operator, operating a semi-trailer of 20 tonnes of earnable capacity, goes in taxation. I have reminded this Parliament of my own experience about eight years ago in Western Australia. In operating a 40-tonne road train, my cost of sales tax on the tyres that I was using on that truck with a little of luck-that is, with just fair wear and tear-represented 50c a tonne. There is a huge tax contribution by road transport. The fact that governments of various political colours fail to direct that to road construction is no fault of the road transport industry. It is quite clear that the Royal Commission has supported remarks that I made in my submission in recommending that more consideration be given to roads. I do not want to go into whether government enterprise is efficient and private enterprise is not. There are other factors. In making my submission to the Royal Commission, I drew its attention to the fact that in Western Australia 1,200 tonnes of wheat is shifted per annum over each kilometre of rail track. Yet up in our iron ore areas 80,000 tonnes of iron ore are shifted over each kilometre of rail track per annum. When one makes that simple comparison it becomes very clear that frequently the capital investment that we have in rail sitting there all year doing nothing else apart from carting a bit of superphosphate out and all the wheat back as is frequently the case in my State, is ill advised. Change would present some problems for certain people, including those who have a good job maintaining the rail system. They are also constituents of mine. But I know that if I could turn that level of spending to some of my country areas, there would still be prosperity and jobs for those people. There was a time when all sorts of skills were needed and the hard-working people in my electorate could get employment servicing the farming areas. They have now lost that employment because the buying power of the principal producers, the grain growers, is not there. There was a time when all sorts of trades and skills were resident in the country towns in my electorate, but they are not there today. We can have one form of employment or we can have another, but in the national interest we must reduce that figure of 52 per cent of the value of a tonne of wheat which is consumed in freight and handling-that is, getting it to the customer. One of the most heartbreaking areas of that cost is the fact that international shipping people put a premium, which I am presently advised is of the order of $6 a tonne, on the freight charges that they apply to provide the international shipping component of that cost, purely and simply to insure themselves against the intransigence of our waterfront unions. A ship owner told me, `We treat you like a war zone'. But there is a difference between the circumstances of the Red Sea and the Arabian Gulf and Australia. The ship owner said, `In the Arabian Gulf we lose ships occasionally. In Australia we never know when we are going to get them back'. That is heartbreaking. I will concede the right of a working man to take industrial action in his own interests if he is being improperly treated or if he thinks that his remuneration is falling below a community standard, but when it comes to the point where a substantial number of the strikes have something to do with Fiji or some decision in the United Nations, that is a disaster. When live-sheep ships can get by with any kind of standard because there is a high percentage of work for the wharfies but bulk ships get the treatment because there is insufficient work, that is bad news. That is heartbreaking. It has nothing to do with the welfare of one group of workers and it has a hell of a lot to do with the lack of welfare of others. A premium of $6 a tonne is like taking the product out into the street and putting a match to it. Overseas shipping people take the premium whether they get a clear run or not; it is the insurance that they charge. And those sorts of things must stop. The wheat industry has a lot more to do than the results of this piece of legislation indicate. It has been mentioned that the principal purpose of the Bill is to ensure that within the statutory authorities in this area there is more cognisance of whether sufficient numbers of women are being employed. It is called sex discrimination of one kind or another. I think that that is a minor problem for the industry. At the moment the industry is battling for survival against world markets. But if we think we can convince politicians in America that they should put their seats at risk to save ours, we are fools. The only solution to the well-being of the wheat industry in Australia is to become more competitive. When more than half the cost of producing a tonne of wheat is off-farm, it is pretty clear where we should look for our solutions. We all boost our farmers and boast about their level of efficiency, but then we blow it all out the window through the cost of freight and handling. In the present environment there is a potential saving on that cost of up to $20 a tonne nationally; and I have identified that $6 a tonne is spent in a most ridiculous way-a price charged for