Tuesday, 24 May 1988 Madam SPEAKER (Hon. Joan Child) took the chair at 2 p.m., and read prayers. Mr COBB —My question is addressed to the Minister for Immigration, Local Government and Ethnic Affairs. I refer him to recent reports that homosexuals have been granted permanent residence in Australia on the basis that they have struck up a long lasting relationship with a homosexual partner in this country. I ask: Is it true that 149 homosexuals have been granted permanent residency since 1985? Are there another 110 applicants in the pipeline? Was this policy introduced by Chris Hurford in 1985? Is it true that change of status approvals for homosexual partners are made at a ministerial level rather than at a departmental level? Will the Government have the program stopped until the public has been informed of what is going on and has had a chance to debate it? At the very least, will the Minister make it mandatory for applicants to have an acquired immune deficiency syndrome (AIDS) test before permanent residential status is granted? Mr HOLDING —I have read some of the honourable gentleman's comments, which were based upon newspaper allegations about homosexual intake in our immigration program which were totally incorrect. The suggestion that homosexual couples are coming into Australia as part of a family reunion program is totally inaccurate and total nonsense. What did occur in 1985 under Minister Hurford was that the amendment to section 6a (1) of the Migration Act created a situation where, on the basis of legal advice, an Australian citizen who had entered into a homosexual relationship could challenge legally if an applicant sponsored by him in that situation was declined residential status solely on homosexual grounds. Since then, successive Ministers for immigration have personally considered applications from people temporarily here to remain in Australia on the basis of genuine, longstanding, monogamous homosexual relationships. For the information of the honourable member, the provisions of section 6a (1) extend basically to a discretion by the Minister to meet situations outside the broad framework of the Act. For example, an Australian citizen may be ill or need support and someone such as a second or third cousin but not in a direct family relationship might then be prepared to come to Australia to provide that level of assistance. It becomes a matter of ministerial discretion. I should also point out to the honourable gentleman, in case he believes that there is something secret about this provision, that there is nothing secret at all about it. In fact, this provision is well known to members of the Opposition. I say this in a completely apolitical way. In many of the cases that have come before me I have had representations from honourable members on both sides of the House and from both sides of the Senate. Let me say this to the honourable gentleman, who seems to feel threatened by all of this: we are dealing with a very small group of people, a total of about 50 a year, which is infinitesimal compared with the total immigration program intake. It is certainly not the case, as has been suggested, that the admission of any particular non-resident in this category in any way at all affects any other applicant. In particular, it does not affect, as has been suggested, applicants under the family reunion program. That allegation is also untrue. There is one other matter that should be brought to the attention of the Parliament, since the honourable member feels that there are some secrets about this. In order to formalise the procedures and make it a departmental responsibility and not the sole responsibility of the Minister, the matter was raised with an Opposition party committee. It was taken to the Opposition committee in about December 1987. All the issues were raised and Minister Young, as he then was, endeavoured to get a general level of support for the proposal which would have made the operation of this aspect of the program simpler and enable it to be handled at a departmental rather than ministerial level. After discussion, the Opposition decided that it preferred that the decision remain with the Minister. On that basis I continue to carry that responsibility. I hope that satisfies the honourable gentleman. First of all I have gone through the nature of the program. Secondly, it is a program that has been carried out by successive Ministers since the provision of the legal opinion. Thirdly, it is a program which was well known to all members of this Parliament, so the kind of shock and horror that the honourable gentleman has been engaging in-- Mr Sinclair —So none of them have been AIDS tested? Mr HOLDING —I have raised the question of AIDS testing with my colleague the Minister for Community Services and Health. Subsequently that has become a matter for discussion and review. Mr GEAR —I direct my question to the Minister for Employment, Education and Training. Can the Minister inform the House of the reaction to his proposals for strengthening government schools in Australia? Mr DAWKINS —I thank the honourable member for his question. I have been generally pleased with the responses that we have had to the Commonwealth's offer to take a lead by strengthening Australian public schools. If the non-government schools sector wishes to be a part of this effort, we will involve it in this process as well. There has been, of course, some reaction from a couple of State Ministers questioning whether it is an attempt by the Commonwealth to overtake the primacy of the States in relation to primary and secondary education. We have made it perfectly clear that we are not interested in doing that. We are trying to adopt a co-operative model which would allow us, in conjunction with State governments, to assist in ensuring that the public education system is as well equipped as possible to deal with the daunting tasks that confront it as it tries to prepare our young people not only for life but for a life of work. I was interested, however, in the response of the shadow Minister for Education, the honourable member for Mackellar, who said that this was a belated response which was unlikely to be effective. I remind the House that it was only a couple of short months ago that the Federal Council of the Liberal Party of Australia decided that a Liberal Commonwealth government would get out of schools education funding altogether and therefore would have no interest in what was happening in our schools, whether they be government or non-government. Not only would a Liberal government withdraw some 50 per cent of the funds provided to the majority of non-government schools but also it would deny any claim whatsoever to leadership in the area of education. I suppose this raises the question: who is leading the Opposition, who is leading the Liberal Party? Is it the Federal Council of the Liberal Party, as the shadow Minister would suggest, or is it the National Party of Australia which, of course, is able to stand over the Liberal Party on any crucial issue? One conclusion we can make is that the one person who is not leading the Opposition is the person who is charged with that task, the Leader of the Opposition. This confusion and paralysis of the leadership of the Opposition are not confined to casual observers like me; it is clear that within the Liberal Party itself there is massive confusion about who is leading the Party. I have a letter here from Ross Lightfoot who is the member for Murchison Eyre in the Western Australian Parliament. It might be recalled that he was the person who wrote to Secretary of State Shultz saying the Americans should up the trade war in order to bring Australia to its economic knees and in order that this Government might be chased out of office. That was the kind of-- Mr Carlton —I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. The Minister's answer is no longer relevant to the question. Madam SPEAKER —I call the Minister. Mr DAWKINS —This is a question of whether we have the determination to take leadership on crucial issues and whether the Opposition does or not. Mr Lightfoot wrote to the Federal President of the Liberal Party, Mr Elliott, commending Mr Elliott on this campaign to introduce a consumption tax. He says inter alia: You- referring to John Elliott- are unquestionably a national leader-- Mr Spender —I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. The question asked of the Minister concerned government education policies. The Minister's reply has now got nothing to do in any broad view with those policies. I therefore ask you, Madam Speaker, to rule that the Minister is not being relevant and ask him to be relevant. Madam SPEAKER —The Minister will return to the question. Mr DAWKINS —This is an important question about the choice that the Australian people have in relation to the preparedness of political parties to take leads on crucial issues. Of course, this is an issue. The Liberal Party denies that it should have any role in schools education. This goes to the heart of its confusion, its policy paralysis, on this issue as well as on many other issues. Let me return to this exciting letter. Mr Lightfoot says-- Madam SPEAKER —Order! The Minister will be relevant. The Chair has requested the Minister to be relevant to the question. The Minister will heed the Chair. Mr DAWKINS —Madam Speaker, perhaps you will allow me to quote from this letter which I am sure, when I have finished the quotation, you will see is thoroughly relevant to the point I am making in answer to the honourable member for Canning. Madam SPEAKER —The Minister may continue but I will stop him if he is not relevant. Mr DAWKINS —Madam Speaker, without your hearing the relevant bits that I intend to quote I am at a complete loss to work out how you are able to know whether-- Madam SPEAKER —Order! The Minister will heed the Chair. Mr DAWKINS —All I can assume is that the Opposition has already read the letter, but some of my colleagues have not. I repeat: there is an important question of leadership here. The member for Murchison Eyre seems to think there is some inadequacy on the part of the current leadership in the Liberal Party to whom he refers-- Mr Spender —Madam Speaker-- Madam SPEAKER —Order! The Chair is hearing the Minister. When the Chair has heard the Minister it will rule on whether the Minister is relevant or not. The honourable member will resume his seat. Mr Spender —I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. Madam SPEAKER —The honourable member may proceed. Mr Spender —The Minister was going on to talk about leadership and was referring, once again, to the letter from which you have ruled, Madam Speaker, he cannot read and in respect of which you said you would stop him. Madam SPEAKER —The Chair will hear the Minister and will stop him if he is not relevant. Mr Spender —What he is seeking to do is to circumvent your ruling, Madam Speaker. Madam SPEAKER —Order! I call the Minister. The Minister will now heed the Chair. Mr DAWKINS —Mr Lightfoot says that he doubts `that the wider public appreciates the hollow-chested, limp-wristed mixture of wet Liberal socialism-- Madam SPEAKER —Order! The Minister is quite out of order. He will resume his seat. Mr Spender —On a further point of order, Madam Speaker: when a Minister deliberately flouts a direction that you have given from the chair, as the Minister has done on this occasion, is he to be allowed to get away with it? Are those the rules of the game here? Madam SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member does not have a point of order. The Minister has resumed his seat. Mr Spender —Yes, I do, Madam Speaker. Madam SPEAKER —I call the honourable member for Sturt. Mr WILSON —I direct my question to the Prime Minister. Is it fair that thrifty Australians who provide for their retirement by making savings out of their after-tax income should be subjected to the same assets test, or any assets test at all, as those who retire with a similar amount of savings saved through tax sheltered superannuation schemes? Mr HAWKE —Let me make two points briefly in response to the honourable gentleman's question. In regard to the whole area of the assets test, fortunately, this country has been through the exhibition by the Opposition of its refusal to face up in any way to what had purported to be the policy enunciated by the Leader of the Opposition on a number of occasions, that is, that in using this country's scarce resources, those resources should be targeted towards those most in need and that it was an obscenity that the community was paying pensions to people with very substantial assets. I am somewhat encouraged to see that in what is admittedly a very slow learning curve on the part of the Opposition there seems to be some indication that it may be abandoning the previous stupid position it embraced regarding the assets test generally. Regarding superannuation and its treatment, it has been said openly by myself and the Treasurer that the superannuation issue will be dealt with in the statement he will be making tomorrow night on behalf of the Government. I regard it as appropriate in those circumstances that I make no further comment until that statement has been made, by which time both the honourable member and the Australian community generally will have a very clear idea of the purposes, the approach and the policy of this Government. However, let me allow myself the luxury of saying, in conclusion, that I assert with confidence that, by the time the Treasurer has resumed his seat after delivering that statement on behalf of the Government, the people of Australia will have a great degree of confidence that this Government has provided the best possible treatment of the whole question of superannuation. Taken together with the changes and the reforms that we have made in regard to the payment of pensions and in regard to assets, it will reconfirm their view that as between the two alternative governments in this country there is only one choice to make, and that is on this side of the House. Mr BEDDALL —Will the Acting Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade inform the House of the current situation concerning Australian aid to Ethiopia? Have there been recent reports misrepresenting Australia's position? Mr DUFFY —I have seen the Press reports referred to and, in particular, some reports of comments made by the honourable member for Mayo. Several of the points attributable to him are not correct. The Government's policy is to direct Australian emergency aid in Ethiopia to those in need, based on the latest available information from the United Nations and other agencies. Each time we consider an emergency aid package for Ethiopia an effort is made to determine who and where the needy are. There are ongoing reviews to find the best way of channelling emergency aid for Ethiopia. As a result of this the level of aid directed through rebel held areas has altered over a period. So far this financial year more than $2.8m has been directed to rebel held areas of Eritrea and Tigre. However, there are still people in need on both government and rebel sides. With the recent escalation in fighting, the rebels have gained more territory and therefore have a responsibility to feed more people. Obviously, the Australian Government will take account of this factor when considering further emergency aid to Ethiopia. Of course, our basic concern is to ensure that Australian emergency assistance gets to those in need. The Government rejects claims that our aid is not getting to those in need. The Government views the situation in Ethiopia extremely seriously and has taken up the matter with representatives of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics both in Canberra and in Moscow. We are staying in close contact with the United Nations and other aid donors to Ethiopia. Mr MacKELLAR —I refer the Minister for Defence to his answer to my question on notice No. 759, when he informed me that only one Royal Australian Navy ship had visited the Antarctic region between 1982 and 1987, that that ship had only two sailing days within the region and that there are no RAN ships with ice strengthened capacity. Given that Australia lays claim to a significant part of Antarctica, what does the Minister intend to do to upgrade Australia's capacity to underpin those international claims? Mr BEAZLEY —Nothing immediately. I think the honourable member would be aware that there are fairly strict views in regard to the militarisation of Antarctica-views that are shared not only by the powers that have territory there that is, in some way, acknowledged but also by those who would like to have their claims acknowledged. I think that, were we to make a regular habit of military activity there, some of those who have an objection might see us as, in some way, offending the regime in operation there. As far as I am aware-I cannot fully recall the details of it-another Minister has under consideration at the moment getting our own research vessel with some icebreaking capacity, which will enable us to uphold our effort in an area that constitutes the main basis for our continuing claim in Antarctica; that is, our research effort. From all the advice that has been given to me, the question of whether or not our claims will be seen as valid is not going to be based on the question of whether or not we are prepared to fight anyone down there but whether or not we are prepared to utilise the territory that we have claimed for research purposes. So I do not believe we have a defence problem down there. We may, at some point of time, develop a defence problem to our north. I think that is a more realistic likelihood. I would think that, as far as my Department is concerned, we have the appropriate focus at the moment and the question of the defence of our claims really rests with other Ministers who are concerned with the administration of Antarctica. Ms CRAWFORD —My question to the Minister for Defence Science and Personnel concerns the options open to women who wish to pursue a defence career. Can the Minister tell the House what advances are being made in the employment of women in the Australian Defence Force and in expanding their career opportunities within the Services? Opposition members interjecting- Mrs KELLY —I must thank those in the Opposition for their great interest in this area and I thank the honourable member for Forde for her question and for her strong and consistent interest in the Defence Force as well as in women's issues. I am sure that members of the Opposition, as are members of the Government, are very pleased to note that considerable progress is being made in the employment of women in the Australian Defence Force. Women currently make up 9.1 per cent of the Australian Defence Force, a 50 per cent proportional increase in the last four years. Twenty-two thousand places in the three Services are now open to women. We regard this matter as very serious; not as a joke, as obviously the Opposition does. Of these 22,000 places, 6,000 are in non-traditional technical areas. On 30 June, at the Royal Australian Air Force (RAAF) base at Pearce near Perth, the first woman pilot will graduate. I am delighted about this, but it is not enough just to get women into the Services; we must ensure that they have an attractive career structure. The Air Force has identified 18 pilot positions with the VIP fleet and two instructor pilot positions as open to women in competition with men; so a woman pilot in the RAAF will have a varied and rewarding long-term career available to her. Also in terms of our commitment to women in the Defence Force, I am holding a meeting in Canberra with women of different ranks in the three Services to discuss with them their career opportunities. The Government is committed not only to opening up the numbers of women in the Defence Force but also, I think more importantly at this stage, to ensuring that they have an appropriate career structure. This Government is committed to improving opportunities for women in all areas. We do not believe we would be fulfilling our obligations to the people of Australia if we continued, as in the past, to limit opportunities for a career in the Defence Force solely to men. Mr HOWARD —My question is directed to the Minister for Administrative Services. I refer the Minister to his comments this morning that he, like his colleague, will continue to put his views on privatisation. Given that statement and given the fact that the Minister is responsible for disposing of government assets, does he agree with the Treasurer that the Government should not be running airlines? Does he also agree that the Government cannot continue to put billions of dollars into Qantas Airways Ltd and Australian Airlines? Mr WEST —Firstly, I do not need any reminders from the Opposition as to what my responsibilities are. I am perfectly well aware of what my responsibilities to my portfolio, the Cabinet and my Party are. Indeed, I think the Prime Minister outlined them very succinctly and admirably yesterday. As for my position on the issue of privatisation, within the ongoing discussion leading up to our Federal Conference, I have made my views very well known. They are contained in the speech that was delivered to the New South Wales branch of the Australian Labor Party forum last weekend. It is freely available, and I put my views to the House yesterday. I do not resile from them; I have nothing further to add. I spelt out very clearly yesterday what my views are. They are also detailed at length in that speech, and if honourable members wish to know any more about the matter I suggest that, if they do not already have a copy of the speech, they obtain one and read it. If they have any difficulty, I invite them to come along to my office and I shall explain it to them. Mr GRIFFITHS —I refer the Minister for Industrial Relations to the wage claims being made by unions in a number of industries for a 6 per cent or higher increase to apply during the next financial year. Can the Minister advise the House what the Government's attitude is to these claims, and, further, can he indicate whether the Government has received a claim for such an increase from Government employees and, if so, what its response has been? Mr WILLIS —Yes, I am aware of claims for wage increases that have been made by unions in various industries. In the metals industry and in the areas of building, airlines, paint, the waterfront and various public services, claims have been made for a general increase of 6 per cent plus more for employees who are engaged in restructuring or similar exercises. Those claims, as is well known, have been encouraged by the Australian Council of Trade Unions (ACTU) as part of the pre-national wage case manoeuvring. The national wage case will come on some time in June at a date to be determined at or after the national wage conference on 7 June. The Confederation of Australian Industry has also been engaged in pre-case manoeuvring. It has lodged a claim for effectively removing the first tier of the present two-tier system, so that, if it had its way, under the new system wage increases could be possible only under what is now the second tier. All of these pre-case manoeuvrings are perhaps understandable in the sense that this year, as distinct from previous reviews, there is no obvious wage claim that can be made by the ACTU stemming from the current system, and we are in a unique situation. As the nation's major employer, the Commonwealth has also been served with a claim for a general wage increase of 6 per cent plus further possible amounts. The Government has discussed that claim with the relevant unions and told them that it is not prepared to discuss details of the claim until after the national wage case has been decided. The Government told the unions, as it has told the ACTU, that it will be supporting in the national wage case an outcome that will enable, in general, real wages to be maintained in 1988-89. The Government has made the point to the ACTU and its wages policy committee and also to the Public Service unions that any increase beyond that would be unacceptable on the grounds that it would increase the gap between wage increases in this country and wage increases in our major trading partners. I recommend to other employers in the country who have been faced with these wage claims that they adopt a similar approach to that adopted by the Commonwealth in relation to their own employees-that is, that there is nothing wrong with discussing the wage fixing principles to apply in the next system, but they should not agree to any increase until the national wage case is decided and the Commission has laid down what the principles are to be, otherwise those employers could well find themselves committed to a level or type of wage increase outside the national wage fixing principles. I do not think they would particularly want to do that. I also recommend to the unions that they do not pursue their claims with industrial action. They are bound by the no extra claims commitment they they made in respect of the present system until this system is replaced by the next system. They should know that and should not take industrial action which would be in breach of that commitment. Mr PEACOCK —I refer the Treasurer to recent tax law changes which have been designed to stop the abuses of superannuation tax concessions by the use of certain variable and other types of annuities. I note that those changes are to come into effect on 23 June this year. However, the Australian Taxation Office has failed to provide guidelines for the interpretation of these changes and the extent to which similar types of annuities remain as legitimate investments under the superannuation laws. Can the Treasurer give an assurance that this area will be addressed by the Commissioner of Taxation shortly so that any potential hardship suffered by retirees can be avoided? Mr KEATING —Madam Speaker, as you are probably aware, before this Government changed the taxation treatment of superannuation in 1983, there had been no changes in the superannuation laws of this country for 60 years. In 1983, the Government established a tax upon lump sums and, at the same time, established the vehicles for the preservation of vested superannuation benefits so that employees with superannuation who were leaving employment did not have to cash their superannuation out but could roll it over into