intransigence; not for inefficiency or laziness but just for giving the shipping companies of the world a hard time. I am aware that there is a limit to the amount of time we have to speak on this matter. Therefore, I will limit my remarks to those I have made already. Let me finish on this point: lest people think that road transport does not have a role to play, I should point out that farmers rely heavily on road transport to get their wheat to the ports. The honourable member for Kalgoorlie seemed a little critical of trucking, yet most of his constituents rely heavily on road transport. Trucking organisations in my electorate are shifting 74 tonnes of wheat per load-legally and at very little risk to the community. There is a real and positive role for road transport, particularly in replacing many of the spur lines within the rail system which are not practical. The great tragedy is that while we have a rail system we invariably build a bitumen road alongside it. In many of the more underpopulated areas we cannot afford both. We will have to make some decisions about this. As I cannot see people driving their kids to school along the railway line, it appears that in those areas we should look very closely-as the Royal Commission has recommended-into more road transport. This is only in the interest of the profitability of the wheat industry. I am all for profit, because I see people spending profits-and they spend them for the welfare of others. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Millar) —Order! It being 10.15 p.m., the debate is interrupted. I propose the question: That the House do now adjourn. Mr Peter Morris-I require that the question be put forthwith without debate. Question resolved in the negative. Debate resumed. Mr PETER MORRIS(Shortland-Minister for Resources and Acting Minister for Primary Industries and Energy)(10.15) —I would like to thank all those honourable members from both sides of the House who have participated in the debate this evening on the Wheat Marketing Amendment Bill (No. 2). It is important legislation and, despite the narrowness of the provisions of the Bill, this has been a fairly wide-ranging debate. Some comments have been made on the Royal Commission into Grain Storage, Handling and Transport and on the Industries Assistance Commission inquiry. These are very important inquiries but they are not relevant to the Bill before the House. It is sufficient to say that the Government will act on both in a way that will seek to maximise export returns from the sale of wheat, to reduce costs to wheat growers as and where possible, and to ensure that we have a viable wheat growing industry. Comments have been made about the national interest insurance cover and the sales of wheat to Egypt. I dealt with this matter in answer to a question in this chamber last week-only a matter of days ago. The Government took cognisance of the total national interest and took a responsible and prudential approach to the issue. There is a large and growing contingent liability on the Government's account and due account must be taken of this. The Australian Wheat Board can continue to sell wheat to Egypt with the Government's support. However, we are not in the business of subsidising, and growers must assume some responsibility for the risk. The whole burden of the industry should not be placed solely on taxpayers. We should note that this is a time of low availability of wheat. It should be noted that the provisions agreed to for wheat sales apply also to all other sales made with national insurance cover. The Opposition has also suggested that the Government should provide more money for the rural adjustment scheme. It would seem that the immediate needs that have been suggested during the course of debate relate to drought in Queensland and South Australia. I would like to point out that the rual adjustment scheme excludes drought. The issue is really one for the States-it is up to them to initiate action for drought relief. The Government will soon make a pay out to the industry of some $220m for underwriting purposes and parts A and C of the rural adjustment scheme are still available to growers. Overall, the Government has taken responsible action in setting a proper macroeconomic environment for the industry to operate in. Among other things, we have implemented much needed financial reform. We are lowering protection to industries with an input into the rural sector. The Australian dollar has declined to the benefit of exporters. We have reduced the Budget deficit and we have implemented major public sector reform. In addition, we are emphasising efficient export-oriented industries. The last matter I want to refer to relates to the equal employment opportunity provision. That provision within the Bill will not affect the operation of the Australian Wheat Board, which has good staff and which the Government believes operates efficiently. The Australian Wheat Board is already practising equal employment opportunity by employing the best people available for the jobs that have to be done. The Grains Council of Australia supports the Bill and is keen to see its early passage and the benefit of the amending legislation. As I said, I thank all those honourable members who participated in the debate and I commend the Bill to the House. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. Message from the Administrator recommending appropriation announced. The Bill. Mr Tim Fischer-Mr Chairman, I draw your attention to the state of the mace. (Quorum formed) Mr LLOYD(Murray)(10.22) —by leave-I move: (1) Clause 3, page 3, line 27, at the end of the definition of ``equal employment opportunity program'' add'', but not so as to permit or require any positive discrimination on the grounds of sex, marital status, race, religion, or on any other grounds''. (2) Clause 11, page 6, after proposed section 45aa insert the following section: Object of equal employment opportunity program ``45aaa. The object of the equal employment opportunity program developed under section 45aa is to eliminate discrimination and promote equal opportunity and nothing in this Act shall be construed as permitting or requiring any positive discrimination on the grounds of sex, marital status, race, religion, or on any other grounds.''. These amendments are identical to those that were moved to the meat and livestock legislation which recently went through the House and they are being moved for the same purpose. The opposition parties believe that the insertion of positive discrimination or affirmative action clauses is not appropriate for statutory marketing authorities. I emphasise the point that the Opposition parties are in favour of equal opportunity; however, this is not equal opportunity legislation but affirmative action legislation. Therefore, it introduces rather than removes discrimination. We believe that that is inappropriate in principle, and particularly in statutory marketing legislation. For the reasons I gave in my earlier remarks on this Bill, and also in debate on the meat and livestock legislation and the legislation relating to the Australian Wool Corporation I commend the amendments. Mr HAWKER(Wannon)(10.25) —I support the amendments, the basic thrust of which is to put into legislation beyond all doubts the fact that the Opposition supports equal opportunity, but that we wish to make absolutely sure that it is equal opportunity and nothing more. On a number of occasions similar provisions have been included in other Bills passed by this Parliament which have been interpreted by some people in departments as an excuse to institute positive discrimination. If members of the Government do not support positive discrimination, they should have no difficulty in supporting these amendments. The amendments put beyond all doubt the fact that we support equal opportunity, and no more than that. I support the amendments for that reason. Mr PETER MORRIS(Shortland-Minister for Resources)(10.26) —As I said in my response to the second reading debate, the amendments will be rejected. The Government feels that they are unnecessary. There is nothing in the legislation that would encourage positive discrimination. In fact, proposed new section 45ac on page 6 of the Bill reads: Nothing in this Act shall be taken to require action that is incompatible with the principle that employment matters should be dealt with on the basis of merit. In putting forward these amendments the Opposition is having a dollar each way. To summarise the concluding words of the honourable member for Wannon (Mr Hawker), he is saying that, in effect, employment matters should not be dealt with on the basis of merit. That is the effect of the amendments and, for reasons which have been argued previously, the Government rejects them. Mr LLOYD(Murray)(10.27) —The Opposition rejects that interpretation of the amendments. The Oxford Dictionary gives two different interpretations of the word `merit'. One definition is that `merit' means that ability is the determining factor. We certainly believe that ability should be the determining factor in employment. That is why we support equal opportunity but not affirmative action. But the second definition of `merit' is `deserving of special consideration'. We want to ensure that this legislation avoids the concept of positive discrimination through the use of the word `merit'. In fact, judging by other requirements in the Government's policy for affirmative action programs, if the legislation is unamended, affirmative action programs will be instituted in statutory marketing authorities, which we believe to be completely inappropriate. Mr PETER MORRIS(Shortland-Minister for Resources)(10.29) —I do not resile from the comments I made earlier. Clearly, the Opposition in these amendments is having a dollar each way. Despite the comments of the Deputy Leader of the National Party of Australia, the honourable member for Murray (Mr Lloyd), the Opposition is arguing that employment matters should not be dealt with on the basis of merit. In these circumstances, the Government has no alternative but to reject the amendments. Question put: That the amendments (Mr Lloyd's) be agreed to: The Committee divided. (The Chairman-Mr Leo McLeay) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 50 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 66 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 16 —— 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. McVeigh, D. T.Brown, N. A. Macphee, I. M.Burr, M. A. Miles, C. G.Cadman, A. G. Millar, P. C.Cameron, Donald Nehl, G. B.Cameron, Ewen Porter, J. R.Carlton, J. J. Prosser, G. D.Cobb, M. R. Reith, P. K.Connolly, D. M. Rocher, A. C.Dobie, J. D. M. Ruddock, P. M.Downer, A. J. G. Shack, P. D.Edwards, Harry Sharp, J. R.Fischer, Tim Shipton, R. F.Fisher, Peter Sinclair, I. McC.Hall, Steele Smith, W. L.Halverson, R. G. Sullivan, K. J.Hawker, D. P. M. Tuckey, C. W.Hewson, J. R. Wilson, I. B. C..Hicks, N. J. (Teller) Hunt, R. J.Wooldridge, M. R. L. Baldwin, P. J. Jakobsen, C. A.Beddall, D. P. Jenkins, H. A.Bilney, G. N. Johns, G. TBlanchard, C. A. Jones, BarryBlewett, N. Kent, L.Bowen, Lionel Kerr, D. J. C.Brown, Robert Lamb, A. H. (Teller)Brumby, J. M. Langmore, J. V.Campbell, G. Lavarch, M. H.Charles, D. E. Lee, M. J.Charlesworth, R. I. Lindsay, E. J.Chynoweth, R. L. McHugh, J.Cleeland, P. R. Martin, S. P.Courtice, B. W. Mildren, J. B.Crawford, M. C. Milton, P.Cross, M. D. Morris, AllanCunningham, B. T. (Teller) Morris, PeterDarling, E. E. Mountford, J. G.Dubois, S. C. O'Keefe, N. P.Duffy, M. J. O'Neil, L. R. T.Duncan, P. Price, L. R. S.Fatin, W. F. Punch, G. F.Fitzgibbon, E. J. Saunderson, J.Free, R. V. 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. Theophanous, A. C.Hollis, C. Tickner, R. E.Howe, B. L. West, S. J.Humphreys, B. C. Young, M. J. MacKellar, M. J. R. Staples, P. R.Webster, A. P. Kerin, J. C.White, P. N. D. Beazley, K. C.Cowan, D. B. Wright, K. W.Fife, W. C. Hayden, W. G.Spender, J. M. Willis, R. Question so resolved in the negative. Bill agreed to. Bill reported without amendment; report adopted. Bill (on motion by Mr Peter Morris)-by leave-read a third time. Motion (by Mr Humphreys) proposed: That the House do now adjourn. Mr TIM FISCHER(Farrer)(10.37) —Tonight, I would like to refer to the special relationship that exists between Australia and Thailand. I do so in my capacity as shadow Minister for Veterans' Affairs, as the member for Farrer and as a member for the Australian-Thai Parliamentary Fellowship. I am delighted that the Minister for Veterans' Affairs (Mr Humphreys) is in the chamber tonight because he would be well aware of the development over the past year of the Hellfire Pass project on the Burma death railway, the most appropriate commemoration of all those who worked and died on that horrific project in Thailand and Burma. That was commissioned by Sir Edward `Weary' Dunlop in the presence of the then Senator Sir John Carrick and the honourable member for Reid (Mr Uren), as well as many other former prisoners of war. That is only one dimension of the very special relationship that exists between Australia and Thailand. Of all member nations of the Association of South East Asian Nations (ASEAN), Thailand is probably the ASEAN one with which we are most friendly. I highlight to the House that Thailand now has a population of some 56 million people, an emerging economic growth of some commercial strength and an emerging parliamentary democracy of considerable interest. There is liaison and co-operation between Australia and Thailand both with regard to the forthcoming World Expo 88 in Brisbane, where Thailand is one of the key nations providing a pavilion, and also with our co-operation on the Cairns group of nations. Both Australia and Thailand were the initiators of that very important group of middle-ranking nations that are doing battle against the major nations, including the United States, the European Economic Community and European nations. Mr Duffy —With great support from Thailand. Mr TIM FISCHER —As the Minister for Trade Negotiations indicates quite appropriately, Thailand has been very supportive, and there has been a happy and positive linkage between Australia and Thailand on the question of multilateral trade negotiations and the need to reduce protection if, next year, a major world economic recession is to be avoided. My reason for rising on this occasion is perhaps twofold: I speak on the eve of a visit by a distinguished group of Thai senators, including the President of the Senate of Thailand, Dr Ukrit Mongkolnavin, who, next week, will be visiting Brisbane, Sydney, Canberra, Holbrook, Albury and Melbourne. We look forward to that delegation. I am sure there will be interesting and important discussions between many honourable members, senators and the Thai senatorial delegation consisting of three senior Thailand senators and others. My other reason for rising on this occasion is that I speak just one fortnight ahead of an important and significant event in Thailand; the King will celebrate his sixtieth birthday on 5 December next. This will mark five 12-year cycles for him. I pay tribute to the King of Thailand, who for more than four decades as constitutional monarch in that country has worked long and hard to relate to the people of Thailand and to guide Thailand through some very crucial times, especially times of potential and real coup d'etats. Today Thailand has reached the stage where it is a modern, vital and economically expanding power in