one of these bodies, namely, an approved deposit fund. At the same time as we established those mechanisms, we also provided a basis for more closely equating the tax treatment of superannuation lump sums with superannuation pensions. We opened up the opportunities for the growth and development of an Australian annuity business. That business is, of course, growing, and growing rather rapidly. But there have been some attempts by various groups to exploit for tax minimisation reasons the annuity opportunities provided by legislation. The Government has sought to deal with that. I am not certain about the extent to which those changes may bear upon the legitimate interests of a superannuant with an annuity. I will put the Deputy Leader of the Opposition's question under examination. First of all, the Deputy might let me know in what specific way he thinks there is a problem. If he can be specific about it, I will direct that to the Commissioner's attention to see whether in fact the existing arrangements are such that they do not threaten the annuity of any genuine superannuant. Mr O'KEEFE —My question to the Minister for Transport and Communications Support concerns plans to increase the use of Melbourne's international airport. Is the Minister aware of a report carried in the Melbourne Sun last week concerning plans announced by Qantas Airways Ltd to increase its international passenger capacity through Tullamarine by 60 per cent? Can the Minister confirm this report? If so, does he see this as an acknowledgment of the strong prospects offered in Victoria and the capacity of people employed at Tullamarine Airport to provide a high quality gateway into Australia? Mr PETER MORRIS —I thank the honourable member for his question. I am aware of this report. I can confirm that the new Qantas schedule represents a significant enhancement of services to and from Melbourne. Mr Shipton —That is not right. A flight to London is now three hours longer and one stop flights have been abolished. Madam SPEAKER —Order! Mr Shipton —There is no direct flight to Tokyo. Madam SPEAKER —Order! Mr PETER MORRIS —I am sure a lot of people would be happy to put up with that three-hour wait if only they could travel to London too. On 16 May, Qantas announced a major new schedule pattern which will introduce a daily non-stop flight from Melbourne to Singapore. Those flights will begin in October utilising the new Qantas 767-300 extended range aircraft. The honourable member has pressed in his discussions the importance of direct Melbourne to Tokyo flights. In a further development of the Melbourne-Japan market, Qantas will operate daily Melbourne-Tokyo services and a weekly non-stop service between Tokyo and Melbourne. The new operating pattern will also provide an increase in services to Europe. So, while Melbourne will lose its one stop service to London, Qantas has indicated that Melbourne will remain the Australian gateway for passengers travelling by Qantas to and from Rome and Athens. The honourable member does have a serious interest in this issue, unlike some of those opposite, who have a personal interest. As the honourable member recognises, the revised schedule pattern will provide Melbourne with a 60 per cent increase in seating capacity, and that provides hard evidence of Qantas's commitment to developing attractive services to utilise fully Tullamarine as a gateway to Australia. I thank the honourable member for his question. Mr BURR —My question is directed to the Prime Minister, who will recall that in answer to an earlier question from me he said that he would not commit the Government to the recommendations of the Helsham Commission of Inquiry into the Lemonthyme and Southern Forests until the report was tabled. Now that the report has been tabled and the Government has had time to analyse the recommendations, will the Government now agree to a speedy implementation of the Helsham Commission's recommendations? Mr HAWKE —The honourable member will recall, from his knowledge of the situation, that we established the Helsham inquiry to which he refers to advise on the World Heritage significance of the area and to determine, hopefully, once and for all whether there are alternatives to logging sensitive National Estate areas in Tasmania. That was the purpose in establishing the Helsham inquiry. As the honourable member would know, the Helsham inquiry has heard from the conservation movement, from the industry and certainly from the State Government and others on the environmental value of the area and on the question of possible alternatives to logging in the sensitive National Estate areas. I simply say to the honourable gentleman that I understand his real interest in this matter, but he will appreciate that we received the report on 6 May and it was tabled only on 17 May. I can assure the honourable gentleman that the Government is considering the findings of the Helsham inquiry and we will announce our decision on those findings in due course. Mr Goodluck —When? When? Don't be influenced by those greenies. Mr HAWKE —The honourable gentleman should contain himself in patience. I would have thought that the honourable gentleman who asked the question would appreciate the importance of the issue. Mr Goodluck —It is in my electorate, too. Mr HAWKE —Come on, Brucie, calm down. I am sure the honourable gentleman would not want us to rush into a decision on this matter. We will give the matter the serious consideration it deserves and, as I said, we will announce our decision in due course. Mr O'NEIL —My question is directed to the Minister for Transport and Communications Support. Will the Minister have discussions with Australian National and the Minister for Employment and Education Services about fully utilising the underutilised apprentice training shop at Port Augusta in an endeavour to take on more apprentices at Australian National next year? Mr PETER MORRIS —One must say that, if anything, the honourable member is persistent, particularly with respect to Australian National and the people of Port Augusta. The honourable member has had considerable discussions with me on this issue and I appreciate his deep and sincere interest in a greater utilisation of the apprentice training school at Port Augusta. The honourable member will recall that when the school was built a considerably greater need was envisaged for it than has developed in later years. I have previously discussed the matter raised by the honourable member with the Minister for Industrial Relations. I will be pleased to take up with the Minister for Employment and Education Services, on behalf of the honourable member, the people of Port Augusta and particularly the youth of Port Augusta, the question of greater utilisation of the apprenticeship school. The training school has a capacity to train more apprentices than are needed by Australian National. My understanding is that Australian National has an annual requirement of something like 26 apprentices, and I have already discussed the matter with the Chairman of the Australian National Railways Commission. In conclusion, I place on record the persistent efforts of the honourable member for Grey on behalf of the youth of Port Augusta. I recognise that there is a capacity for greater utilisation of the school. I will be looking to see, along with my colleague the Minister for Employment and Education Services, whether we can make greater use of the school in accordance with the honourable member's wishes. Mr HUNT —My question is directed to the Minister for Primary Industries and Energy. In view of the admission of a member of the Japanese Diet that political considerations had guaranteed the United States of America an increasing share of the Japanese beef market, which is in conflict with the undertakings that the Japanese Prime Minister gave to our Prime Minister, what political efforts are now being made by the Government to ensure that Australian beef producers do not lose a further share of that market to the United States under any new agreement to apply from 1 April? Can the Minister report the progress, if any, of actions taken to remove restrictions applied to beef imports into Japan? Mr KERIN —I thought I answered this question last week when it was asked by the Deputy Leader of the National Party of Australia. By and large, what Mr Koichi Kato said reinforces the case we have been making consistently for quite some time. The assurances that have been given to me by Japan's present Minister for agriculture and the assurances that have been given to my colleagues the Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade, the Minister for Trade Negotiations and the Prime Minister by the Prime Minister of Japan are regarded as assurances-and prospective ones at that-with respect to the ongoing negotiations and/or setting up of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade panel, about which my colleague the Minister for Trade Negotiations is qualified to answer. The Prime Minister wrote to the Prime Minister of Japan again yesterday. Basically, we are in constant contact and keeping abreast of the issue as it develops. Madam SPEAKER —Order! I present the reports of the Auditor-General dated 24 May 1988 upon efficiency audits of the Australian Postal Commission: administration of philatelic services, and Department of Community Services and Health: home and community care program. Motion (by Mr Beazley)-by leave-agreed to: (1) That this House, in accordance with the provisions of the Parliamentary Papers Act 1908, authorises the publication of the reports of the Auditor-General, dated 24 May 1988, upon efficiency audits of the- Australian Postal Commission: administration of philatelic services, and Department of Community Services and Health: Home and Community Care Program, (2) That the reports be printed; and (3) That the report on an efficiency audit of the Australian Postal Commission: administration of philatelic services be referred to the Standing Committee on Transport, Communications and Infrastructure. Mr BEAZLEY(Swan-Leader of the House) —Papers are tabled as listed in the schedule circulated to honourable members earlier today. Details of the papers will be recorded in Hansard and the Votes and Proceedings. The schedule read as follows- Aboriginal Development Commission-Annual Report 1986-87-including the Auditor-General's Report-section 40 of the Aborignal Development Commission Act 1980-together with a Statement of Reasons and correspondence relating to the late tabling of the report-section 34c of the Acts Interpretation Act 1901. Housing Assistance Act 1984-Annual Report 1986-87-section 16 of the Housing Assistance Act 1984. Advance to the Minister for Finance-Statement of Expenditure for April 1988. Cocos (Keeling) Islands-Annual Report 1986-87. Madam SPEAKER —I have received a letter from the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard) proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion, namely: The serious implications for cabinet government flowing from the Prime Minister's new definition of ministerial responsibility. I call upon those members who approve of the proposed discussion to rise in their places. More than the number of members required by the Standing Orders having risen in their places- Mr HOWARD(Bennelong-Leader of the Opposition)(2.49) —Last Sunday I issued a news release in which I drew attention to the way in which the handling of the privatisation issue within the Government had gone from being high farce to a total shambles. I reminded the Australian public, as I do the Parliament this afternoon, that over the last week the total chaos, the drift and the indecision, and the total incapacity of the Government to take a decision on this issue had scaled new heights of government irresponsibility. If honourable members want any demonstration of the way in which the Government handled the privatisation issue, the weakness and ineptitude of the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) and the inability of the Prime Minister to drag his Party to a decision, let alone the decision that he wants, they will find it illustrated on today's The World Today program when Mr Jim Leslie, the Chairman of Qantas Airways Ltd, was asked to talk about the $131m operating profit that Qantas had earned in the past year. The announcer said: The healthy result hides a worrying rise in the company's debt ratio, which is now approaching 80 per cent. At a news conference Mr Leslie had this to say: `Well I think that when it gets above 65 per cent equity debt, to 35 per cent equity, I regard that as getting too high.' Dr Theophanous —He is wrong. Mr HOWARD —The honourable member for Calwell says he is wrong-this economic genius who is a mate of the Minister for Administrative Services (Mr West), the Minister who will not keep quiet. The Chairman of Qantas was saying to the Government and to the Prime Minister, `Will you please stop allowing Qantas to bleed to death? Will you please, as Prime Minister of this country, make a decision and decide whether you are going to sustain us out of the Budget or are going to do the sane and sensible thing and allow Qantas to be privatised?'. What is the Prime Minister's response? His response is not to say, `Yes, Mr Leslie, that is a serious matter and we will address it and make a sensible decision. After 12 months of drift and indecision, after 12 months of Ministers saying what they want to do and backbenchers saying what they want to do, we will finally make up our mind; I will finally drag this rabble that sits behind me to a decision'. No, he does not say that at all. He comes into this Parliament and redefines the doctrine of ministerial responsibility. By far the most revealing aspect of yesterday's exercise in Question Time was not the floundering of the Minister for Administrative Services, whose blue singlet Labor credentials are infinitely better than those of the man who leads his Party, but the Prime Minister's redefining of the doctrine of ministerial responsibility. Yesterday the Prime Minister gave up the ghost on trying to control his Cabinet on the issue. He gave up the ghost on trying to control the Australian Labor Party on the issue. Instead of knocking together the heads of those who destabilised Cabinet government, he decided he would change the rules. If anybody imagines that that is some fanciful claim by the Opposition, some Westminster abstraction or something dragged from Erskine May's Parliamentary Practice in the dust of the library, let me read from the Cabinet handbook circulated by the Prime Minister in 1988 to all Cabinet Ministers, including the Minister for Administrative Services. This is what it has to say under the heading `Collective responsibility': Ministers should not make public statements or comment on policy proposals which they are bringing or which are to be brought to Cabinet. It goes on to say: Promotion in public of a particular line may pre-empt Cabinet deliberations. Identification of individual Ministers with particular views tends to call into question the collective basis of agreed outcomes. Each portfolio Minister is responsible for direction and public presentation of policy and other Ministers should avoid separate policy stances becoming matters of public debate. They are not my words; they are not the words of some abstract commentator in the gallery; they are the words of the Prime Minister's own Cabinet handbook. Where is that handbook left after yesterday's declaration? Where is ministerial responsibility? It is in the `too hard' basket. The truth of the matter is that the Prime Minister has lost control not only of his Party but also of his Cabinet on the issue of privatisation. In the words of the Australian Financial Review this morning, he is left humiliated by his friends and his enemies on this issue. For 12 months the Prime Minister's nose has been rubbed in the dirt by a succession of left wing Ministers and union power bosses on this issue. There is only one person to blame for this. It is not the Minister for Administrative Services. It is not Simon Crean. It is not Senator Walsh. It is not the Minister for Social Security (Mr Howe). It is the Prime Minister himself. He is the person who honed the rhetorical bullets that are now being hurled at him. He is the person who two years ago attacked the Liberal Party of Australia for supporting privatisation. He is the person who, in concert with his Treasurer (Mr Keating), has run dead on this issue. The Treasurer has counted the heads in Caucus on privatisation. We do not see him raising his head. He knows where the numbers are. He knows that privatisation is dead and he knows, like the undertaker he is, that he ought to go to the funeral and he ought not try to resurrect the carcass, which the Prime Minister is trying to do. The person responsible for this chaos and mess, and for the fact that some of the great public enterprises of this country are bleeding to death, is none other than the Prime Minister himself. Two years ago he embarked upon the most hysterical, dishonest and shameful campaign that we have heard for years against the privatisation policies of the Liberal Party as enunciated then. He likened them to burning down the gum tree. He said that they were economic vandalism. He said that they were irresponsible. He said that the Australian Labor Party would rather die than surrender its opposition to privatisation. Miraculously, after the election he, like anybody treading the Damascus path, cast aside all of that. He comes into this Parliament and he goes to the councils of his own Party and says, `I have suddenly realised that privatisation is a great idea. We can no longer afford to put $600m into Qantas. We cannot afford to put $400m into Australian Airlines. We cannot afford to put billions of dollars into these public enterprises. We have to privatise them. We have to sell them off. We have to flog them off to the Australian public. That dreadful thing that we said the Liberal Party wanted to do a couple of years ago, that criminal commitment that the Liberal Party had a couple of years ago to privatise these bodies, we suddenly realise, was not a criminal commitment after all; it was sound national economic policy'. The pathetic thing about the Prime Minister is that, for the life of him, he cannot understand why, having taught these bad habits, having honed the rhetorical bullets a couple of years ago, they are being flung back at him. He says, `It is not fair. We ought to have an open debate'. It is not an open debate; it is a rout of the Prime Minister on something on which he has been shamefully humiliated by his own Party. The ultimate in the humiliation is not to be found so much in the declaration by Simon Crean-made, appropriately enough, last week-that privatisation was dead, in the meek acceptance on the same day by Senator Evans that it was dead, in the pathetic attempt the following day by the Prime Minister to breath life back into the body, or in the Minister for Administrative Services coming in with a good old Warilla rabbit killer and saying, `It is well and truly dead and we have to administer the last rites at the National Conference'. The really pathetic thing was the sight of this Prime Minister yesterday, in answer to my question, not trying to drag his Cabinet back into some semblance of unity and cohesion. How on earth can the Government expect the business community to take it seriously when the Minister for Administrative Services says, `It is dead'; Senator Evans says, `It might be'; Crean says, `It really is'; the Prime Minister says, `I hope it is not'; the Treasurer says, `It ought not to be'; and Senator Button says, `Keating is not talking on behalf of the Government when he says that it ought not to be dead.'? How on earth does the Government expect the business community, the people of Australia and the employees of these enterprises to take it seriously when it serves up that nonsense? Instead of the Prime Minister getting up and saying to his Ministers, `This is how it is going to be', like any leader who had respect and authority would do in such a situation, what did he do? He threw up his arms in horror and said, `Madam Speaker, I can no longer control them. So rather than trying to control them, I'll change the rules. I will amend in Question Time the decades old doctrine of ministerial responsibility'. I read that out from that handbook. Those words are not the words of Howard, the Liberal Party or the National Party of Australia; they are the words of Hawke's own handbook and the guidelines were given to all his Ministers. There is no way the Prime Minister can welsh on them without welshing on the principle of ministerial responsibility. What the Prime Minister has been found wanting on is a capacity to demand of his Ministers the degree of unity and cohesion that ought to be demanded. What has happened on this issue sends into pale pink insignificance any debate that occurs on our side of the Parliament on any issue at all. I ought to say to the Prime Minister: Do not let us ever hear you, having presided over a shambles of ministerial responsibility, ever talking about debate on policy issues within the Liberal and National parties. From now on the doctrine from this Prime Minister will be a very simple one: no matter what the issue is, no matter who the Minister is, no matter how serious the issue is and no matter how long the debate has gone on, a Cabinet Minister-not just a member of the Ministry; our mate from Warilla, the Minister for Administrative Services, is a Cabinet Minister-can say whatever he likes, as often as he likes, as publicly as he likes on any issue that he likes but, provided the Cabinet has not taken a final decision on it, it is perfectly in order for him to do so. That reduces the doctrine of ministerial responsibility to an absolute shambles. It has all happened because we have a weak Prime Minister who does not have the guts to pull his Ministers into line. It is as simple as that. If he had authority, respect, power and capacity on this issue, he would pull them into line. The Treasurer knew what he was about. He has not had his head up on this issue. He has been well and truly in the bunker on privatisation. He has trotted out the occasional word about how it is probably a good idea. He likes to brighten up his economic credentials every so often so that everybody in the business community knows that when the chips are down he will put up his hand for privatisation, but if one thinks that he will risk any party standing on the issue, one has another think coming. He has counted the heads on this issue. He knows that the Minister for Administrative Services is right. That is a good combination, the Treasurer and the Minister for Administrative Services, is it not? Perhaps it is the new ticket. He knows that he is right-that Crean, the Minister for Administrative Services and the Minister for Social Security (Mr Howe) have the numbers on privatisation and that the Prime Minister has been done like a dinner on this issue. I do not think that even the Treasurer imagined that when it came to the crunch the Prime Minister would be prepared to sacrifice what is one of the cornerstones of cohesive and stable government in this country, and that is the principle of ministerial responsibility. Unfortunately, he was wrong and we are all wrong. What really emerges as the great casualty from this debate is something even worse than the reputation of the Prime Minister; that is, the doctrine of ministerial responsibility has been changed permanently by this Prime Minister. It has been changed for the worse and it has been changed for the worse because he does not have the guts and strength of courage to stand up to the rabble behind him and tell them what is the right thing on this issue. Mr BEAZLEY(Swan-Leader of the House)(3.04) —We searched through the speech made by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard) to find the rationale for the Opposition bringing forward this matter of public importance at this stage and we found it in one sentence. The reason that the Leader of the Opposition has raised this matter of public importance can be found in his sentence, `Whatever is happening on our side of the House pales into insignificance in comparison with what is happening on the other side of the House'. If one allows the normal amount of exaggeration that everybody defending a case makes on either side of the House, one gets the real reason why the Leader of the Opposition has brought forward this matter of public importance. We have been having a debate on privatisation, in case the Leader of the Opposition has not noticed, set by the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) in the Australian Labor Party for the last nine months. The Prime Minister called for a debate on privatisation in the Labor Party and in the community. From the outset of that debate, Cabinet Ministers have been commenting on it; they have been commenting on one side or other of the debate for the last nine months. However, the Leader of the Opposition has brought this matter in here nine months later as a matter of Cabinet responsibility. Why has the Leader of the Opposition done this? Because he needs a smokescreen. He needs a smokescreen to protect him from the barrage of criticism he daily receives from the Press not only for weakening the leadership and standing of the Liberal and National parties in this Parliament by his own failures but also for starting to challenge the fabric of an effective democracy in this country. We will have more to say about that when we look at his weak leadership on issues such as the motion that will ultimately be moved in this place on Aboriginal matters and on the question of the Opposition's stance in the referendum campaign which is coming forward. We will discuss that a little later. It is necessary to dismiss immediately what little effort the Leader of the Opposition has made at putting substance into his nine months late remarks on the question of Cabinet solidarity. As far as the Prime Minister is concerned, the question of Cabinet solidarity is quite clear: when a decision is made by Cabinet, Cabinet Ministers are bound by it. That has been the situation for the five years the Labor Party has been in office. Frequently there is debate inside the Labor Party, in Caucus and in the Cabinet room and elsewhere. Frequently, as I have said, there have been disagreements among Ministers. The point is that when a decision is made by Cabinet all dispute ceases. The Minister to whom the Leader of the Opposition was referring was at one stage a victim of that process. He found himself unable to take Cabinet responsibility on the question of uranium. As a result the Prime Minister placed that Minister outside the Cabinet for a period. So it is clear that the Prime Minister, when Cabinet rules are offended, is prepared to act to ensure that Cabinet solidarity is upheld. I think we can dismiss immediately what little substance there is to the complaint made by the Leader of the Opposition. There has been no decision reached by Cabinet on the question of privatisation. Privatisation has been a matter of open debate among Cabinet Ministers inside the Party for nine months-as the Prime Minister asked for it to be nine months ago. So the situation now is no different from the situation nine months ago, except in one area. In the nine months since the last election the current Leader of the Opposition daily has given evidence of his inability to control and direct the Opposition parties. What he permits to develop is the politics of the lowest common denominator in the Opposition parties, even if it involves his repeated public humiliation. What greater public humiliation could one hope for than that demonstration the other night after the Leader of the Opposition encouraged the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs (Mr Hand) to go forward to prepare a bipartisan motion for us to move-as we move into our new Parliament House-on a simple matter of acknowledging an historical fact of whether or not the Aborigines occupied this land before most of our ancestors got here. The Leader of the Opposition encouraged the Minister to go down that road. Along with the shadow Aboriginal affairs spokesman, the honourable member for Braddon (Mr Miles), the Leader of the Opposition took it to the shadow Cabinet and was comprehensively and typically rolled. He was humiliatingly rolled and the honourable member for Braddon then felt free to come forward into the public arena and say that the shadow Cabinet had effectively rolled his position. Was the honourable member for Braddon thrown out of the shadow Cabinet for announcing a position that the Leader of the Opposition did not want announced then? No, he was carpeted but he was not thrown out of the shadow Cabinet. Was the honourable member for North Sydney (Mr Spender) thrown out of shadow Cabinet when he expressed his disagreement with the Leader of the Opposition on the referendum question? No, the honourable member for North Sydney was not thrown out of the shadow Cabinet for doing that. The honourable member remains in the shadow Cabinet, but he is there humiliated. We very rarely agree with the honourable member for North Sydney on anything, but we have to admire his courage. He is a legal man of some standing. He has come into this place, where he earns about one-tenth of what he could earn outside, basically because he has a few views on life and on the legal proprieties and what one is about when one is in public life, which is improving the quality of Australian life overall. We do not agree with his views but he does have a few views on that matter. When it comes down to a question of whether or not he wants to publicly support trial by jury, whether or not he wants to publicly support recognition by the Commonwealth of local government, whether or not he wants to publicly support freedom of religion, the honourable member for North Sydney is told to shut his mouth. The honourable member did not, as I recollect-I could be wrong but the division lists appear to support my belief-vote for what he was ultimately bound into by the Leader of the Opposition. He may well have had an excuse not to be here at that time; but whatever it was- Mr Fife —He was overseas. Mr BEAZLEY —I accept that. I am glad he was overseas because he was not, therefore, obliged to accept the humiliation that the Leader of the Opposition was obliged to accept as he sat in this chamber and voted against the proposition he had written to the Attorney-General (Mr Lionel Bowen) to ask him to place before the public in a referendum; what is more, a proposition that sat in the Liberal Party platform at the last election, namely, that local government ought to be given appropriate recognition in the Constitution. This is the leadership offered by the Leader of the Opposition to the people of Australia as an example of not only how he wishes to run a Cabinet but how he wishes to run a government. In the case of the referendum campaigns as they will come forward, that weakness in his leadership will, in the end, impact on the quality of democracy in this country because the propositions that are being put forward are manifestly not advantaging this side of the House. Despite desperate efforts to try to secure some sort of interpretation that they are, they are manifestly not advantaging this side of the House. They represent a bare minimum effort to bring Australians up to a consideration of what the founding fathers always intended be the way in which our Constitution should operate; that is, it should be a living document; it should be a document capable of changing with the times; it should be a document capable of reflecting the points of agreement that there are in the Australian community at any point of time and, in this case, the right that every vote have the same value, the right to trial by jury, the right of freedom of religion. These are not difficult constitutional questions. These are questions of basic human rights on which every side can agree; but the Government is not getting bipartisan support from the Liberal and National parties on these matters, even though it has a right to expect support on at least some of them, given past statements, because the Leader of the Opposition cannot lead. He can only interpret the lowest common denominator. He can get together what is the basic thing on which the Liberal and National parties will be united in disagreement in the majority, and try to carry that. It does not matter what happens to the principal people in his Party along the way; he will trample them. The difference between that situation and the matter that is being considered here today and the reasons why it is being considered here today is that all that I have said in the last seven minutes is not some new public expose. Every comment that I have made is not some original thought that has penetrated my head and I have managed to get up here and spout it out. Everything that I have said has been the daily fare of the editorials and leader-writers of this country over the last three or four weeks. The reason why we have to have a smokescreen is that, in some degree of desperation, the Leader of the Opposition has to throw this stuff up in the vain hope that, somehow or other, up in the Press gallery-there have not been many of the Press here listening to this debate-- Mr Ian Robinson —Have a look now. Mr BEAZLEY —I have two fewer than the Leader of the Opposition. They have not been listening to him so his smokescreen will not work. His leadership is now a matter of desperation inside the Liberal Party; hence we get letters such as that from Lightfoot, a Liberal Party member from Western Australia, written only a month ago to John Elliott, in which he said: May I congratulate you on your recent advocacy of a Consumption Tax. You are John, totally and unquestionably right. Unfortunately it was not sold properly in its embryonic concept to the public. I am reassured that you have the conviction necessary to maintain (and win!) the only major form of taxation reform that would allow a significant reduction in corporate and personal income tax. He goes on to say that regrettably he will be in the United States of America so he will not be able to attend a fundraising function in Perth at the time. The letter continues: I could not concede that the wider public appreciates the hollow chested, limp wristed mixture of wet Liberal/socialism that some of our leaders offer, and with some alacrity, espouse. You are unquestionably a natural leader, and I regret that there has not been a more positive effort to assist you into Federal politics and to guarantee you a prominent front bench position. I would earnestly hope that the conservative public use whatever muscle is necessary to open up and facilitate that position for you. May I offer my regrets and apologise again for missing you on your pending Perth visit to Western Australia. Lightfoot is a member of the State Parliament. Mr Connolly —He is a lightweight! Mr BEAZLEY —He is a lightweight; I do not dispute that, but he represents a substantial view within the Liberal Party about the leadership that is being offered at the moment, which is no leadership. The Party has no leadership on any issue, whether on the question of a decent resolution of the problems of Aborigines or on the question of the referendums. Mr Lightfoot asks here whether the business community continues to have confidence in this Government. The last time a section of the business community had a view to express to parliament, which was on the question of private ownership, business community leaders could go into the office of the Leader of the Opposition and put forward a reasonable position to him. He did not say, `I will take this and consider it; I will go back to the party forum and think about this further', or, `I have a few doubts about your position; I am not sure that I agree with you on these matters. I think there is an insufficient degree of liberality in media ownership'. That was not his response to them. He said, `I agree with you. I will take that matter to my shadow Cabinet and into the party room and we will agree with your position on that. You do not have to worry; the Government can go ahead and prepare legislation'. Why do honourable members think we prepared that legislation? Because we like getting knocked over in the Senate but we think it is a terrific idea to keep the Senate debating these matters? We proposed that legislation because we understood that some exercise of leadership was going on inside the Liberal Party such as we had not seen for some considerable time. Far be it from us, in an attempt to improve the quality of government in this country, to allow such an excellent moment to slip by without introducing a useful reform, so we proceeded to do it. What happened? This man, who comes into this place and tells us that the Prime Minister does not know how to run Cabinet Government and does not know how to offer leadership, collapsed like a pack of cards in the face of the opposition of his intellectually massive front bench-fell before the mighty front bench of the Liberal Party. It was the lowest common denominator again-after about half a dozen meetings in the space of about 24 hours flat, the Leader of the Opposition cobbled together a ridiculous policy, came into this House and presented it as leadership. We have seen from the Leader of the Opposition a mockery of political leadership in this country over the last two or three months. He seeks to conceal that mockery of leadership by this ridiculous little effort of coming in here and telling us that we do not know a thing about Cabinet Government because a Minister who is not bound by any Cabinet decisions has decided to express a view, as he and all other Ministers and members of the Labor Party were invited to do at the time the Prime Minister called for a debate inside the Labor Party-not with the Cabinet excluded from it-and in the general public on the issue of private ownership. It is pathetic and sad that the Leader of the Opposition has come down to this position. It is not to our advantage or the advantage of the country that this country should be possessed of a weak Opposition, but that is the situation we confront and we will all pay the penalty. Mr SINCLAIR(New England-Leader of the National Party of Australia)(3.19) —It is sad and bereft of principle and propriety that the Leader of the House (Mr Beazley) has found it necessary to come in here today and seek to blame the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard) for the failings of his own Prime Minister (Mr Hawke). What this is really about is two main criteria. The first is that yet again there is a sense of deja vu. We are back to the days of Whitlam, the day where the splits of Caucus, the internal fights, were spread amongst the newspapers of Australia; when Cabinet Ministers, having failed in Cabinet battles, took them into the Caucus room and then took them to the public. We are seeing yet again the crumbling of Labor in government-the total ineptitude and incompetence of Labor to reach positive decisions to give people the leadership that the principle and doctrine of ministerial responsibility is all about, but instead to present to them a divided, indecisive and indeterminate face. Of course, the more sinister element is the incompetence of the Prime Minister and his lack of leadership which have led to this situation. This is shades of what happened to Australia in the days of Whitlam. It is shades of what happens when Labor takes over. Progressively we see the factions pull the team apart. As this is happening, men like the present Prime Minister pretend that everything is okay. They come out and say, `It is all a matter of honest democratic debate'. The Leader of the House said that it is all a matter of trying to encourage debate inside the Australian Labor Party. What absolute rubbish. That is not what it is about. It is purely and simply about the Prime Minister not having the numbers. There is no question that the Prime Minister does not have the numbers, not just on the privatisation issue, and I will have a bit more to say on that in a moment, but on other issues. But the reality is that in the first instance we are seeing a return to the divisions, the ineptitude and the incompetence in policy direction that were set down under the Whitlam Government. Yet again, we find Prime Minister Hawke following in the fashion of Whitlam. Anybody who thinks that this is a different colour Labor Party really ought to have his head examined because it is not. Inevitably, we find that under Labor a Prime Minister is driven by factions and, in this instance, the Left has taken over. That is the second part of what I think this debate is about. The sad part about this matter is that not only is the Prime Minister without leadership and competence but also the Left is really taking over this debate as it is on each of the other major issues that will come before the Labor Party Conference. I was amazed that the Leader of the House had the cheek to talk about uranium and say that the Minister for Administrative Services (Mr West) was strongly disciplined and was actually told to get out of Cabinet. That is a brilliant way to exercise ministerial responsibility. The Prime Minister says, `Tut, tut' and grabs him by the finger. The Prime Minister does not kick him out of the Ministry. He says, `Oh, you are a naughty boy. You are going to get the same money but we are going to put you out of Cabinet. You can come in here for significant discussions'. The reality is that there is no ministerial discipline under Hawke. There is no ministerial propriety when Ministers are prepared and able-as the Prime Minister told us all in the Parliament yesterday they can-to go out and talk about what they will until Cabinet policy is established. That is not what the doctrine of ministerial responsibility is about. I could quote any number of authorities-from Quick and Garran, through to Pettifer and the House of Lords-which have laid down the Westminster system of politics which we pursue here. My colleague the Leader of the Opposition said that we do not have to refer to precedents; we can look at the doctrine that was laid down by the Prime Minister. The Cabinet handbook says it all. The reality is that yesterday the Prime Minister did not acknowledge that there is free and open debate or that there should properly be within the ranks of the Labor Party and the community a re-examination of the arguments around privatisation. The Leader of the House said it all. This debate has been going on for nine months. Why cannot honourable members opposite come to a decision? Nine months and they still have not taken a decision. Nine months and they want free and open debate. We heard from the Minister for Administrative Services today. Was he free to come out and tell us what it is all about? Mind you, that did not deter him out on the front steps of Parliament House this morning. But he and Simon Crean know that privatisation is dead. Privatisation is dead not because there has been a proper consideration of the funding needs of Australian Airlines, Qantas Airways Ltd, the Commonwealth Bank, Australian National, the Australian National Line or any of the other public instrumentalities that all of us in this place know are starved of finance, but because the Left has the numbers. The Prime Minister is yet again showing that he is unable to give leadership to Australia. In exactly the same way as Gough Whitlam before him, we are finding that this Prime Minister too has feet of clay. I want to talk on three other issues. I am quite fascinated that the Leader of the House spoke not just on privatisation. He also spoke about Aborigines. We want to remember that it was the Prime Minister, without telling his Minister for Aboriginal Affairs (Mr Hand), who went out and said there was going to be a compact among the Australian people and that that compact was going to be entered into between his Government and the Aboriginal people. We know how the Prime Minister misled them, how he pretended that in some way they were going to be better off as a result of his giving them some sort of agreement. It was not an agreement that would give them better health conditions, that would in any way address their unemployment problems or that would provide them with better housing. All it would give them was words. However, yet again, the Prime Minister did not have the numbers. Just as was the case with privatisation the Prime Minister knows that what has happened with Aboriginal affairs is yet again a result of divisions within the Australian Labor Party. A few days after the Prime Minister's announcement, the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs said that he did not know anything about it. Why should he? After all, he was only the Minister responsible. We also have the question of uranium. Apart from the fact that the Minister for Administrative Services was given a bit of a rap on the knuckles, we all know what has happened. We had a debate on uranium in the House the other day. That magnificent trio, the honourable member for Kingston (Mr Bilney), the honourable member for Kalgoorlie (Mr Campbell) and the Labor senator for the Northern Territory, told their colleagues, `It is all nonsense. With this three-mine policy of yours, you do not know what you are about'. The Minister for Primary Industries and Energy (Mr Kerin) is saying the same thing. Where is this doctrine of ministerial responsibility? What is the Labor Party's policy? What is really happening is that, because there is about to be a conference, the Prime Minister is a bit embarrassed because he knows that his blue collar credentials are suspect and he knows that nobody in the ranks of the Labor Party believes that he is in touch with what they want. We know that Mr Hawke is a Prime Minister out of touch and progressively he is beginning to believe that, too. Three back bench members of the Labor Party and the Minister for Primary Industries and Energy are saying, `For goodness sake all you other fellows in Labor Caucus, it is about time that you recognised what Australia needs. You cannot afford to forgo the income. You cannot afford to deny the Aborigines, the indigenous owners, their right to mine uranium'. But yet again the Prime Minister is not showing leadership and is quite prepared to allow these sorts of splits to appear. I am also told that that is the case yet again on a fourth question, the question of roads. There is a major worry in Australia today. Our road system is breaking down. We know that tomorrow night the Treasurer (Mr Keating) will come into this place and make a ministerial statement. I am told that a back bench member of the Labor Caucus was going to ask a question about roads of the Minister for Transport and Communications Support (Mr Peter Morris), representing the Minister for Transport and Communications (Senator Gareth Evans). However, he was told, `You had better keep quiet about that because we cannot do anything about it. Mr Lloyd —It was about Qantas. Mr SINCLAIR —It was a question about Qantas. My colleague says that. The reality is that there is no free and open debate within the Labor Party. If that Party permitted free and open debate, a question on roads would have been permitted today. There is a problem. The people that we in the National Party of Australia represent and my colleagues in the Liberal Party of Australia from the bush know what is happening to rural roads, but there is no free and open debate on a question like that. The point is that free and open debate occurs only when it is a matter of ideology. Why is it that only then is there any free and open debate? It is because the left wing has the numbers. Yesterday we finally saw the nail in the coffin of consensus. Do honourable members remember that brand new word, the new vision for Australia? The Prime Minister said that he would bring in consensus when he was elected back in March 1983, but what happened to it? The Prime Minister did not have the numbers. The Prime Minister does not have the leadership ability and he is unable to give to those who have a different point of view to his own the leadership inspiration that makes them say, `Gee, Bob, that is what I want to do for Australia'. Of course, that is not what is happening within the Labor Party today. Instead, we have a latter-day, 1988 Whitlam. In Prime Minister Hawke we are seeing those same feet of clay-we are seeing the lack of leadership, the lack of ability to control the factions, divisions within the Government and a breakdown in ministerial responsibility. The sadness is that it is the people of Australia who will suffer. Whatever the Prime Minister's attitude on privatisation, and I suspect that it is no more than expediency, the reality is that privatisation is dead-not because it is good for Australia but because the Prime Minister has failed in his responsibilities. Mr WRIGHT(Capricornia)(3.30) —I will come to the comments of the right honourable member for New England (Mr Sinclair) later. I want to refer to some of the comments made by the Leader of the Opposition, the honourable member for Bennelong (Mr Howard). He centred most of his remarks on some sort of weird idea that the Prime Minister did not have the ability to make a decision. I think a comparison ought to be made here. We ought to go back to see the inaction and policy inability of the Leader of the Opposition, an inability that has permeated every aspect of his leadership of the Opposition and his performance when he was Treasurer of this nation. It is on the record that it was the honourable member for Bennelong who nearly deregulated the financial market, who nearly floated the dollar, who nearly reduced expenditure in the areas of government expenditure and appropriation, who nearly removed the unfair tariffs and protections that ought not have been there, who nearly reconstructed the tax system, who nearly introduced the broad based consumption tax and who nearly cracked down on tax evasion and all the rorts that went on across this nation, particularly from 1976 to 1983. He nearly did it. He did not have the ability. Because of his innate make-up he could not make decisions, and he certainly did not make those decisions. It is important that all members of parliament have the right in this House to raise matters of public importance. It is part of the democratic system, the Westminster system, that members of the Opposition in particular can come forward in this House at least once a day to raise matters of public importance. But the record shows that the debates on matters of public importance that have been initiated in recent times by the Liberals and Nationals have verged on the farcical. Most of them have been nothing but poor attempts to point score politically, and they have missed in their aim. They have been badly orchestrated and pathetically argued, they have usually been hypocritical, and most have been so well off the mark that people do not bother to listen to them any more. For almost five years, since the Hawke Government came to power, we have seen members of the Opposition bring forward debates on gloom and doom predictions about impending economic disaster. It has not happened. Instead, our economy has turned the corner. There have been attacks on Labor's economic management. It is laughable in light of what the private sector is saying about the fantastic management, the proper economic management, of this Government. Those opposite have launched attacks on poverty, yet they do not bother to realise the strategy that is now in place and working across this nation, helping the many hundreds of thousands of low income families. There have been moans about unemployment. Members of the Opposition do not realise that we have created one million jobs. There has been doom and gloom about Australia's balance of trade, but refreshing and encouraging statistics are now coming forward month after month. We have also heard the Opposition's vicious attacks on unions. I suggest that, except for the doctors' disputes, there has been general industrial peace in the workplace right across the land. Calls have been made for tax restructuring, but it is the Labor Government that has taken the action. The matters of public importance that have been brought forward have been nothing but crocodile tears. They have been brought forward in a desperate attempt by the Opposition day after day to latch on to some issue-any issue. It does not matter what it is, provided they can grab something to growl about. Today's matter of public importance is typical. It is like so many that have come before-criticism without foundation, a tongue in cheek approach. The wording of the matter of public importance oozes