our region. As Dr Andy Stoeckel properly said in his recent economic paper, Australia, if it is to have a proper future, must interface more with Asia, with members of the Association of South East Asian Nations and with south Asian nations. I strongly support that concept. I do so tonight in a different way by paying tribute to the special links that exist between Australia and Thailand. At the same time I make special reference to the fact that the King of Thailand will celebrate his sixtieth birthday on 5 December next. Mr HOLLIS(Throsby)(10.42) —Earlier this week in Fremantle the Minister for Local Government (Senator Reynolds) presented the National Awards for Innovation in Local Government. I am very pleased to say that the national award winner was Wollongong City Council, which received the award in recognition of the work of its Port Kembla Harbour Task Force. I wish to congratulate the Wollongong City Council-not something I do every day-on this award, but I wish especially to congratulate the hard-working and dedicated members of the Port Kembla Harbour Task Force and its Chairman, Peter Morton. My friend the honourable member for Macarthur (Mr Martin) would support me in that. This recent success follows hard on the heels of another award made to the task force some six weeks ago when the Association of Commercial Broadcasting Stations conferred on it the Mobie Award for the best non-broadcasting video film made in Australia. This award was given in recognition of the Task Force's work in producing a promotional video on Port Kembla Harbour which it has used to great effect in stimulating overseas interest in trading through that port. The Port Kembla Harbour Task Force was formed in May 1981. At that time the Illawarra region was suffering economic depression. The aim of the Task Force was to promote economic activity in the region through the diversification and development of Port Kembla Harbour. It was thought, quite correctly, that this would serve to stimulate the overall economy of the area. The Task Force is a non-political community organisation made up of representatives of a number of interested groups, including primary producers, shipping agents, maritime trade unions, local government, shipping and transport companies, other commercial and industrial companies, academics and concerned citizens. No doubt, the most significant achievement to date in the diversification of port activities has been the $200m grain handling terminal. The Task Force worked long and hard to convince wheat farmers from the central west of New South Wales and also the New South Wales and Federal governments that the terminal should be built at Port Kembla, a task to which I gladly added my own powers of persuasion. The Task Force is now working on a number of new projects relating to rural exports. These include the export of greasy and processed wool, live sheep and cattle, frozen and chilled meat, and fresh fruit and vegetables to Hong Kong and other Asian countries. Earlier this year four members of the Task Force travelled overseas at their own expense on a business development trip to Singapore, Taiwan, Japan and Hong Kong. They made a number of valuable contacts and since then Asian business people have made reciprocal visits to Port Kembla. These negotiations are already bearing fruit. It is expected that the first export order through Port Kembla Harbour of live and frozen beef will be made within the next few months. With the co-operation of the Federal and State governments the Task Force believes there is in excess of $150m worth of new business that can be readily generated through development of our rural export trade through Port Kembla. The point that I would like to emphasise is that they are here talking about new trade, not existing trade through other Australian ports. A very important aspect of the work of the Task Force has been the role it has played in developing better industrial relations. It has worked hard to bring together primary producers with those involved with the movement, handling, and export of their products, especially the maritime unions. Representatives of all concerned groups have sat down together on a number of occasions and discussed their points of view frankly and honestly. Wheat farmers from the New South Wales mid-west, while visiting the Wollongong area, have stayed overnight with the families of trade unionists, who themselves have subsequently enjoyed the hospitality extended by the farmers. In the process, they have developed a high level of friendship, mutual respect and understanding. This was very much in evidence at a seminar which I was privileged to attend at Orange Agricultural College earlier this year, the theme of which was `Consultation not Confrontation'. What has been achieved to date by the Port Kembla Harbour Task Force should be an inspiration to all involved in shipping, the export trade and industrial relations. Mr McVeigh —On a point of order, Madam Speaker: this is a matter that goes to the heart of the National Party. Madam SPEAKER —The honourable member will make a point of order or he will sit down. Mr McVeigh —I want to make a point of order. Madam