with hypocrisy. It is quite laughable for the Opposition ever to talk about ministerial responsibility. It is quite laughable for it ever to talk about cohesion and direction of policy. Here we have, in 1988, a Liberal and National Opposition that is the most divided opposition, the most divided coalition, since Federation. It has no political cohesion, no political direction, no clear ideological position and no decisive leadership. It is a conglomeration of small groups of conservative politicians whose only common characteristic is that they are devoid of ideas and initiative but are anti-Labor. It is the only thing that seems to bring them together. They are totally undependable when it comes to what they believe in. No-one in the business world or in the community seems to know what they believe. They do not have a policy position, a policy stance. The honourable member for Bennelong talked about people having different points of view on this side of the House. I thought that was the essence of democracy. I thought that was what it was all about. If members of the Government talk about a matter and take it to the public over nine or 10 months, as we have done with privatisation, we are said to be procrastinating. If we make quick decisions, we are told that we are roaring things through. We cannot win. The fact is that the Government is different from the Opposition. We believe in discussion and consensus. Another difference is that the Government has the characteristics of certainty and consistency, and we cannot find that in the Opposition. The Leader of the Opposition talked about backbenchers saying what they want to. Is that a crime? Is it wrong for backbenchers to have a differing point of view when no specific policy decision has been made by the Government? I suggest to the Leader of the Opposition that he look at what the honourable member for Boothby (Mr Steele Hall) had to say in the debate on the consumption tax and in the referendum debate. I suggest that he look at what the honourable member for Sturt (Mr Ian Wilson) had to say in the referendum debate, or at the remarks of the honourable member for North Sydney (Mr Spender), his own shadow Attorney-General. The Leader of the Opposition talks about ministerial responsibility, yet for days we have seen the honourable member for North Sydney saying outside this House that he does not stand by his Leader on this issue. It is quite hypocritical for the Leader of the Opposition to say the things he has. Other members of the Opposition-Senator Puplick, the honourable member for Ryan (Mr Moore), who is in the chamber, and Senator Chaney-have disagreed, sometimes in total thrust and at others in the finer points and detail, with what the Leader of the Opposition keeps saying is his policy. I suggest that there is a warning to all Australians when the Leader of the Opposition speaks out against members of any party or any government having an alternative point of view. He is saying that he is opposed to public debate on important issues. He is opposed to Ministers having a personal view on issues that have not been decided by Cabinet or government, and he is opposed to backbenchers saying what they want on important public issues. I suggest, however, that if we ran a survey on the views of Liberals and Nationals at the moment we would come up with some strange results. Members of the Liberal and National parties hold all sorts of strange views. Whether it be the views on the consumption tax of John Elliott, the Leader of the Liberal Party machine; Senator John Stone, shadow Minister for Finance, the honourable member for Kooyong (Mr Peacock), the honourable member for O'Connor (Mr Tuckey), the honourable member for Wentworth (Dr Hewson), or the honourable member for Ryan, they are all different. They are all in conflict, they all criticise each other. Yet the Leader of the Opposition has the audacity to stand up here and criticise because Government members have different points of view on privatisation. It seems to me that there are different points of view on the other side of the House. I note from a recent Hansard report a quotation used by one of the Government's Ministers in the Senate from a person who said: Public bodies have an important part to play in our national development because many things we do are too big in scope or too important for private people or even groups of people to undertake alone. That is a very strong argument for public sector enterprises. It is a very strong argument for the people's type of industry to prevail. Who said it? It was Malcolm Fraser. Malcolm Fraser said it on 22 February 1956. I suggest that it is a far cry from the mad, sell off everything views that the Leader of the Opposition has today. He talks about some sort of breakup of attitude or lack of consensus on this side of the House. I do not think there has ever been consensus on the other side. We need look only at the tax policies of the Queensland National Party, the Federal National Party, the Liberal machine, the Liberal wets and the Liberal dries. It is as if the Leader of the Opposition is an apprentice bullocky trying to goad and coax his load of logs down the political road. He has the lead yoke around his neck but his team is pulling away in every direction, down different tracks. That seems to be the situation. As the Minister for Defence (Mr Beazley) said, he is trying to put up a smokescreen. He realises the problem he has in his own Party and he is trying to make some sort of cover-up. Well, it is not working. We know what is going on. We know that the conflict exists. I wonder how many people appreciate just how far away the Leader of the Opposition really is from the consensus, the attitudes and the policies that have been adopted by the Liberal Party. The Liberal Party's 1987 policy document states: The hallmark of our system of justice is the right to trial by jury. That is the hallmark of the Liberal Party policy. It continues: Such a guarantee should be entrenched in the Constitution . . . And what are those opposite doing? Now that we in the Government are changing the Constitution to allow trial by jury, the Liberal Party and the National Party are opposed to it. Mr O'Neil —Hypocrites. Mr WRIGHT —They are hypocrites. It does not stop there. The policy document also states: Protection of rights to private property is basic to our democracy. The constitutional guarantee, which presently requires fair compensation only when private property is taken by the Commonwealth, must be extended to give the same protection against State and Territory governments. It is Liberal Party policy. It is a proposition that we are putting forward in our constitutional referendum but it is opposed by the Liberals. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) -Order! The honourable member's time has expired. The debate is concluded. Debate resumed from 28 April, on motion by Mr Barry Jones: That the Bill be now read a second time. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —I understand it is the wish of the House to debate the Anti-Dumping Authority Bill concurrently with the Customs Legislation (Anti-Dumping Amendments) Bill and the Customs Tariff (Anti-Dumping) Amendment Bill. There being no objection, the Chair will allow that course to be followed. Mr MOORE(Ryan)(3.40) —The Customs Tariff (Anti-Dumping Amendment) Bill, the Customs Legislation (Anti-Dumping Amendments) Bill and the Anti-Dumping Authority Bill are a consequence of the Government's response to the review of the Customs Tariffs Anti-Dumping Act carried out by Professor Gruen. This review was completed in March 1986, so there really has not been what one might call a shattering rush to implement the recommendations of the Gruen report. When one looks at the activity currently taking place in the customs area one wonders whether it would not be more appropriate, seeing that the Law Reform Commission is looking at the whole of the Customs Act, to refer this matter to that inquiry. It has taken such a long time, over two years, to get to this stage and a major review is still being carried on. In essence another layer of administration is being put into the customs pot while a review of the whole of the Customs Act is being undertaken by the Law Reform Commission. It is quite strange, especially when we have waited over two years for this legislation in response to the Gruen report. I guess that is a result of poor management. As I said before, the Bills are a response to the Gruen report. They amend the anti-dumping legislation to implement some of the recommendations of the Gruen inquiry. The Anti-Dumping Authority Bill creates a new statutory authority to administer the anti-dumping mechanisms set up in the two Bills which accompany it. So we have two amending Bills and one establishing an authority. It will be a one member Anti-Dumping Authority headed by someone outside the Public Service. The new statutory body will advise the Minister whether dumping or countervailing duties should be imposed on products imported from overseas. Dumping occurs when products from one country are exported to another at less than their normal value. It is a practice which is internationally condemned as unfair trading, particularly if the dumped goods are harmful to local production in the importing country. There is a need to control dumping, but any legislation must, by its nature, be transparent-as the honourable member for Curtin (Mr Rocher) would know. It is imperative that anti-dumping measures not be used as de facto protection measures, because if there is to be protection it should be visible. In the past Australia has made greater use of anti-dumping action than other countries. This could be potentially frustrating to the achievement of other Government objectives in industry, trade, competition and economic policy areas. In practice, anti-dumping actions hinder beneficial international commercial competition and become significant protection devices. So I hope this Bill does not foreshadow anti-dumping actions becoming even more prevalent in Australia. As I said before, if we need to protect any industry we must do it openly by imposing duties and not by back door anti-dumping devices. Also, history has shown that generally the injured party will turn out to be the exporting country which continues to dump. It is therefore in the best interests of Australia to take the external trading environment as it exists where and when we can. There comes a time when Australian industry must become competitive enough to survive in the context of the world economic environment. There is a real need for change towards a less assisted, more outward looking, restructured industry. This does not completely preclude the need for anti-dumping measures in Australia. The Opposition agrees that there is a place for anti-dumping measures based on the principle that trade should be conducted fairly. However, anti-dumping systems must be speedily and readily available. Our present anti-dumping system certainly is lacking in some respects. It is for this reason that the Government commissioned Professor Gruen to review the anti-dumping system that applies in this nation. The review certainly received the benefit of advice from many parts of industry, and its recommendations have been taken up in this legislation. I might add that I was responsible for customs for some time, and I found the whole area of dumping to be very complex and the causes for it sometimes very difficult to understand. In some cases there is no doubt that the action taken by the Australian producer was more in line with a protectionist approach than a dumping one. As a consequence of that, one first had to establish whether the dumping by the foreign country was real or whether the local producer had not taken the necessary steps in order to keep himself in the contemporary marketplace and was attempting to use anti-dumping laws as a way of extending his protection. The next difficulty was that in genuine cases of dumping one could not claim injury until it occurred. The potential for dumping to occur was no reason to seek a review of a particular product. Having ascertained that injury had been occurring in Australia, the job of the Australian Customs Service to make the right decision in relation to pricing a product external to Australia was very hard, very time consuming and very costly. On many occasions we moved officers around the world to investigate various products, sometimes successfuliy and sometimes not. When trading with Japan, in particular, it is very hard to isolate a normal price. In spite of the actions of the Customs officers at that stage, ultimately only a very good guess was the basis on which decisions were made. So I can understand the predicament the Government found itself in when addressing the Gruen report. The main provisions which come from that report are welcomed by the Opposition as they offer a way through the maze. However, we disagree with some aspects of the detail in the Bills. The main provisions of the legislation are as follows: it establishes a one-man Anti-Dumping Authority; policy guidelines will be developed by the Authority and established by regulation; the life of dumping notices and undertakings will be restricted to a maximum of three years-Gruen recommended two; and it prescribes the manner in which the Australian Customs Service will conduct preliminary investigations into dumping complaints. In addition I find that the Industries Assistance Commission Act-we debated the IAC Bill on Wednesday-will be amended once more so that the IAC is no longer responsible for dumping matters. That job will now go to the new Authority. If I were a member of the IAC these days, I would certainly be looking around for a transfer. The future does not look too good in the IAC. On Wednesday we were stripping a few things away from the IAC. We talked about the amount of money spent on the IAC, the Government's main advisory body on industry. Its money is going down. Certainly even the Minister for Science, Customs and Small Business (Mr Barry Jones) could not say that the IAC legislation does not strip it of dumping. Certainly my recommendation to members of the IAC would be to look for a job transfer. Anti-dumping complaints can now be initiated by any person on behalf of the relevant Australian industry. After preliminary investigation by the Customs Service a determination will be made about whether there is a prima facie case to warrant investigation by the new Authority. The legislation prescribes that investigations must be commenced within 70 days, and a further 180 days are allowed in which to make a preliminary finding as to whether dumping or countervailing duty should be imposed. The decisions which inevitably flow from the Customs Service are subject to review by the Authority and must be reported to the Minister within a further 120 days. Quite a period has elapsed when 70 days, then 180 days and a further 120 days pass in terms of these procedures. The Minister has total discretion and will take into account the national interest in making his final decision. The Opposition rejects the provision which allows far too long a period for decisions to be made by the Customs Service. It seems to us that certainty and speed are essential for the injured party. I am aware that the Customs Service cannot achieve these elements without more resources. Customs has been consistently short-changed on resources over the years, particularly the allocation relating to dumping. It is a specialist area and it requires both manpower in Australia and the placing of Customs officers in areas external to this country. If the intention of this Bill is to fix that problem, the maximum period allowable before action is taken should be shortened. We will be moving amendments, which have been circulated, to that effect at the Committee stage. The amendments relate to the Anti-Dumping Authority Bill and the Customs Legislation (Anti-Dumping Amendments) Bill. The Gruen review recommended 55 days and 120 days for the Customs Service to report-considerably shorter than the time recommended in the legislation. I assume that the reason for that is the Government decided that Customs would have no more resources, that it would have to make do with the current situation, so we cannot have the recommended shorter period. I understand that Canada has a 30-day and a 60-day rule. If that is the case, its resources must be infinitely greater to be able to achieve that result. I hope that the Department will press its claims for more resources because the greater the availability of resources the better will be the services that can be provided to people who are in daily contact with the Service. Professor Gruen's main recommendation was that the provision for anti-dumping should be streamlined, simplified and clarified so that a predictable mechanism is created. That is a worthy objective and something which, in the dumping area, should be worked out. Industry requires certainty. Industry has a right to know where it stands in relation to dumping issues. I am not sure that this Bill meets that criterion. It adds another layer of bureaucracy which may or may not have the proper funding to carry out the duties with which it is vested. Gruen wanted to discourage the use of the anti-dumping system for the reasons that I mentioned earlier. This new layer of bureaucracy will promote greater use of the system as all and sundry are being encouraged to take part. Gruen said in his report: The anti-dumping system should not be used to shield import-competing industry from the necessity to adjust to changing longer term economic conditions-unless the IAC has at least examined the circumstances justifying such longer-term insulation from world market trends. The Government has fixed up the IAC by removing dumping. It has certainly given Gruen the thumbs down in that regard. The concept of a new statutory body clearly indicates that this Government wonders whether it is the most effective means of curbing dumping. The team of 16 experts will be headed by a person chosen for his or her economic and commercial experience. I seriously wonder whether the Government will pay enough to attract the right sort of person to such a position. The same old problem-underfunding -is evident. Nowhere in this legislation, either in the explanatory memorandum or in the second reading speech, do we read anything about the new Authority receiving proper resources. Even Professor Gruen admitted that the biggest problem with the dumping situation is that not enough resources are there to make anti-dumping measures effective. A body can be set up and a few public servants appointed to it, but, without the proper resources, it cannot be made to work. Gruen recommended 55 and 120 days only should be allowed. The Opposition supports that recommendation. Our proposed amendments to that effect have been distributed. In order for a speedy resolution of these disputes, it is necessary for the time limits to be lowered from those which are recommended. It is interesting to note that in Canada, as I have said, time limits are set at only 30 days and 60 days. The Opposition does not oppose the principles of the legislation. We hope that this legislation will contribute to resolving some of the many vexing problems of dumping. This area requires professional attention. Specialists are required to be on hand to the Customs Service so it can apply itself to the very difficult task of establishing normal pricing and injury to industry. The Government's response has been slow. It has taken two years. We wonder-indeed, we doubt-whether it will be the sort of response industry requires. We wonder whether the approach is suitable and whether the timetable that is set down is quick enough. We also wonder whether the resources that ought to be placed with Customs to carry this through will be provided. Without the resources and without the timetables, there is not much hope that this contribution towards the dumping issue will resolve anything. It could create another administrative layer. Mr HUMPHREYS(Griffith-Minister for Veterans' Affairs) —I ask for leave of the House to present revised explanatory memoranda to the Bills. Leave granted. Mr HUMPHREYS —I apologise on behalf of the Minister for Science, Customs and Small Business (Mr Barry Jones), who was not able to be present to hear the contribution made by the shadow Minister for business and consumer affairs, the honourable member for Ryan (Mr Moore). The Minister assures me that he will be in the chamber for the conclusion of the debate. I present the revised explanatory memoranda to the Anti-Dumping Authority Bill, the Customs Legislation (Anti-Dumping Amendments) Bill and the Customs Tariff (Anti-Dumping) Amendment Bill. These explanatory memoranda supersede those tabled on 28 April 1988. Mr Fife —How do these explanatory memoranda differ from the original ones? Mr HUMPHREYS —There are only minor changes. Mr Fife —Mr Deputy Speaker, with your indulgence I ask the Minister to inform the House what circumstances have led to the tabling of the revised memoranda. Perhaps the Minister might be able to indicate whether it is as a result of rushing legislation through the House and failure to prepare the material properly. Mr HUMPHREYS —I understand that there are editorial and typing changes. The revised explanatory memoranda attribute some of the Government's decisions to the Gruen recommendations. Mr Fife —It is not because of rushing, is it, or because there was not enough time for proper preparation of the material? Mr HUMPHREYS —No, it is not because of rushing. I have just explained what it is all about. I am sure that the Minister will be here at the end of the debate to explain this matter fully. The honourable member may then like to ask the Minister questions. Mr Moore —It sounds like a bungled job. Mr HUMPHREYS —No, it is not. Mr SCHOLES(Corio)(3.59) —Dumping is one of the most sensitive, emotive and probably misunderstood areas of the operations of the Australian Customs Service. It is also true to say that it is one of the most ruthless, exploitive and dangerous practices in international trade and should, wherever practicable, be legislated against or penalised in such ways as are open to governments. Proof of dumping is very difficult. It is difficult also to convince the majority of those who are affected by imports that dumping is not taking place. Certainly, it is necessary that a country such as Australia, where large industrial bases do not exist in all areas, is protected from short-term and long term dumping which can have the effect of wiping out local industries with no prospects of a local source replacing them, to be followed by exploitation of the Australian market. The Anti-Dumping Authority Bill, the Customs Legislation (Anti-Dumping Amendments) Bill and the Customs Tariff (Anti-Dumping) Amendment Bill change the arrangements in a number of ways. They also place the final responsibility for decision making in this process squarely with the government of the day, through the Minister. Within the arrangements which are covered by the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT), there are limited options for a government to protect its own industries against a sudden influx of dumped products over a short period. I am not sure that this piece of legislation deals fully with that problem. It is of concern that where an importer or a foreign seller chooses to enter the Australian market with goods at non-competitive prices, on either a short or a long term arrangement, the response times and the provisions which exist to penalise the person undertaking the dumping are such as to make such a venture a very low risk commercial operation. Under the present arrangements, only the person or firm directly affected by dumping is permitted to initiate, by right, an anti-dumping action. There have been a number of cases where foreign firms with subsidiaries in Australia but controlled outside Australia were involved in dumping to the detriment of employees of and suppliers to Australian firms in a way which was quite unfair and unscrupulous. This legislation changes the right to initiate an anti-dumping action in that it extends that `by right' provision to employees or their representatives and also to other firms, such as suppliers who are or could be affected. The Minister for Science, Customs and Small Business (Mr Barry Jones) indicated in his second reading speech that, where a prima facie case of dumping is established, he will usually exercise his power for retrospective application of an anti-dumping duty to the date which is provided for by law. That is a deterrent in itself in that it effectively takes away a positive advantage which exists in the present circumstances whereby a person or a firm who imports or dumps goods in Australia can fairly safely expect to benefit for an extended period whilst hearings are held and decisions are made in respect of the dumped imports. It does not altogether resolve the problem of that advantage. I have raised the position-I have been informed that it is not possible under the GATT arrangements-whereby alternate sourcing take place, thus circumventing the anti-dumping legislation. It is possible to spot purchase a substantial range of goods, dump them in Australia and not be subject to this legislation in any way because the time frames which are involved and the time at which an anti-dumping duty can first be applied will not cover goods already in Australia when the complaint is lodged and goods from the source where it is not intended by the importer to re-supply. It is possible to change sources-and there are ample sources available of many goods which can be dumped against Australian industry-and to continue to dump goods in Australia with little or no penalty. I believe that that is a weakness in the legislation or the GATT arrangements. Certainly, it is a serious weakness in a world in which it is not unusual for countries to subsidise exports, such as is happening against our primary products in other parts of the world. The legislation restricts the times for each of the stages of hearing of an anti-dumping application. They are still fairly long and present a situation where at least some damage can occur to an Australian industry which may not be in a position to compete with lower priced, high-volume goods over any extended period. The one other concern I have about the legislation is that, where dumping is re-sourced, there are no penalties and there is no automatic establishment of a prima facie case that the re-sourced goods have been dumped and that, on such a finding being established, anti-dumping duties will be made retrospective to those re-sourced goods, a person having already been found to have dumped goods from the original source. It is not an adequate protection that a person who has been found guilty of acting contrary to the Australian law can, merely by re-sourcing his goods, commit the same indiscretion again and be exempt from any form of penalty. The worst penalty that can apply to that person is that he is asked to pay the proper price for the imports which arrive in this country. There is a very distinct commercial encouragement in this legislation and the dumping arrangements for persons to involve themselves in sourcing from other areas because there are no effective penalties. I wish to deal with one other matter, which is broader than the dumping issue itself. Unfortunately, there is in the community some confusion as to the difference between anti-dumping legislation and protection as such. It is not a bad thing that the proposed Anti-Dumping Authority will be divorced from the Industries Assistance Commission (IAC). I noticed some cross-chamber discussion before. I would think that the IAC has about the same record of acceptance of its reports as the Remuneration Tribunal has about its reports. It does not have a very high scoring record. But the IAC, through the process of tariffs, quotas and other forms of restriction of entry on a permanent basis, is responsible for providing protection to Australian industry, on a short or long-term basis, from normal competition. The anti-dumping legislation is not supposed to be a form of long-term protection. Therefore, it is appropriate that there is a sunset clause on the length of time in which a matter can be subject to anti-dumping procedures. If dumping were to be still continuing after a period of three years, or the potential was there for that to occur, the matter should have been dealt with in that time by an appropriate reference to the IAC, through the methods which are established to provide protection to industry on a permanent basis. To put it bluntly, I think that Australia's attitude on protection is holier than thou. We are leaving ourselves in a position where we can argue with some moral certainty for greater trading freedom around the world. Unfortunately, other countries, the United States in particular, which talk about freeing of trade do not practise it. The United States is involved in as heavy dumping arrangements as any country anywhere in the world. We need access to overseas markets. For obvious reasons we cannot afford to act in a way which will cause problems in our existing export markets. Equally, we cannot afford to allow our industries to go down the drain through unfair trading practices when such industries are competitive and when, after our industries have been removed, the prices for goods immediately move up. There are plenty of examples of that. I support the legislation. However, I have reservations about the extent to which it provides an adequate mechanism to protect against blatant and, what I consider bordering on criminal, dumping which occurs on occasions. I am informed that because of our international agreements the legislation cannot carry the types of arrangements which I would prefer to see in place. I am not advocating that we should have restrictions on imports for the sake of restrictions. However, where persons, firms, countries or otherwise are involved in blatantly unfair trade practices, I believe our industries are as entitled to protection as theirs. Mr ROCHER(Curtin)(4.11) —The Hawke-Keating Government has attempted to project an image as a deregulatory, free trade oriented administrator of industry and trade policy. However, apart from active work against agricultural subsidies, quotas and protection, the Government's record is one of mediocrity. Australian industry remains highly protected as European and American trade negotiators consistently point out. The Government has actively interfered in industry through a series of interventionist plans which protect trade union influence, as much as industry itself. The Anti-Dumping Authority Bill and cognate Bills continue the Government's record of rhetoric which is not matched by action. It is not surprising therefore that the second reading speech of the Minister for Science, Customs and Small Business (Mr Barry Jones) was riddled with contradictions. The only substantially accurate assertion is that this legislation is in accordance with the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT). However, that is also true of a lot of the agricultural protection which Australia has correctly queried and challenged. The GATT negotiations represent the lowest common denominator result of the divergent ideas and interests of many countries which are not exactly themselves models of open trading economies. The standard set in GATT negotiations must be considered the minimal condition for free trade. It should not be the standard by which the Australian Government is judged. The standard should be the interests of Australians as consumers, farmers, miners or those involved in other businesses. By that measure, this legislation fails. It fails because no matter what rhetoric is used to justify retaliatory anti-dumping legislation, its effect is to protect local industry. Professor Fred Gruen wrote in the Australian Financial Review of 4 May 1988: Anti-dumping policies are used predominantly by certain rich, unadaptable economies . . . which find it politically easier to use anti-dumping techniques for protecting their industries than to allow their industries to compete freely. Under this legislation, Professor Gruen's assessment will be particularly relevant to our country. It is now proposed to set up yet another government authority, the Anti-Dumping Authority, which will have its own interests in ensuring that anti-dumping measures play an important role in Australian trade policy. The Minister argues: Dumping occurs when the products of one country are exported to another country at less than their normal value in the country of export. Put simply, if the Australian consumer can get a better price than overseas consumers because of local market conditions, heavy competition, subsidy or the aggressive marketing of overseas companies, that cheaper product could become the subject of a dumping complaint. The criterion upholding that complaint is to be whether pricing causes or threatens material injury to the industry producing like goods in the importing country. If a complaint is upheld, dumping duties can be imposed raising the price of the good for the consumer and removing the need for Australian producers to match the lower price. I ask the House: How does this differ from the most common arguments for protection? Certainly, it has the same effect as traditional protection on the price of overseas goods if they are considered dumped. The difference is that anti-dumping legislation is cloaked in terms such as `fair trade' and `a retaliatory response to unfair trade practices'. In reality it represents a return to concepts of international trade-no more, no less than that. Cynics, as well as respected economists, have suggested that the worldwide increase in anti-dumping legislation in recent years has more to do with the fact that it is the only form of protection considered legitimate in the GATT rules than it has to do with a sudden increase in the practice of dumping. Anti-dumping legislation represents a specific case of a belief in retaliatory protection. In the context of world trade that is the metaphorical equivalent to the prisoner's dilemma. It is the very reason for the existence of GATT. There is little evidence that anti-dumping legislation is a successful strategy, while there is a good deal of evidence to suggest that the differential pricing which can attract dumping complaints is actually in the interests of the importing nation. As the Minister for Trade Negotiations (Mr Duffy) should, and I am sure would, be aware, the idea of fair trade which is referred to by the Minister for Science, Customs and Small Business in his second reading speech, is the rational for most protectionist trade proposals in the United States. The idea of fair trade fails to distinguish between the commercial decisions of private business and the efforts of government to protect or subsidise local industry. I suggest that that is a distinction which this legislation also fails to draw. Economist George Yarrow has argued: Many supporters of anti-dumping measures base their case on the argument that the legislation serves to promote fair trade, without explaining why a business practice as widespread as price discrimination should be regarded as unfair. In the absence of any detailed elaboration of the criterion of fairness that is being employed, such arguments strike me simply as being empty. Empty is probably the only apt description of this legislation. In a recent Press release the Minister warned importers against unfair-for `unfair' one can read `competitive'-trade practices and assured industry that this legislation would be used vigorously. Surely the use of legislation must be determined by the actual trading practices as they emerge. By promising vigorous anti-dumping activity the Minister is pre-empting the market and assuring local industry that this legislation will be actively used to protect it from foreign competition in more circumstances than it might reasonably have expected. The assessment that the anti-dumping legislation will act as a protectionist measure is reinforced by the divergence between the legislation before us today and Professor Fred Gruen's review of the Customs Tariff (Anti-Dumping) Act which preceded it. Professor Gruen's report emphasised the need to treat predatory pricing by foreign imports in the same way as similar practices by local companies, as well as the need for efficiency and certainty in processing anti-dumping complaints. Indeed, the Minister himself has said: The extent of dumping essentially depends on the health of the world economy and the relative competitiveness of the Australian economy. He indicates that the price discrimination that is often known as dumping results from surpluses of products that will be temporary and conditions in the Australian economy which are beyond the control of importers. As to predatory pricing where foreigners dump their goods to destroy the local industry, then switch to exploiting us by monopolistic high prices, Leyland Yeager has written that `this case is seldom if ever documented, for such tricks would scarcely work'. Strict limits must be placed on the imposition of dumping penalties. I am not heartened in that prospect by the Press statement from the Minister to which I referred earlier. In the United States 94 per cent of complaints about unfair trade practices are upheld. That is a salutary lesson that would not be lost on industry generally. Too often Australian firms consider lodging dumping complaints only when they notice that the competition is getting rather stiff. The entire complaints procedure, although widespread, asks for companies and now other interests to make a dumping complaint which, if upheld, will have the effect of protecting them from competition. The goal of the firm complaining is, rightly, to maximise profit and its market share. It is not interested in the concept of `fair' trade. Any cheaper product is a potential threat, no matter what the reason for the lower price. Anti-dumping duties simply offer a cost effective way of defeating competition. That is the way local entrepreneurs have used it and will continue to use it. The outcome is that the Australian consumer loses the benefit of the cheaper goods. In summary, I caution the Government against the extensive use of anti-dumping legislation. It has been used in the past as a form of protection and can easily be used for that purpose in the future. The Government has avoided the tough decision to overhaul completely the relevant legislation, as recommended by Professor Gruen. Instead, it has set up yet another bureaucratic Government authority. We can still learn from the wisdom of Adam Smith. I am pleased to see my friend the honourable member for McEwen (Mr Cleeland) here today because he referred us to Adam Smith the other night in another context. In 1776 Adam Smith wrote: In every country it always is and must be the interest of the great body of the people to buy whatever they want of those who sell it cheapest. The proposition is so very manifest, that it seems ridiculous to take any pains to prove it; nor could it ever have been called in question, had not the interested sophistry of merchants and manufacturers confounded the common sense of mankind. Wonderful words indeed, and they have an application here. Under this legislation we must now add the trade union movement to the list of those who practise `interested sophistry'. Amendment (by Mr Moore)-by leave-proposed: 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: (1) further complicating customs procedures; and (2) adding another layer of bureaucracy thus increasing costs to the customs service while still denying the service the expertise recommended for it in the Review of the Customs Tariff (Anti-Dumping) Act 1975'. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mrs Darling) —Is the amendment seconded? Mr Tuckey —I second the amendment. Mr CLEELAND(McEwen)(4.24) —I listened with interest to the previous speaker, the honourable member for Curtin (Mr Rocher), particularly his quote from Adam Smith. His words are undoubtedly a truism: any consumer would obviously want to buy the cheapest goods available in the marketplace. When one talks about dumping, tariffs and international trade, of course that situation does not apply. I shall refer as an example for the honourable member to a recent case involving tyre dumping in this country and I will prove to anyone's satisfaction that the person who profits least from dumping is in fact the consumer. The reality is that dumping occurs in a country such as Australia only because an importer sees a great opportunity to make not just profit but rather super profit, and inevitably the super profit is paid by the consumer. One must question whether that sort of activity is in the interests of international trade and in the interests of any nation that allows it to occur. In a recent case of tyre dumping, it was clearly established that tyres were being dumped in this country at up to 58 per cent; in other words, they were being imported into this country 58 per cent cheaper than their nominal value in the country in which they were produced. For those unfamiliar with the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade and GATT terms, nominal value is a GATT expression; and the GATT rules with which this country complies basically provide that an importer cannot import into a country goods with a nominal value less than that in the country of origin which will cause material injury to a local industry. Basically, that is what GATT says, but GATT does not define what is nominal value or causal connection or material injury to a local industry. In the case of these tyres, a lot were imported by Mr Jane of Bob Jane T-Mart, a national tyre retailing firm. Having established clearly that the tyres were dumped at up to 58 per cent under nominal value, if one looks at the price at which the importer, Mr Jane, sells those tyres, one will inevitably find that they are marketed at only $1, $2 or $3 under the price of the Australian produced competitive goods. I defy anyone to say that there is any benefit to a consumer in such an arrangement. Indeed, the tyres imported are high quality tyres; they are well known brand name tyres; they are a popular European brand of tyres. But the consumer has not received the benefit. The only benefit, of course, has gone to the importer, who has not made a profit; he has made a super profit. I was fascinated to read a letter dated 11 May 1988 from Mr Jane addressed to the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce (Senator Button), a copy of which was circulated to all Caucus members. Mr Jane points out that he is a big independent tyre dealer and says that it does not worry him whether he imports tyres or not; he will still make a profit in this country. He suggests in his letter that we have high priced tyres in this country and that if he imports tyres-no doubt at a cheaper price-the consumer will be better off. I publicly suggest to Mr Jane that, when I see him selling dumped tyres at a much lower market price than is available from Australian manufacturers, I will agree with his concern that Australians should be able to get cheaper tyres and that there is any consumer benefit to them at all. I might add that that particular tyre dumping case concerned me greatly when I read about it; because I do not understand how any person can possibly find that tyres dumped at up to 58 per cent against Australian produced goods do not cause material injury to an Australian manufacturer. Such a suggestion defies logic and reason. If someone imports 100,000 tyres of a popular size in a well known brand and sells them in this country, a manufacturer in this country will produce 100,000 tyres less in that given year. That is so logical to my way of thinking that, when I read this anti-dumping report and the report found that there was no material injury, I did do my banana a little bit, one could say, and made some rather strong comments to the Minister concerned; and particularly having met some of the members of the Customs Service, I told them what I thought of their bureaucratic jargon and their lack of concern for the maintenance of Australian industry. Whatever one may say in a rational economic sense about tariffs or dumping, ultimately the bottom line is surely jobs. If importers can import at dumped prices to compete against an Australian manufacturer and this country is not going to do anything about it, the reality is that industries which are facing what the honourable member referred to as competition will go out of business. Those industries will not be here to produce those goods; and why should they? How can any Australian manufacturer, in the case of such products as tyres, compete against a country that will dump them at 58 per cent? The bottom line in closing down industry is, of course, jobs. If industry is being competed against on such terms and we do not protect those industries to ensure fair and proper competition, the bottom line is that men and women will lose their jobs in this country. I have given notice, and I will say it again in this House, that I will fight incessantly and vehemently to ensure that the people I represent do not lose their jobs because of unfair trade practices and dumping. I will not accept it, and if the Opposition has a different view, let it come out and talk about the family, as Opposition members like to do, because the ultimate security for any family in this country is a job. I will also go out and fight and argue against protection. I will argue for industry change and for reduced protection, but I will never accept unfair competition and dumping. Who is doing the dumping in international trade? The dumping of cement is a good example. It is being alleged at the moment by the cement manufacturers that Japan is dumping cement in this country at up to 68 per cent under its nominal value. If that is the case, why should Australia allow a country such as Japan, one of its major trading partners, to dump cement here when it will not allow Australia to sell its beef in Japan? What is the logic of an exporting nation such as Australia allowing a country that positively discriminates against all the rules of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade and refuses to comply with them to dump cement here in a way that will cause loss of Australian industry, Australian profit and, at the bottom line, Australian jobs? I refer next to cotton, felt and textiles, and note that coveralls from China are dumped in Australian at about 48 per cent. There is a coverall factory in my electorate at Seymour, Jones Workwear, which employs many women in that country town. If the factory closed its doors about 100 men and women would be out of work, and there are no other job opportunities in Seymour. The Victorian Government is about to retrench some railway employees as well, and unemployment is quite high in this rural town. I have not heard anyone yet explain the logic of allowing any country to bring in coveralls at 48 per cent under the nominal value, which is dumping, when the effect of that will be that Australian men and women, workers and families, will lose their jobs. As I pointed out in regard to the tyre situation, the retailers will not sell the goods much more cheaply. That is super profit; it is of no benefit to consumers. Retailers do not give a damn whether in the end Australians lose their jobs because of dumping as long as they maintain high profit ratios. Although we should always support free enterprise and the removal of tariffs, and throughout the world we should loudly proclaim that we want to have free trade and to be part of a world where fair and open competition is a possibility, and support it, why should Australia bare its soul and breast to those countries which damage so much of its trade, and be kicked in the teeth for it? The bottom line is jobs, and I will not wear it. This Bill will go a long way to tightening the current controls, and I hope the people involved in administering the new Anti-Dumping Authority which will be established will remember what their role is. Their role is not to protect outside countries; it is not to play games with GATT; it is not to interpret legislation to ensure that the importer gets a fair cop out of the bureaucrats. Their job is to ensure that Australian industries and Australians get a fair shake from the people they employ and that protection is given where necessary and where unfair trade advantage is being taken, so that the people whom we on this side of the House represent-the ordinary men and women of this country-will be guaranteed that their jobs are safe. That is what this new Anti-Dumping Authority should be told to do. I am pleased that the Minister made some very strong comments on this matter in his second reading speech. I said before, and I will say it again until people get sick of hearing it, that I will not under any circumstances accept dumping in this country where it will affect industries and jobs. Mr BRAITHWAITE(Dawson)(4.35) —Perhaps there is no matter that comes before this House that taxes the public and business and industry as much as this very sensitive area of tariffs. I am speaking on behalf of the National Party of Australia, which has been accused in the dim, distant past of being the party that created the impetus to impose tariff barriers through a system of duties to protect Australian industry. When Sir John McEwen was doing that, he acted with the motive not only of enabling Australia to trade better on international markets, but also of protecting home markets, because he realised that the balance of trade position-our current account position-depended as much on import substitution manufacturing as it did on selling to the outside world. The unfortunate result now before us is that tariffs have allowed industries to be protected behind that wall, and the efficiency that they were expected to create did not eventuate. A few myths have been perpetuated through the country in the minds of many people in financial and industrial fields that tariffs are a widespread influence in Australia at the moment and are used to protect Australia's inefficient industries against outside competition. Primary industry receives very little protection, and is able to fight a determined battle only because of the efficiency of industry leaders and the industry itself. The manufacturing industry is not highly protected either. There are some taxation incentives available in all the areas of industry that may be regarded as some type of protection. I do not regard them as protection; I say they are incentives. We have seen new growth in the technical area but again there is not a great deal of protection there. Australian industry is subsidised to some extent, but it stands in the field of international competition suffering from abnormal costs compared with its international competitors in Europe, Japan and the United States of America. In those places the European Economic Community (EEC) has long been acknowledged as being a corrupt type of market structure against which to try to sell goods because of the high incidence of subsidy. For instance, in the sugar industry, in which I have been involved for many years, the amount of subsidy provided to EEC sugar was greater than the price that the Australian grower could obtain at any time, which was about $230 to $300 a tonne. Compared with the other countries I mentioned, Australia also pays abnormal costs of production. Because of our geography, transport costs in Australia for minerals and primary products are so abnormal that one hesitates to compare them with the transport costs of any other country in the world. Australia also has a sparse population. The cost of fuel in Australia should also be considered. Australia is not self-dependent for its oil and must import it. Australia's interest rates are still way out of proportion compared with those of its international competitors. Our taxing regime is also out of proportion. By comparison with people in the countries I mentioned earlier, Australians in industry pay a much higher rate of tax. I mention as an example the imposition of the fringe benefits tax, which is a definite detriment to trade in Australia. The last matter I mention is industrial relations. In a limited time last night honourable members tried to debate this matter and bring out its full effects. There is no doubt that the Australian industrial situation is unique, and that that uniqueness imposes a penalty on industry. Australian industry is already behind the eight ball when it comes to competition with the outside world because of these in-built factors. I