SPEAKER —Well, get on with it. Mr McVeigh —The point of order is simply this: this matter deals with the initiative of the farmers to try to educate the trade union leaders. Madam SPEAKER —There is no point of order. The honourable member will resume his seat. Mr HOLLIS —We are moving rapidly into a new and tougher economic era. It is one that calls for fresh and imaginative approaches on the part of all-primary producers, commerce, the industrial and manufacturing sector, trade unions, and all levels of government, including local government. Madam SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr CONNOLLY(Bradfield)(10.47) —Yesterday, during debate on the Social Security and Veterans' Entitlements Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1987, the honourable member for Dobell (Mr Lee) claimed that I had no knowledge of Sydney's western suburbs and the problems facing its community. I place on record the fact that in 1979 I established a youth work program in Sydney specifically to assist the young unemployed in the western suburbs to receive job training and employment opportunities. I was saddened but not surprised at that time that no member of the Australian Labor Party displayed the slightest interest in the problems of unemployed youth or in programs to overcome their difficulties, although this program was offered to them. Consequently, I am not impressed by cheap political shots, such as that of the honourable member for Dobell, who would have been in short pants when I was doing my best to help fellow Australians in need. I worked closely with the Young Men's Christian Association in the Mount Druitt area, in which the honourable member for Dobell accuses me of having no interest. Under the youth work program, we assisted some 300 young unemployed people around Sydney. May I remind the House that it was the Hawke Labor Government that caused that project to be disbanded in 1984. While shadow Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, I also had many dealings with Aboriginal people living in Sydney's western suburbs, including the St Marys Aboriginal Legal Aid Service. The visit by the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) to Mount Druitt would have had far greater impact if his Government were prepared to do more to help charitable organisations trying to assist those in need. For example, the Sydney City Mission manages the Mount Druitt Welfare Office, which is currently seeing 1,000 families in need a month and receiving not one cent of assistance from the Hawke Government. In fact, the Sydney City Mission has spent $2.5m of its funds this financial year and the Government's contribution has been a miserable $130,000. Certainly, I am concerned to know what the Hawke Government and the honourable member for Dobell intend doing about the poverty and hardship which is so prevalent in Sydney and especially its western suburbs. As the member for the semi-rural, seaside electorate of Dobell, the honourable member would no doubt be the resident expert on the western suburbs of Sydney. The western suburbs are taken for granted by the Labor Party leadership. The Treasurer, the honourable member for Blaxland (Mr Keating), does not even live in his electorate and claims travel allowance when in Canberra. The Minister for the Arts, Sport, the Environment, Tourism and Territories, the honourable member for Parramatta (Mr John Brown), lives on Sydney's North Shore, the very area reviled by the honourable member for Dobell. The ultimate test of parliamentarians is surely how people respond to them and to their party in an election, and the fact remains that every seat in the western suburbs recorded a significant swing against the Labor Party. The electorate of Fowler recorded a swing of 7.9 per cent; Blaxland, the seat of the Treasurer, 7.4 per cent; Prospect, 5.6 per cent; Reid, 5.5 per cent; Parramatta, the seat of the Minister for the Arts, Sport, the Environment, Tourism and Territories, 5.4 per cent; Banks, 4.6 per cent; Greenway, 3.9 per cent; Werriwa, 3.2 per cent; and Lindsay, 2.6 per cent. Mr Young —On a point of order, Madam Speaker: what the honourable member is saying ignores the fact that the Government increased its majority from 16 to 24. Madam SPEAKER —Order! That is no doubt a point of information but not a point of order. Mr CONNOLLY —It also ignores the fact that in his State seat he is not highly regarded. The very inexperienced member for Dobell, who arrived in this place in 1984, in his second election also achieved the distinction of losing 2.4 per cent of his vote. As the French would say, he ought to look after his own onions first. Mr Young —Madam Speaker, I take a point of order. The attack on the honourable member for Dobell is very unfair. I visited his electorate, so I will take personal blame for the 2.4 per cent loss. Madam SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member will resume his seat. Mr CONNOLLY —I am delighted to know that. The honourable member, who sets himself out as being an expert on the geography and the social problems of the western suburbs of Sydney, no doubt would still have needed his Gregory's to find his way to his