would just like to dispel the myth that Australians are heavily subsidised and protected by tariffs. That is not the case at all. This anti-dumping legislation is really an extension of protection against corrupt international competition, particularly where an industry is trying to import substitutes so as to maintain a presence in the Australian domestic market. An industry may be faced with competition from outside by way of goods being dumped at below their cost of production. As a result, the Australian industry is affected. I believe that, as we go into the 1990s, no industry in Australia can expect a government of any persuasion to heavily subsidise it or protect it against outside influences. The only protection that an industry has is the efficiency with which it applies itself to manufacturing or providing services. Another interesting aspect in the Gruen Review of the Customs Tariff (Anti-Dumping) Act is the point that devaluation has had the effect of giving a protection to Australian industry. The difficulty that we face there is that the duties that were being applied were not reduced in line with the devaluation of the dollar. In fact, we built up a wall of protection because the rates of duty were not adjusted in line with the devaluation of the dollar. That is now being corrected, but I am afraid that it was left in place too long. As a consequence, many industries in Australia that were afforded extra protection did not get out and rationalise and expand in the manner in which they might have been able to. I would like to deal with a few of the problems that have arisen in the past. The fact is that it is time that some action was taken in this regard. There are problems throughout the world with the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade. In a way, those problems are not unrelated to anti-dumping because they also relate to protection and subsidies. There has been a problem in the past, particularly with seasonal horticultural crops, in terms of the time within which an application could be made and the resulting penalty this could impose on an importer. For instance, supermarkets have been able to bring in cheaper horticultural goods at dumped prices. This applied to Californian oranges and Israeli grapefruit as well as canned food from Europe. In all cases there was a difficulty in trying to reach a position either in respect of the primary producer in connection with the raw product or in respect of the canners in connection with competition from the outside manufacturer. I am afraid I have to say-and I have been told-that often supermarkets would not hesitate to penalise the Australian product by way of inferred blackmail. I believe that that is offensive, especially in light of the fact that the major supermarkets-I believe that there are four or five chains which command 80 per cent of the market-are able to act in such a way. So the Gruen report is timely and should be considered. The Gruen review was commissioned in 1986 and it has taken a little while to come to fruition in legislation form. This legislation is an attempt to get around some of the problems that I have mentioned. One of Professor Gruen's recommendations was designed to ensure that, wherever possible, the market price in the country of origin would be used for the purposes of comparison with the local price subject to a dumping complaint. Such a procedure is the only fair method of assessment for all parties to the complaint. It avoids the turmoil of the `United States costs', plus a margin for anti-dumping procedures, which has been the subject of scandal and manipulation by industry and the bureaucracy in that country. The Government has rejected that very sensible recommendation of its own report. The reason for that rejection was that countries such as the European Economic Community and the United States use provisions like section 55 (9). However, it is the experience of those very countries which lead to the conclusion that Professor Gruen was right. The attempt to tighten criteria in section 55 (9) is an improvement on the existing law, but it fails to provide the certainty which importers are entitled to. Under the legislation now before us, the time allowed for investigation of anti-dumping complaints is considerably longer than that recommended in the Gruen report. Complaints need not be finally determined for over six months. This presents an unnecessary restraint on the trading operations of private companies. The Government has provided no rationale for this change from the Gruen report. We can only assume that the Minister for Customs, Science and Small Business (Mr Barry Jones) does not believe that the Australian Customs Service and his new Anti-Dumping Authority will be able to meet the standards of efficiency hoped for in those proposals. This legislation, like most anti-dumping legislation, has inherent flaws. One of the most difficult problems encountered overseas is in defining goods and the markets in which they are competing. Should a `dumped' good which causes product substitution become subject to dumping duty? At what stage can that substitution be identified? What of Australian firms that alter their production on the assumption of cheaper goods or a good deal from overseas? Is steel roofing in competition with plastic alternatives? These are very important questions that have to be thought through by the Authority. Modern products are diverse and yet are often easily compared with similar local products. I view with some scepticism the new Authority which this legislation establishes. However, I also view the legislation as a means by which the Government has sought to come to grips with putting a specialised team into the area to deal especially with these dumping procedures. We need to ensure that there are no delays and that no penalties are incurred by frivolous or mischievous complaints by Australian industry. We also need to make sure that we flatten out international competition in the import substitution industry which is a problem and the subject of complaint. It is a pity that the Authority lacks some of the teeth and expertise that Gruen suggested it should have. I only hope that the Government will take this into account, together with Professor Gruen's comment about reducing time as far as procedures are concerned and not increasing it as this Government has done. Mr O'KEEFE(Burke)(4.47) —Madam Deputy Speaker, I will make sure that my remarks are very brief because a number of my colleagues want to contribute to the debate and they have some substantial points to make. I want to talk a little about the history of this matter. On coming to office in 1983 the Government found the need for a wide-ranging review of anti-dumping matters. In 1984 a number of significant changes were put into effect. It became clear to many of us that that was not enough. Although the Government commissioned the Gruen Review of the Customs Tariff (Anti-Dumping) Act in 1986, it is fair to say that many government members took a pretty deep interest in the issue and went out to look for themselves. I have such an example in my own electorate. The visit by the country task force of the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) to the Castle Bacon Pty Ltd ham and bacon plant at Castlemaine was one such instance where we were able to look directly at the effect of dumped tinned hams from the European Economic Community on the local manufacturing industry. It was through that process that I certainly became much more aware of the need for us to move to a policy which requires importers to show that their products are not being dumped rather than reacting to problems that are being created in our economy. I do not say, from my own point of view, that we have yet gone far enough. But it may be that the new measures put in place what I would call a pro-active rather than a reactive approach. I commend the Minister for Science, Customs and Small Business (Mr Barry Jones) for his work, even in recent weeks, in final consultations with members of the back bench to ensure that these measures are meeting the needs, as we see them, at the grass roots level. I know that the Minister will be delighted at my mention of the Castlemaine example because he has visited that provincial city and has a pretty deep interest in the welfare of the manufacturing and textile processing industries in that area-the other sorts of industries that are trying to play their role as Australia becomes what I would call the Sweden of the Pacific region. We would like to think that we are now turning our emphasis to value-added manufacturing and services. As we do this, we must ensure that we protect these industries from unfair competition. I feel that these measures are a big step in the right direction and I commend the Minister for that. I wind up with one statement that will remain in the back of my mind; that is, as we go down this path of restructuring, tariff reduction and the other steps that we are taking, we must bear in mind that Australia cannot be the only free trader in the world. In that process the other countries with which we relate must be prepared to make the same sorts of adjustments at the same rate of change that Australia is making so that we maintain a level playing field and we ensure that the changes happening in the Australian economy are on a fair and proper basis in relation to our trading partners. Having said that, I am pleased to support the legislation. I welcome the Minister's initiative in implementing the results of the Gruen Review of the Customs Tariff (Anti-Dumping) Act 1975 and at the same time foreshadowing, as he has by his recent actions, a willingness to remain close to the pulse on these issues and to ensure that these measures not only are seen to be effective but are actually working to the benefit of the Australian economy. Mr ANDREW(Wakefield)(4.51) —In following the honourable member for Burke (Mr O'Keefe) I must at least acknowledge that in this afternoon's debate on the Anti-Dumping Authority Bill, the Customs Legislation (Anti-Dumping Amendments) Bill and the Customs Tariff (Anti-Dumping) Amendment Bill he has been a man of his word, for he said that he would be brief and brief indeed he was. I will begin at the point where the honourable member for Burke left off with his reference to a level playing field. No matter what team sports Australians are involved in, whether it is football, basketball and so on, they expect the field on which they play to be level. We go further than that. Should there be a quagmire at one end of the field or should there, because of the way the wind is blowing, be an advantage to one team, we ensure under our sporting rules that all is done to spread the advantage evenly by swapping ends on either a quarterly or half-time basis. We are obsessed with ensuring that in the sporting field everyone plays on a level surface and that an advantage that is artificially given to one team is also made available to the other team. Hence the term mentioned by the honourable member for Burke-a level playing field. Sadly, that sort of equity is not always available to Australian traders, and it is certainly not available to the Australian primary producers whom I rise to represent in the House this evening. As you are aware, Madam Deputy Speaker, Australian primary producers are forced by the very nature of their operation to play on a field that is not necessarily level or equitable, or at least they are forced to produce on such a field. Some will face the reality of a season of floods and for others in a continent as vast as ours there is the reality of drought; while for others there will be fire, hail and frost. Who knows what will happen to make the existing playing field inequitable. However, they accept that that level of inequity in production is inevitable. What they seek from the Government, because no-one can reasonably expect the Government to account in any sense for the inequity that exists in production, is an opportunity to trade with equity. To pick up where the honourable member for Burke left off, they expect an opportunity to trade on a level playing field. I acknowledge that the Government had been keen, as the Opposition has been keen, to ensure that Australian primary producers and all Australian manufacturers have the opportunity to trade in an environment that is as equitable as possible. The Government has been diligent, and I acknowledge the role played by the Minister for Primary Industries and Energy (Mr Kerin) and the Minister for Trade Negotiations (Mr Duffy) in doing what they can to counter the subsidised competition that we must face as primary producers in a trade environment. Both of them are anxious to see that the unlevel playing field of the trading environment in which we are forced to operate as primary producers, currently eroded by the actions of the European Economic Community and the United States of America, is made as level as possible in the future. I also note that the Government has been anxious to ensure that non-tariff barriers that exist around the world and the import substitution that occurs are kept to a minimum. In the legislation before the House this afternoon a real effort is being made to ensure that that other area of inequity, the area of dumping surplus production, is kept under some sort of control. I represent a group of Australian primary producers who believe they can take on all-comers in the world market, but who acknowledge that when those who take them on choose to dump produce in Australia it is difficult to have the sort of muscle that is necessary to match that form of unfair competition. The legislation before the House is designed to minimise the damage being done to Australian industry as a result of dumping techniques that might be employed by our overseas competitors. I think that we would find bipartisan agreement for the simple truth that dumping is intolerable and that the dumping of subsidised production onto the Australian market may well do damage that is irreversible to an existing Australian industry. I take up a point or two made by the honourable member for McEwen (Mr Cleeland) earlier in the debate. He said that, as a result of the reality of the dumping of produce in Australia, the difficulty is that consumers do not benefit at all and the profits made by those who choose to dump produce in Australia are not passed on to the consumer. That is really not right. While I understand the sentiments that motivated that statement, the truth is that in a nation like ours the consumer chooses to purchase only what appeals to him or her, as honourable members may recall me saying yesterday. Unless the person who dumps produce in Australia is prepared to put it on the market cheaper than existing Australian produce, it will not be purchased. There is some short term benefit for the consumer in the reality of dumped produce being made available in the Australian market. I say that with some conviction because prior to becoming a member of this House I was a citrus grower; and I am very much aware of the fact that what attracted Australians to purchase either dumped oranges or, much more likely, dumped citrus juice was the fact that it was available to them at a cheaper price. There was some consumer benefit. The other point made by the honourable member for McEwen which cannot be overlooked is his statement that the sole criterion for fighting any dumping that occurs on the Australian market should be the provision of jobs for Australians. That is a fair enough sentiment, but it is not realistic because there are some instances where merely having an anti-dumping provision in order to protect jobs is in itself counterproductive. If all that we did in this House was to pass legislation that protected jobs, we would have to ask ourselves why it is that we allow our farmers, for example, to drive tractors instead of horse teams. The provision of jobs is not the sole criterion for the anti-dumping provisions now before the House. In the few minutes left to me I will deal with the two crops with which I am most familiar and which have been most adversely affected as a result of produce dumping in Australia and on whose behalf I will make some comments about the legislation now before the House. As I alluded to a few moments ago, I consider myself to be reasonably familiar with the citrus industry. One of the dilemmas faced by the citrus industry in Australia, and one of the dilemmas partially addressed by this legislation, is the reality of the Brazilians choosing to dump concentrated orange juice onto the Australian market. The problem with that whole concept was not that Australian producers were inefficient. In fact, they were happy to take on any one of the other producer countries around the world in any one of the whole fruit markets around the world. But such was the state of the Brazilian economy only last year that the Brazilians were keen to turn their citrus juice lake into foreign exchange in order to meet some of their indebtedness around the world. They did not mind dumping citrus juice onto the Australian market or any other market in order to generate the foreign exchange they needed. The cost of production was meaningless. They had a lake of citrus juice that they wanted to turn into foreign exchange, and that was what motivated them. They did it in order to help to meet part of their national debt but, worse than that, they did it as a country currently enjoying Third World tariff preference. They already had an advantage over Australian producers-an advantage Australian producers did not deny them but which they subsequently chose to exploit to the disadvantage of Australian producers. The citrus industry-I have been speaking to its general secretary, Mr Hugh Cope-is concerned that in the legislation currently before the House there is no provision for removing the onus of proof so that the industry no longer has to prove that subsidised products cause injury to an Australian industry. Madam Deputy Speaker, you will recognise just how much damage can be done to a seasonal industry such as the citrus industry when that industry's leaders are obliged to prove that damage is being done and that its major overseas competitors are dumping produce in Australia. How does one get to Brazil to discover its real cost of production? How does one establish a dumping level? That responsibility was placed on the Australian citrus industry. The onus of proof rested with that industry and an entire season's citrus crop faced totally unfair competition as a result. Furthermore, not only was the Australian citrus industry faced with this unfair competition and its growers savagely disadvantaged by it but also the Brazilians were advantaged. That is proved by the simple fact that anti-dumping provisions were subsequently brought against the Brazilian industry. The second industry with which I have some familiarity and which has been involved in anti-dumping provisions is the wine industry, particularly the brandy industry. In speaking to representatives of the brandy industry this afternoon, I discovered that they are a little concerned because they are now required to resubmit their claim for anti-dumping provisions against the French only because of the movement in the exchange rate, which has been wildly fluctuating over the last 10 days. The Opposition is not opposed to the legislation before the House but it has a number of real concerns, which have been expressed by previous speakers. One of the principal concerns has been that the Anti-Dumping Authority is being set up with a time frame that we believe is not tight enough to ensure that the disadvantage to Australian industries is kept to a minimum. We believe that the period of 70 days provided for an investigation should be reduced to 55 days and that the further period of 180 days to make a preliminary finding as to whether dumping or countervailing duties should be imposed ought to be reduced to 120 days in the interests of Australian industry. I restate the dilemma that Australian primary producers in particular face when an entire crop can be lost in the time it takes to prove that dumping has occurred and to have some sort of restitution implemented by way of anti-dumping provisions. We believe that that time ought to be kept to a minimum and that provision should be made for a faster form of fast tracking. Mr MARTIN(Macarthur)(5.04) —I join this debate on the Customs Tariff (Anti-Dumping) Amendment Bill and related Bills to speak not so much on behalf of primary producers, as did my colleague the honourable member for Wakefield (Mr Andrew), who preceded me, but about the problems for secondary industry products, particularly steel, caused by dumping. Before going to that broad area, however, I wish to make one or two comments about the contributions of some of the honourable gentlemen opposite on this issue. Firstly, with respect to jobs and employment, this Government and all its members are certainly of the view that the measures introduced in this legislation will ensure that the employment issue and the provision of jobs are extremely important and will remain as such within the industries affected by dumping. Whilst the honourable member for Wakefield suggested that jobs were not the only criterion here-- Mr Andrew —Sole criterion. Mr MARTIN —the sole criterion, as the honourable member indicates-I am sure that he would agree that it is one of the most important and principal criteria. I am sure that he would represent the interests of his electorate in that regard. The Bills before us have come essentially from the response of the Government to the Gruen report, which followed the 1986 Review of the Customs Tariff (Anti-Dumping) Act 1975. After considering the good Professor's report, the Government has decided to do a number of things: firstly, to establish an Anti-Dumping Authority to make recommendations to the Minister on anti-dumping or countervailing actions; secondly, to endorse Professor Gruen's view that no national interest provision should be written into the legislation; thirdly, to retain section 5 (9) of the Anti-Dumping Act dealing with certain criteria for the determination of normal values; and, lastly, to introduce a mechanism under which anti-dumping and countervailing measures will cease after three years of continuous application. The last point is important because it answers one of the concerns of the honourable member for Dawson (Mr Braithwaite) with respect to substituting protection through the implementation of countervailing measures. Obviously, the provision for the three-year period gets over that specific problem. As the Minister for Science, Customs and Small Business (Mr Barry Jones) said in his second reading speech, the Australian Customs Service still has an important role to play in the determination of dumping and subsidisation complaints. The Australian Customs Service will examine each complaint made and conduct preliminary investigations, the results of which will form the basis on which the Anti-Dumping Authority will commence its own inquiry. Having set the scene for the legislation, I believe it is incumbent upon honourable members to use some examples from their own experience to show why it is long overdue and is welcomed by all members of this place. I now turn specifically to the Australian iron and steel industry. In November 1987 the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Finance and Public Administration, of which I am the Chairman, tabled a report on the Australian iron and steel industry. The Committee canvassed as part of its inquiry the provision of a fast track anti-dumping mechanism for steel products coming into Australia and made a number of recommendations on that matter. It is interesting to look back through some of the evidence that was presented to the Committee to see some of the difficulties that have been embraced by the steel industry. People might suggest that protecting-if I may use that term-the Broken Hill Proprietary Co. Ltd (BHP), one of Australia's major companies, is not really the role of government, but if the protection and anti-dumping mechanisms that this legislation puts in place lead to the protection of jobs in the iron and steel industry, I certainly will stand up here and support it. Most witnesses before the inquiry into the Australian iron and steel industry expressed dissatisfaction with the present anti-dumping provisions. The main concern related particularly to the lengthy delays between the lodgment of a claim and a decision being reached by the Australian Customs Service. This point was made by the honourable member for Wakefield when he talked about the time frame. If I may give an example, a table submitted in evidence by BHP clearly demonstrates the time factor involved. I seek leave to have the table incorporated in Hansard. I cleared it with the shadow Minister who was at the table two minutes ago. Leave granted. The table read as follows- COMPARISON OF ACS ``MAXIMUM MILESTONES'' AND ACTUAL NOTIFICATION DATES-COLD ROLLED AND GALVANISED STEEL SHEET AND COIL Anti Dumping Details Japan and Taiwan ``Max. Milestones'' Actual Lodgment Date ... 26 March 1985 26 March 1985 Initiation Date ... 22 April 1985 22 April 1985 Preliminary Finding Date ... 6 June 1985 12 August 1985 No. Days from Lodgment ... 55 139 No. Days from Initiation ... 45 112 Final Finding Date ... 4 October 1985 Taiwan 14 April 1986 No. Days from Lodgment ... 175 384 No. Days from Initiation ... 165 357 Japan 6 June 1986 441 414 Mr MARTIN —The table clearly shows, through a comparison of maximum milestones put in place by the Australian Customs Service with the dates on which various activities actually occurred and problems were resolved, that many difficulties have been encompassed. These certainly relate to Japan and Taiwan, and to a number of other countries. The honourable member for Wakefield talked about developing country preferences and countries with Third World status that receive some benefits. They dump produce in this country, whether it be steel, citrus juice or whatever, and because of their Third World status or developing country preference receive an added bonus. It is interesting that the Committee investigating the Australian iron and steel industry also made recommendations in that respect, and in fact recommended that developing country preferences be removed from some of Australia's major steel competitors. I would hope that we see the benefit of that in the not too distant future because those preferences do cause great disadvantage to Australia's steel industry, and particularly to those people I represent from the Illawarra district. The fast track anti-dumping mechanism in the steel industry, to which I referred earlier, was the subject of some disagreement in terms of who was responsible for monitoring it. There was clear disagreement between the Steel Industry Authority and the Australian Customs Service. Each seemed to be passing it to the other. It was evident during the course of the inquiry that there needed to be some very clear guidelines. I am pleased to see that, on my reading of the second reading speech, those guidelines have been put in place in this anti-dumping legislation, and I am hopeful that they can be clearly applied to Australia's steel industry. I also draw the attention of the Minister for Science, Customs and Small Business to one or two of the recommendations contained in the report on the Australian iron and steel industry. They quite clearly demonstrate just how great minds think alike, because the Committee recommended that certain measures be taken and in fact those measures are exactly what we see in the legislation before us. At page 58 of the report we recommended: (a) the roles of the Steel Industry Authority and the Australian Customs Service be clearly delineated- I hope that happens- (b) a clear set of administrative and policy guidelines be developed by the Australian Customs Service to ensure systematic investigation procedures and to assist the industry in preparing its prima facie case in a dumping complaint; and (c) priority be given to implementing the recommendations of the Gruen Report . . . We see that that has now happened. The report was tabled in November 1987, and we are debating it now. I am pleased that that is the case. I also point out to the Minister that a phenomenon that occurs in the steel industry is still in need of redress, and I refer to secondary dumping. I refer the Minister to the recommendations contained on page 59 of the report, and also to the recommendation on page 61 that deals with removing preferences for those countries which really possess advanced and subsidised steel industries but are still given developing country preference. They can certainly out-trade Australia's domestic steel industry. I hope that the information collated in this report is put to good use and that the legislation before us will deal with those specific matters. It is obvious, looking at the evidence submitted to the Committee last year, that the fast track anti-dumping mechanism simply disappeared. The Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce (Senator Button), when introducing the steel plan, indicated that this fast track anti-dumping mechanism would be put in place but, as I have indicated, it was allowed to lapse. The time period, therefore, is most important. It has been suggested by the honourable member for Wakefield that the time periods contained in the legislation are still not good enough; they need to be shortened. Maybe that is an issue that should be addressed once the legislation is put in place. Perhaps we can monitor the performance of the Customs Service and other government departments that are looking at this specific issue. What we are concerned about in the steel industry-and I am pleased that my colleague the honourable member for Throsby (Mr Hollis) is now in the chamber-is ensuring that employment opportunities in this ailing industry are not disadvantaged by dumping. We presently see large scale retrenchments as a result of natural attrition at Port Kembla, and unfortunately that is a sign of the present circumstances in Australia's steel industry. If dumping continues to occur it can only make the situation worse. This problem is also apparent in the cement industry in Australia. I am pleased that the Government has responded positively to cement dumping. A tripartite committee has been established by Senator Button, and there are regular meetings of members of this House, representatives of cement industry trade unions and the owners of the cement companies to deal with this specific concern. We will continue to work for the benefit of those people I represent at the Maldon cement works and that my colleague the honourable member for Throsby represents in this area-I understand he will be dwelling on this issue in his contribution a little later-and ensure that this legislation addresses the concerns they have and that they have clearly put to us. In conclusion, this Bill is welcomed. It is welcomed by the steel industry and it is welcomed by the cement industry. I hope it achieves what it sets out to do. We will be monitoring it very carefully and we hope that it addresses the recommendations contained in the Finance and Public Administration Committee's report on the steel industry. Dr HEWSON(Wentworth)(5.16) —I welcome the opportunity to contribute to the debate on the Anti-Dumping Authority Bill, the Customs Legislation (Anti-Dumping Amendments) Bill and the Customs Tariff (Anti-Dumping) Amendment Bill. I will try to contribute from a somewhat different perspective to that of some of my colleagues. I certainly strongly support the comments made by the honourable member for Ryan (Mr Moore) and the amendments that he will be moving. It is perhaps a useful exercise to step back a little from this process and these pieces of legislation and take a somewhat longer term view of what is happening in the area of protection under this Government. It is probably true to say that there has been a group of key Ministers who have got together and decided to re-assess this Government's position on the issue of protection. They have embarked upon a process which has three main aims: first, they recognise the need to cut protection more; secondly, they have decided that we need to be able to quicken the pace of those cuts in protection; and thirdly, there has been a fairly conscious attempt to make the whole pro- cess far less transparent than it has been in the past. In simple terms, they are developing an integrated strategy through various pieces of legislation that will, from their point of view, commit the Government to faster cuts in protection and effectively streamline the process of tariff reductions in this country. As such, it is an implicit recognition, if not in the case of some Ministers an explicit recognition, that some of their industry plans, although in the right direction, have cut protection too little, have promised to do it too slowly and have done it far too transparently. If we look over various pieces of legislation of the last few months our attention is drawn to a number of stages in this process. A decision was taken soon after the last election to transfer control of the Industries Assistance Commission to the Treasurer and the Treasury, and that was then followed by the replacement of the old Chairman of the IAC by a new man, Greg Taylor, who is, of course, an ex-Treasury officer. The main thrust here, I guess, is to get the IAC out of the whole process. The IAC has played a very significant and transparent role over the years in the protection debate. But now it needs a new role, in the view of this group of Ministers. It is probably a role that will oversee the whole process of micro-economic reform under this Government. It is an implicit recognition, nevertheless, that we do not need the IAC to cut protection. We do not need its reports any more. In the days when it was difficult to convince people that protection needed to be cut, or that enthusiasm for increased protection needed to be restrained, the IAC had a very important role. It has outlived that role now, so why not give it something else to do? That was the first stage that is of some significance in the process initiated by this group of Ministers. The second stage in this process was the Industries Assistance Commission Amendment Bill, which really gave a lot of power to the Minister, with the approval of the Treasurer, to make amendments to the customs tariff Acts, that is, to vary the levels of assistance, without a policy inquiry and without a report from the IAC. This legislation was a sort of follow-up, in a sense, to that initial stage of significantly changing the role of the IAC. But it goes further in that it gives power to the Minister, with the cooperation of the Treasurer, to change the industry assistance levels in five specified circumstances without an IAC report. As we said in the House last week, we do not have any particular problem with the first three of those circumstances, but the last two cause us some concern. Firstly, we are concerned that the legislation will work to overturn a decision of a court or tribunal. Secondly, and more importantly, we are concerned that it gives the Government power to change tariff rates in response to what were called `changes in economic conditions' affecting an industry. It is quite a significant power that enables a government to change protection without a reference to the IAC. But that sort of opportunity is consistent with the general picture that I am painting to the House. Moreover, when we look at the legislation we see that, despite the use of the word `minor' in the explanatory memorandum and in the second reading speech, there is nothing proposed in the Bills that guarantees changes are minor. There is no limit on the size of any cuts or variations in protection and, as importantly, there is no longer any time limit on that process. It used to be the case that before it considered protection a government would have to get another IAC report if the current one was more than 12 months old. Under this legislation that would no longer be necessary. The third stage in the process initiated by this group is the anti-dumping Bills that are before us today. Interestingly, a number of people seem to be misreading these Bills as to what they really do. The Bills basically make it more difficult to get trade restrictions on the grounds of dumping. They make it quite a lot more difficult. In effect, they give greater power to the Minister, as I read the Bills, to vary the level of protection-in fact, to withstand, in this particular case, unjustified claims for increases in protection on the grounds of dumping. A significantly greater onus of proof will exist under this legislation. Also Clause 12 of the Anti-Dumping Authority Bill gives the Minister quite a lot of power to make directions to this new Authority, which is a one person Authority. Apparently the Minister can also make directions to that Authority in terms of what he considers to be in the national interest. From that point of view it is an interesting group of Bills in two senses; first, in the sense that the Minister is making it more difficult to mount a case for increased protection-on the grounds of dumping-and, secondly, in the sense that there are circumstances in which he can direct a new authority, which effectively replaces the IAC, to carry out his instructions. Of course, he is still subject to parliamentary scrutiny in those activities, as he is under the earlier Bills I mentioned. There will be parliamentary scrutiny down the track, but it will be an ex-post-scrutiny rather an ex-ante-scrutiny, as was the case in an IAC inquiry. There is no need for an inquiry any more. And of course this may not mean too much restraint if there is bipartisan support, and there now seems to be fairly widespread bipartisan support for accelerated cuts in protection. Against this background, I am somewhat surprised at industry support for the idea of a new anti-dumping authority. Some of the comments I have read seem to suggest that industry feels it will now be somewhat easier for it to get decisions made in favour of increased protection on the grounds of dumping. I suggest to industry that that is not the case. In fact, from the way I read the Bills, it is probably only `predatory dumping' that would get through and would draw the attention of the Minister in this respect. The fourth stage in the process which I am describing initiated by this group of Ministers, will come to us tomorrow in the context of the mini-Budget when we are told something more about further cuts in protection. There has been much debate about this matter and, to an outsider in this process, one can only be fascinated by the extent to which this Government has torn itself apart on the issue of tariff cuts. It seems pretty clear to my mind that we will see that this group of Ministers has been quite successful; they have probably got a commitment to top-down cuts in protection, perhaps a unification of the level of protection, at around 15 per cent-or perhaps even a little less-but they will probably bow in the direction of some of their concerned colleagues by excluding industries that are presently subject to an industry plan, or they might bow in the direction of the `classic' textiles clothing and footwear bogey man. My guess is that the process of cutting protection will be taken one stage further tomorrow with the decisions we will get in the mini-Budget announcing significant cuts in tariffs. As I said, we now have a set of circumstances in which the Government can make much more substantial changes in protection than might otherwise have been the case. It can make them quicker and I think it can do them much less transparently than otherwise would have been the case. When we look at the package of measures I have described in those terms, we should realise that they probably deserve quite a lot of support for the general thrust of what they are forcing the Government to do. It reflects a recognition on its part-although not so widespread a recognition on the part of the Left or on the part of the Australian Council of Trade Unions-that past protectionist policies have been misguided. It is probably also an implicit recognition that, while we as a country have put fairly strong cases, and have done so over many years, for multilateral cuts in protection, there is now the possibility as a result of these pieces of legislation that, if multilateral processes under the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade fail to bring about the sorts of cuts that we might want to see in protection, there is now a capacity to go it alone, and at least there will be a capacity to move on a bilaterial basis. I was surprised and fascinated that, when Clayton Yeutter the United States trade negotiator was out here-although he was incorrectly quoted-apparently promoting the possibility of developing a free trade zone between Australia and the United States, nobody in the Government seemed to take up this suggestion and look at the possibility of that sort of development down the track. It seems to me that the need for more bilateral discussions at the trade level will be inevitable; even if we are likely to get substantial success out of the multilateral trade negotiations. The Government seems also to have recognised that some of its efforts in labour market deregulation and so on will be particularly slow in coming to fruition. It now recognises that perhaps the best way to bring rationality into the labour market is to cut protection in the marketplace. Once we start cutting protection and exposing industries to the direct effects of international competition we will probably substantially quicken the process of deregulation in the labour market. Industries will find it much more difficult to renegotiate wage and labour market agreements which they feel have been to their benefit because they were negotiated behind very high levels of protection in the past. It would be much more difficult for them to negotiate such deals in the circumstances of a significant reduction in protection, particularly in some of the most protected industries where some of the most ludicrous wage deals, working conditions and work practice deals have been made in the past. Whilst the Government's timing is a little late, considering the fact that our currency started to devalue significantly in 1985, it is still a good time to force the pace of cuts in protection. Devaluation, as the House would recognise, represents a significant increase in effective protection. As I said, while we are a little late in this process, it is probably still a good time to move. So we should encourage this key group of Ministers as much as possible to continue to cut protection. But in so doing we need to ensure that, in pieces of legislation such as this, and in the Industries Assistance Commission Amendment Bill which was dealt with last week, there were adequate safeguards to protect against the possibility of a shift within the Australian Labor Party-some members of the Left and, as I read recently, even some on the Right are concerned about the pace of tariff cuts-that might prevent a process of protection cutting from being reversed. Mr BALDWIN(Sydney)(5.29) —In introducing the Anti-Dumping Authority Bill, the Customs Legislation (Anti-Dumping Amendments) Bill and the Customs Tariff (Anti-Dumping) Amendment Bill, the Government, by various changes to anti-dumping legislation and by the establishment of the Anti-Dumping Authority, is puting in place streamlined procedures and less ambiguous guidelines for dealing with complaints of dumping. These changes arise from recommendations of the Gruen Review of the Customs Tariff (Anti-Dumping) Act 1975 commissioned by the Government in 1986. Australia has consistently been a strong advocate of fair international trading practices and a supporter of anti-dumping measures. Our action in this respect is dictated to or circumscribed by our obligations under the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) anti-dumping code and some other agreements to which we are a party. Professor Gruen was asked to look at the matter in this light. With this legislative package, the Government recognises that, whilst anti-dumping action has the potential to provide backdoor protectionism, unfair trading practices occur which are the very antithesis of free and healthy international trading and that the Government has no obligation to deal with this problem. Of the 167 dumping and countervailing duties in force at December 1985, more than a quarter had been in force for more than five years and more than half in force for more than three years. It is clear from this that anti-dumping measures have to some extent drifted into becoming protectionist measures and this is clearly not acceptable to the Government. This tightening up of the anti-dumping procedure needs to be seen in the context of the overall program of industry restructure being undertaken by the Government. The Government has taken a hard look at the types of complaints being lodged at present and differentiated between those which, while they are obviously causing hardship, are not appropriately dealt with in this area. There will always be a grey area in determining what practices constitute dumping and what constitute free trade. Professor Gruen pointed out in his report: . . . extensive use of anti-dumping action has the potential to frustrate the achievement of other government objectives in the industry, trade, competition and economic policy areas. The Government has had to be very sensitive to this prospect in formulating its new policy. As a result of these concerns, this legislation in a sense narrows off the area to be considered for anti-dumping action in that these measures are aimed specifically at dealing with predatory and other short term dumping only. However, within this area it tightens up and strengthens government action. The Minister for Science, Customs and Small Business (Mr Barry Jones) has clearly signalled his intention to vigorously use his powers to impose retrospective duties to ensure that Australian industries are adequately protected from unfair trading practices. Other areas of industry policy either provide recourse for those whose problems fall outside this ambit or assist in restructure to enable them to cope on an efficient footing. The legislation aims to ensure that dumping complainants have a fair go. If their complaint of dumping is not upheld in the preliminary investigation by the Australian Customs Service, or if there is a preliminary finding that no duty should be imposed, they have the right of review by the Anti-Dumping Authority. As far as such appeals are concerned, the Authority replaces the Industries Assistance Commission (IAC) in its present role as the reviewer of dumping matters. If the IAC has an interest in dumping it occurs in relation to the long term problems of low priced imports, which is more correctly a question of industry assistance policy than one of dumping. Removing its function in relation to dumping clearly signals the division between the two and supports the Government's overall strategy in this respect. The intent in relation to this has been further signalled by the inclusion of a sunset provision. Under this provision, measures taken in relation to a particular episode of dumping are operative only for a maximum of three years. After this time, if the problem still exists the industry can apply to have the anti-dumping provisions reimposed, but this will be done only after the situation is completely retested. Under this package the process for dealing with complaints will be streamlined in terms of both procedures and the time allowed for the report to be completed. The Customs Service retains responsibility for the initial investigation of a complaint and, for the first time, statutory limits have been placed on the time it has to do this. The legislation lays down that the Customs Service must determine within 70 days whether there is prima facie evidence for an investigation. If this is established, it has a further maximum of 180 days to make a finding as to whether duties should be imposed. If it finds in favour of the complainant, the matter then passes to the Anti-Dumping Authority, which examines the matter afresh. On the face of it, this might still appear a cumbersome procedure. However, it is essential that there be a systematic and predictable method of dealing with each complaint. It is also important that Australian industries understand that they will not succeed with complaints launched in order to protect them from competition they cannot cope with for various reasons rather than competition which actually qualified as dumping. They will need to seek redress, if this is appropriate, in a different forum, such as the IAC. Frustration with the delays and uncertainty experienced under the present system led to calls for retroactivity of duty imposition when a dumping case is proven, a course not possible in most cases if we are to adhere to article 11 of GATT. This was made clear when the Caucus industry committee looked at this point. Article 11 of GATT stipulates that, with certain exceptions, `definitive anti-dumping duty may be imposed only from the date of the finding of threat of injury or material retardation'. The Minister does have some room to move in this respect but, in considering retroactive duty imposition, he must look at the prior knowledge and intent of the importer and the extent and severity of the injury caused to the Australian industry before retroactive duty can be applied. In general, anti-dumping measures are not intended to be punitive measures. However, the imposition of retroactivity clearly has a punitive result because time has passed and the goods have presumably been sold down the line so the producer would no longer have the option of adjusting prices as a result of duty payable. The intent of the GATT agreement is clearly that such a measure should be applied only in extreme circumstances and cannot be done as a matter of course. This legislation makes a number of other important changes. It enables any affected party to lay a complaint. This means, for example, that producers involved in another stage of the affected industry-such as raw material producers-or employees or their unions can cause an inquiry to be initiated. This is important in cases where the actual industry is for some reason inhibited from laying a complaint. I am pleased to say that this has been specifically included because of deliberations by the Caucus industry committee following concerns expressed by my colleague the honourable member for Corio (Mr Scholes). Under the previous legislation it was possible for affected parties to take action. However, this was not spelt out and was not widely known or used. A further inclusion at the representation of the Caucus industry committee is that the legislation now provides that an action may be initiated in anticipation of injurious imports. There will be no need to actually wait for the damage to occur. Mr Hollis —That part is very important. Mr BALDWIN —That is right. This will work in combination with the imposition of statutory time limits to hasten a resolution and control damage. This legislation, in establishing the Authority, also provides the Minister with a small and responsive group of economic and commercial experts charged specifically with observing current government industry policy. Further guidelines may be provided to the Authority at any time by the Minister. This will ensure a much greater degree of responsiveness and flexibility than exists at present. In fact, this is the ideal mix-an input of on the ground expertise overlaid by a political perception from the Minister. Mr Hollis —Especially when he is such a good Minister. Mr BALDWIN —Precisely. One issue which Professor Gruen was specifically asked to look at in his report was the question of the possible inclusion of a national interest provision as a condition for the purposes of decisions to impose duties under sections 8, 9, 10 and 11 of the Customs Tariff (Anti-Dumping) Act. Such a provision could be broadly defined as placing an obligation within the process to look at the general economic implications, including the effects on other industries and on consumers. Professor Gruen recommended against such a provision and the Government has followed his advice. Broadly speaking, he felt that such a provision would muddy the water-that it would make the grounds for consideration of a complaint much more nebulous, thus creating uncertainty and increasing administrative procedures. He also believed that it would lead to intense lobbying on the Government on each individual case and