Leader's grand launch at Mount Druitt, last Friday, of Labor's so-called family package. Mr LEE(Dobell)(10.50) —I am fascinated by the great efforts which the honourable member for Bradfield (Mr Connolly) has gone to, and the great research he has carried out, to explain to the House how he really does understand the western suburbs of Sydney. The reason he has given this speech tonight is that he committed a bit of a faux pas; in fact, it was a big faux pas. Yesterday in this House, referring to the Government's family allowance supplement, he claimed that the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) launched the family allowance package at Campbelltown. The honourable member obviously did not know that Mount Druitt is 30 kilometres north of Campbelltown. To seek to cover his tracks he went to the trouble of altering the Hansard green. I read from page 2251 of yesterday's daily Hansard: I found it more than amusing to note that only last Friday, in Sydney's western suburbs when the Prime Minister went there to release his new policy . . . The honourable member did not say `in Sydney's western suburbs'. You said `in Campbelltown', didn't you. He is embarrassed and too ashamed even to admit it by way of interjection. He has a big grin on his face like a Cheshire cat. He admits to the fact that he altered the Hansard to cover up his error. I do not mind if someone is a bit embarrassed by a mistake and seeks to cover it up, but the honourable member is pretty thick to come into the House and give a speech about it and draw everyone's attention to it. I thought the honourable member was a bit smarter than that. I understand that formerly he was a diplomat, jetsetting around the world. Perhaps that explains why he does not have much political nous. Mr Young —He was trained by the Liberal Party. Mr LEE —That is right. In considering the great contribution which the honourable member for Bradfield has made to this Parliament, I am reminded of his appearance on the Sunday program during the election campaign. Whilst his performance was nowhere near as good as the performance of the honourable member for Scullin (Mr Jenkins), who is in the chamber now, one particular film sequence sticks in my mind. It was of the honourable member for Bradfield, in the heartland of Sydney's northern suburbs, the North Shore of Sydney, the area with one of the highest levels of incomes and one of the highest levels of assets in Australia, appealing to the blue rinse Liberals to leave the northern suburbs, to leave the North Shore on election day. Where did he want them to go? He wanted them to go to the electorate of Barton to seek to defeat that great local member, who worries and cares about his electorate, the honourable member for Barton (Mr Punch). But despite the best efforts of the honourable member for Bradfield to send all those blue rinse ladies into the seat of Barton, what happened? The honourable member for Barton swam against the tide and achieved an amazing victory. Mr Punch —I sent him a `thank you' card. Mr LEE —I am sure that he deserved it. The point I wanted to make yesterday in my speech to the House was that the honourable member for Bradfield does not know the difference between Campbelltown and Mount Druitt. I am sure that every Liberal candidate who stands for any seat in the western suburbs of Sydney will become aware that the shadow Minister for social security, who is supposed to be looking after the poor and the impoverished people of Sydney, does not know the difference between Campbelltown and Mount Druitt. The honourable member for Bradfield referred to me as a member who represents a semi-rural seaside resort. Whilst I might appreciate those comments, given that the central coast of New South Wales is always after tourists, I inform the honourable member for Bradfield that, unlike his electorate which has very high income levels and very high asset levels, my electorate has the lowest median income of any electorate in Australia. That is because we have an extremely high proportion of poor, aged pensioners who have retired to the central coast of New South Wales. In addition, we have a very large number of single parents who live on their own, often renting in very difficult circumstances. For someone who represents an electorate like that of the honourable member for Bradfield to suggest that my electorate does not have people who are in need and in poverty demonstrates again that the honourable member does not understand the Sydney area. Mr Connolly —I take a point of order, Madam Speaker. The word `resort' was not used by me. I simply used exactly the words used in the description of the honourable member's electorate in the Parliamentary Handbook, which he is quite at liberty to read. Mr LEE —I ask the honourable member to check the Hansard. He used the word `resort'. Madam SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr McARTHUR(Corangamite)(10.55) —I want to draw the attention of the House to the painful subject of backache-painful in terms of discomfort, and painful in economic terms. Injuries to the lower back are responsible for about $230m in workers compensation payments each year. Many of these injuries are caused by incorrectly lifting particular weights. The National Occupational Health and Safety Commission (NOHSC) has produced a draft code of practice for safe manual handling in the work-place. The code proposes a scheme that requires at least two people to lift objects weighing more than 16 kilograms and states that mechanical means be used to lift any object weighing more than 34 kilograms. The code also recommends that lifting limits be reduced in less than ideal conditions. The adoption of this broad, prescriptive draft code would place severe restrictions on business in Australia. Whilst no one could argue with the stated goal of the code `to promote occupational health and safety by eliminating risks of manual handling' to do so by regulation at a time when business and industry are calling for greater deregulation to help increase productivity and improve competitiveness, is to impose an enormous additional economic burden on industry. Specifying weight limits by regulation will do nothing to reduce injuries in the work-place. The real answer to greater health and safety in the work-place lies in better job design, improved training and education, and a commonsense approach to employee selection. The reduced weight levels proposed in the code are targeted at improving the ability of women and others to compete with stronger males for working involving lifting, and arose largely as a result of the Sex Discrimination Act. For there to be no discrimination, a weight acceptable to both sexes had to be determined. British and United States ergonomic research shows that most healthy adults, male and female, have the physical capacity to lift weights far greater than those proposed-with more than 90 per cent lifting weights greater than 16 kilograms without any strain. Research showed that some 75 per cent of males and 5 per cent of females are capable of safely lifting weights up to 34 kilograms. There is sound evidence to back up the claim that weight limits proposed in the NOHSC code are too low. Let me give a few examples of the effect of a 16 kilogram weight limit on objects to be lifted by any individual regardless of sex: a ballet dancer would be unable to lift a ballerina without assistance. I ask honourable members to imagine a whole troupe of support artists holding the prima ballerina aloft. A secretary would be unable to move an electronic printer unaided. A storeman could not lift a case of bottled beer at work but I guess he would have no problems lifting a crate at home. Pet shop owners would be prevented from directing their employees to carry 25 kilograms bags of kitty litter to a customer's car. Imagine storemen lifting sacks of wheat and other grains two by two, because the weight of each sack was over 16 kilograms. Garbage collectors would need a mobile set of scales so that they could weigh the rubbish bins before they attempted to lift them on their own. The alternative would be to direct garbage collectors to lift in pairs. Farm employees could not lift a bale of hay unaided. The average haybale weighs double the 16 kilogram limit. If shearers stuck to the letter of the law, Australia's 165 million sheep population-all weighing, between 55 and 70 kilograms each-would remain unshorn because shearers would be prevented from dragging the animals to the hand-pieces. Farmers could never afford to double their number of shearers. When one considers the practical effects and the costs of imposing such a code, it is far from amusing. The Federal Government's own Business Regulation Review Unit has warned against the adoption of the draft code on the grounds that the recommendation that individual workers should not lift objects weighing more than 16 kilograms will cost industry at least $9 billion. The Food Industry Council of Australia estimates that, for soft drinks alone, the cost of complying with the proposed 16 kilogram limit would exceed $150m. While most States are waiting for the national code of practice to be finalised, my own State of Victoria has pre-empted the national code by issuing its own. Madam SPEAKER —Order! It being 11 p.m., the debate is interrupted. The House stands adjourned until 2 p.m. on Monday, 23 November. House adjourned at 11 p.m. until 2 p.m. on Monday, 23 November. The following papers were deemed to have been presented on 19 November 1987: Bounty and Subsidy Acts-Returns for 1986-87, pursuant to the following Acts- Automatic Data Processing Equipment Bounty. Bounty (Agricultural Tractors). Bounty (Agricultural Tractors and equipment). Bounty (Bed Sheeting). Bounty (Berry Fruits). Bounty (Books). Bounty (Commercial Motor Vehicles). Bounty (Computers). Bounty (High Alloy Steel Products). Bounty (Injection-Moulding Equipment). Bounty (Metal Working Machines and Robots). Bounty (Metal Working Machine Tools). Bounty (Paper). Bounty (Penicillin). Bounty (Printed Fabrics). Bounty (Ships). Bounty (Ship Repair). Bounty (Steel Mill Products). Bounty (Textile Yarns). Bounty (Tractor Cabs). Fertilisers Subsidy. Nitrogenous Fertilizers Subsidy. Phosphate Fertilizers Subsidy. Subsidy (Grain Harvesters and Equipment). Subsidy (Cultivation Machines and Equipment).