militate against the ability to deliver a fast decision in the case of truly predatory dumping. In this context it is true to say that the discretionary power given to the Minister gives him the scope to consider the broader issues at stake here and, clearly, when he is called on to exercise his discretionary power, such factors would be part of his deliberations. As well, as I have mentioned, the Authority is charged with the responsibility of taking note of Government industry policy in its decision-making processes. The net result is that there is the option, but not the obligation, to look at these wider issues in an explicit fashion. The bottom line of the anti-dumping issue is that it is a sensitive economic and political issue, both domestically and internationally, and the factors which determine action can change quickly. Some decisions can be made only at the political level. For example, in the case of proven dumping, does the Government act in the same way if the dumped goods come from a country with which Australia has a large trading surplus as it does when we have a trading deficit? Because of factors such as these, final discretionary power has to remain in the hands of the Minister-as has been observed earlier, it is in safe hands-who can consider the interrelatedness of a number of prevailing trade and economic factors before making his decision. Nevertheless, the formation of the Anti-Dumping Authority, together with other changes in these pieces of legislation, gives him the best means of implementing policy in the fairest, most appropriate and most efficient method. Mr COBB(Parkes)(5.40) —The Anti-Dumping Authority Bill and cognate Bills which we are debating this afternoon are to amend Australia's anti-dumping legislation to implement some of the recommendations of the Review of the Customs Tariff (Anti-Dumping) Act 1975 that Professor Fred Gruen completed in March 1986, some two years ago now. Professor Gruen recommended that the present anti-dumping system be continued but said that the discrepancy in the concept of what he called unfair trade practices as it is applied within Australia and as it is applied by Australia to its imports of goods should be reduced. He also said that we should discourage a too extensive use of the anti-dumping system to restrict imports. He said: The anti-dumping system should not be used to shield import-competing industries from the necessity to adjust to longer term economic conditions . . . I agree with those sentiments entirely. As consumers and business people, we in Australia can now participate in a sale, whether it be in Best and Less, a factory or whatever, and take advantage of the cheaper prices there. I think everybody in this country accepts that system and would welcome it. However, when it comes to buying cheaper goods on the overseas market, for some reason we often think that it is an evil thing. I admit that sometimes dumping is an inappropriate activity by overseas producers, but often all they are doing is offering their goods to us at a lower price and it is up to us to accept them or not. When we do not, that simply disadvantages buyers in Australia; it denies consumers within this country the benefits of those cheaper goods. We have seen many instances of that in recent years. One which comes to mind is when farmers were denied the advantage of buying fertiliser at a cheaper price because overseas countries wanted to sell their finished product to us at a cheaper price than it was produced in Australia. We have to be very mindful of these things before we rush into a lot of anti-dumping legislation, and I am pleased to see that the Government has taken many of those points into consideration. Basically, the Bill proposes to set up what is called the Anti-Dumping Authority (ADA). This will be a statutory body to advise the Minister on policy guidelines, which will be developed by the ADA. The life of the dumping notices is to be restricted to three years. Also in the Bill is a proposal to prescribe the manner in which the Australian Customs Service (ACS) will conduct its preliminary investigations. The ACS will be required to conduct these preliminary investigations in such a way as to establish a prima facie case, it it thinks one exists, within 70 days and it will have a further 180 days to make a preliminary finding. Of course, the Customs Service can bring down a finding more quickly than that, but it can stretch it out to 250 days. Of course, this is very much removed from the fast tracking mechanism that is sometimes needed with anti-dumping legislation. I see that Canada allows only 90 days and the United States of America only 160 days. Another thing that concerns me is something that the honourable member for Wentworth (Dr Hewson) spoke about earlier, that is, some tariff levels will be able to be changed without reference to the Industries Assistance Commission (IAC). While I do not intend to expand on the comments which that honourable member made, I point out that the IAC has served us very well in this country and that I am very suspicious of that move indeed. The number of anti-dumping cases has reduced markedly over the past few years. In 1985 we had 285 cases being considered. That had dropped to 74 cases by 1 January this year. Even by 31 March only 35 cases involving 12 different countries were under consideration. Of course, that situation has come about mainly due to the savage devaluation of the Australian dollar and, to some lesser extent, to the downward trend in tariffs in this country. I note that the Bill ignores Professor Gruen's recommendation for a complete rewrite of the anti-dumping legislation and also his recommendation for simplification in this area. The Bill also does not seek to repeal section 5 (9) of the Customs Tariff (Anti-Dumping) Act, which sets out what is termed the normal value of goods. Gruen said that wherever possible a market-determined price should be used. That seems to be the logical way to go. Professor Gruen even suggested how this could be used for centrally planned economies that do not have a market-determined price. He said that if we used that, both in those economies and here, we could get a more accurate value than we do now. I am a little puzzled as to why the Government has rejected this because it would put any action in this area on a more accurate footing. I note that the establishment cost of the proposed Anti-Dumping Authority in the first year is $1.2m and for each year thereafter $920,000. It will be made up of a secretariat of up to 16 persons. What pleases me is that the Authority will have to take into account not only any injury that will be caused to any Australian industry that makes a complaint to it but also a wider perspective. I think that is to be welcomed. The Authority will have to take into account things such as the general economic conditions in the country, whether any production difficulties will arise from its decision, and what domestic competition takes place in Australia. It will not be something that will flow through automatically from a complaint. I think that there are a number of points about dumping for which anti-dumping legislation is very valid. There has been in this country a need to determine who may actually initiate anti-dumping legislation. For example, if canned tomatoes were being brought into Australia by a subsidiary of an Australian company already canning tomatoes here, that may not affect the company canning the tomatoes but would affect the growers in this country. In times past growers have had difficulty in getting their case off the ground. Mr Peter Fisher —It happens regularly. Mr COBB —It does. I think there is also another area of concern which is much more difficult to legislate against. I refer to supermarkets, some of which in the past have coerced people who want to complain. They have said, `If you complain we will not stock your products on our shelves'. The people who have wanted to complain about cheaper goods coming into the country, which they believed to be coming in unfairly, have backed off from putting complaints before the Authority. That has happened not only in the case of growers but also in the case of food processors. I think that area needs looking at. Another area of concern is the tariff duties applying to products coming into Australia in the case of people who say that they intend to make the products here as well. There does not seem to be a requirement of proof to show that such people really genuinely intend to make such products in Australia. There have been cases in the past of people saying that they intended to make in Australian agricultural lasers and liquid nitrogen containers, which are used in the artificial insemination industry. The tariffs went up, but the articles were never made in Australia. Unfortunately, the consumers had to foot the bill for the extra tariff. I think that area needs to be tightened up. There is yet another area that I believe is quite ridiculous, whereby a small company making goods can claim protection even though it may affect only a very small percentage of the market. For example, the company may make only enough of the product in Australia to supply 5 per cent of the domestic market, yet it can force to be put on a tariff which would affect all the market. In fact, it could even double the price. I think that an excellent example of this was recently pointed out by the shadow Minister for primary industries, the honourable member for Murray (Mr Lloyd), in regard to wool fabric. Wool fabrics in this country are grossly overpriced because of the tariff on them, which is running at a level of 40 per cent, would you believe! Yet countries to which we supply the raw product can buy it much cheaper. For example, Italy, Germany, Japan, Britain and the Soviet Union can buy it more cheaply. This is particularly so with the high quality, lightweight wool fabrics that are very much coming into fashion in the world today. I am talking about the cool wool fabrics that are used particularly in women's gear. A 40 per cent tariff is imposed on them when they come into Australia whereas the competitors, such as the synthetics or cottons, attract only the nominal tariff of 2 per cent. I think that is quite unacceptable. We used to have two leading textile weavers in Australia. They have now merged into one and supply only part of the market. All that this high tariff has done is force up the price to Australian consumers and decrease the range available to Australian people, so the Australian consumer is suffering to quite an extent. Amongst those Australian consumers, the poor people and the pensioners in particular suffer, because the price of these goods puts them well beyond the reach of these people. Of course, the manufacturers of wool products at the end of the day are also adversely affected. Tariffs have incredibly detrimental effects in this country. They simply raise import prices and bump up inflation and the cost of living, and this flows right through the Australian economy. The net effect of all of this is merely to shift labour and capital from efficient industries to less efficient ones; it leads to less overall trade, and a higher exchange rate and a lower standard of living for us all. High tariffs shift jobs from one industry to another, from one occupation to another and from one region to another. There is no net gain of jobs from high tariffs; in fact, it is now shown that fewer jobs result from high tariffs. I hope the Treasurer (Mr Keating) will take the opportunity in his mini-Budget statement tomorrow night to make a substantial cut in tariffs. If he does so, I will warmly welcome that. In conclusion, I say that, if that is done and anti-dumping measures are enacted in Australia on a proper and sensible basis and not used just as another protection measure, all industry will be able to start to compete in Australia on a fairer and more competitive basis, to the overall benefit of us all. Mr HOLLIS(Throsby)(5.52) —I am always interested to follow a member of the National Party of Australia, especially one who rails against tariffs and protection. I do not want to inject a discordant note into this debate because there has been a lot of support on all sides; so I will merely comment briefly that it was the actions of the National Party some 30 or 40 years ago that led to the difficulty we have in this country in many respects regarding tariffs. Mr Peter Fisher —What nonsense! Mr HOLLIS —If the honourable member wants to debate the issue, I invite him to look at some of the things that Mr McEwen did. He should look at the impact of the decisions that he took and forced through in this country from which, in many respects, this country is still suffering. Mr Peter Fisher —There have been 10 parliaments since then. Mr HOLLIS —Maybe there have been, but this country is still suffering from the effects of those decisions; and it is this Hawke Labor Government that has taken these matters in hand and is trying to do something to remedy the legacy that we have been left with. I do not intend to delay the House long with my contribution to the debate on these important pieces of legislation-the Anti-Dumping Authority Bill, the Customs Legislation (Anti-Dumping Amendments) Bill and the Customs Tariff (Anti-Dumping) Amendment Bill-amending, as they do, Australia's anti-dumping legislation. Many of the points I wanted to make have already been made and that is part of the price one pays when one is eighth or tenth on the speaking list. I agree with many of the comments made-indeed, on both sides of the House. I was particularly interested in the comments of my colleague the honourable member for Macarthur (Mr Martin), representing, as I do, the Illawarra area. He made particular mention of the steel industry and the impact of dumping there. As he indicated, much of my speech will be devoted to the cement industry because both the honourable member for Macarthur and I have cement works in our areas. As has been said, the legislation implements the Government's response to the Gruen Review of the Customs Tariff (Anti-Dumping) Act. There is absolutely no doubt that, in the past, Australia has been used for dumping of various goods such as steel and, indeed, wire. Many of these cases have resulted from what people call country hopping, which is when importers move goods from one country to another to source their imports, thus enabling them to avoid anti-dumping measures. As I said, I have a particular worry about cheap Asian cement being dumped in Australia to the detriment of jobs and, indeed, the construction industry within Australia. I have a Blue Circle Southern Cement Ltd cement works at Berrima in my electorate, but it is not only because I have a cement works in my electorate that I take particular interest in and support this important anti-dumping legislation. I listened to what the honourable member for Parkes (Mr Cobb) was saying. He talked about how, by denying entry to these goods, we could prevent people from getting cheap goods. Of course, we are all in favour of cheaper goods, but it is not always like with like. It is all very well having cheaper goods, provided they are of equivalent quality. For example, we hear a lot about cheap Asian cement that might or might not come into this country. There has been quite a lot about it in the papers over the past couple of months. With cement, especially the Asian cement, many people worry that it is not chemically compatible with the local aggregates, and it is very important that the cement that we use here be compatible. We worry that some of the cement that is being imported might not be used for the specific purposes for which it was designed. One must also be sure that, within the fairly precise boundaries, the chemical and physical properties of the cement do not vary. There is a worry that some of the Asian cement that could be imported into this country does not meet the fairly strict requirements. It would not be very beneficial even if that cement were coming in cheaper, if it were not of the quality that we demand in this country. There is currently a great excess of cement capacity overseas, especially in countries desperate for foreign exchange. The cement industry workers, the unions and the employers have waged a very strong campaign against cheap imported Asian cement. They have frequently visited Canberra over the past 12 months and we on this side of the House set up a committee to investigate the complaints that they were making and to look into this matter. This committee, of which I have been a member, was very ably chaired by the honourable member for McMillan (Mr Cunningham). One of the difficulties that unions and producers had in taking anti-dumping measures against the Asian cement that was being imported was that no action could be taken until a properly documented complaint was received by the Australian Customs Service, giving all the facts and giving evidence demonstrating the elements of export sales to Australia at less than normal value in the country of origin. Indeed, the honourable member for Wakefield (Mr Andrew) made reference to this when talking about citrus fruits. The complaint had to be made by a company or companies representing a major proportion of the Australian industry, and needed to be supported by the balance of the industry. On receipt of the complaint, the Australian Customs Service undertook within 30 days to advise the complainant whether or not the complaint was properly documented. Then it took another 40 days before the Australian Customs Service would advise the complainant whether or not the complaint constituted a prima facie case warranting investigation. If the Customs Service decided that it did warrant investigation, it would issue a public notice. A further 40-day period would need to be allowed, and then a formal investigation would commence. Then, within 180 days of the commencement of that formal investigation, the Service would make a preliminary finding and would have another 120 days from that date to make recommendations to the Minister as to whether substantive anti-dumping measures could be taken. I agree with what the honourable member for Wakefield said, although he was talking not about the citrus industry but was referring specifically to the wine industry. The point he was making was that the long time they would have to wait would mean that the damage would have been done before remedial action could be taken. That was exactly the situation in which the people in the cement industry found themselves. It meant that the cement had to be in Australia, and in many cases actually being used, before a complaint could be made about cheap cement being imported. I was very pleased to note in the Bill, as the honourable member for Sydney (Mr Baldwin) mentioned in his contribution, that it will now be possible for complaints to be made before allegedly dumped or subsidised goods have arrived in Australia, where there is adequate knowledge that imports of dumped or subsidised goods are to arrive in volumes which will cause injury to an Australian industry. That is most important, because it is too late to lodge a complaint after the market has been flooded with these goods. The Government believes that the new arrangements contained in the three Bills will improve Australia's anti-dumping and countervailing system and are consistent with Australia's rights and obligations under the General Agreement in Tariffs and Trade and with the Government's industry policy. The system will provide a balanced approach to protecting Australian industry from clearly unfair trading practices, while at the same time ensuring that the measures do not constitute an unjustifiable impediment to international trade. I commend the Bill to the House. Mr McARTHUR(Corangamite)(6.02) —I wish to make a contribution to this intelligent debate, in which honourable members on both sides of the House have been struggling with the complex problem of dumping, both in the degree of difficulty and in the facts that back up the dumping arguments. Honourable members on both sides of the House agree that under the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) world trading arrangements are conducted in a proper and workmanlike manner. However, we all know that predatory trade practices do take place, as can be seen in the European Economic Community, where dairy products are dumped on the world market at prices that cause great disadvantage to Australian farmers. In the United States of America wheat is dumped on the world market at prices disadvantageous to Australian farmers. The same occurs with fertiliser, cement, chemicals and steel, which have been mentioned during the debate today. The honourable member for Wakefield (Mr Andrew) put the farmers' viewpoint and said that farmers in Australia have to meet the world market. They are price takers and they are concerned about products being dumped either in Australia or on their markets. However, Australian farmers export beef to Japan, they export wool all over the world, and they receive no protection. I commend to the House the second reading speech of the Minister for Science, Customs and Small Business (Mr Barry Jones). In the speech the definition of dumping, which is often confused with that of tariffs, is clearly set out: Dumping occurs when the products of one country are exported to another country at less than their normal value in the country of export. Normal value is usually the price of like goods sold in the ordinary course of trade for consumption in the country of export. The House must be very careful about `normal value' and the context of the expression `the ordinary course of trade'. We can get into discussion about establishing normal values and what constitutes the ordinary course of trade. Again in the second reading speech the Minister for Science, Customs and Small Business talks in this way about dumping on the international marketplace: Dumping is condemned internationally as unfair trading if it causes, or threatens, material injury to the industry producing like goods in the importing country. The remedy against dumping is the imposition of dumping duties which can be up to the difference between the export price and the normal value. This sets out the problems that manufacturing industries in Australia face in establishing dumping claims. All honourable members would be aware that the Australian Customs Service has been carrying out the major investigations into dumping claims to date. Under this legislation the Government is proposing to set up an Australian Anti-Dumping Authority, yet another quango, at a cost of $1.2m. At this stage only 12 persons are involved and their real role is second guessing the Australian Customs Service on its investigations. The Opposition wishes to amend the procedures by trying to establish a faster track arrangement compared with what is proposed in the Bill. At the moment the Bill allows 70 days within which to establish the complaint. The Opposition suggests that that period be reduced to 55 days. The Bill at present provides that a prima facie case must be established within 180 days; the Opposition suggests it should be done in 120 days. The Bill provides 120 days in which to complete the report. This is a total of 370 days-just over a year-from the time the complaint becomes known to the Australian Customs Service. The problem in Australia is that, under these arrangements, if goods can be proven to have been dumped they will by then have been in Australia for a full year and will probably have found a niche in the market. I turn to examples of two industries on which the dumping procedures have had a major influence. The first is the Australian fertiliser industry, about which debate was waged strongly by both manufacturers and farmers. From 1984 to 1987 the American fertiliser industry was at a low point, selling its product overseas because there was an oversupply in the United States of America. This meant that Australian farmers could buy the product more cheaply at that time. Because of the low prices internationally the high analysis fertiliser industry in Australia was threatened by the lower priced product that was being introduced. After considerable investigation by the Australian Customs Service anti-dumping measures were introduced, and the Australian manufacturing plant kept operating in these unusual conditions. Farmers at that time, especially in Western Australia, were concerned that they were not buying the product at its best price. However, the Government and the Australian Customs Service maintained their position, and in 1988 prices have returned to more normal values. There has been an upturn in the price of high analysis fertiliser, so Australian farmers now have a certain supply at real world prices that are competitive. The Australian fertiliser industry during these investigations was proven to be efficient by world standards. The Industries Assistance Commission had a major investigation, produced a report and came up with this finding. There was little or no tariff protection to the fertiliser industry, and the rapid changes in prices-sometimes 30 per cent to 50 per cent in six months-did not help the industry. The anti-dumping measures that were introduced at this time made sure that United States producers were not able to shift their losses or overheads to Australian producers during this time of downturn. The second example to which I refer is that of the cement industry, which has been mentioned by honourable members on both the Government and Opposition sides. This industry has been a major focus of the dumping argument in recent weeks and months. The industry is vertically integrated and has two major companies, Australian Cement Ltd and Blue Circle Southern Cement Ltd. The threat of dumping is causing major interest among both the union movement and management. There is a threat of dumping from Japan and other countries. At the moment cement is entering Western Australia because there is an oversupply of cement around the world. I have been suggesting that a fast track procedure be undertaken to see whether cement might enter Australia at dumped prices. If this can be established, the necessary action can be taken. On the other side of the argument, the manufacturers need to establish that they are efficient; that the age of their plant is compatible with modern technology around the world; that there are good work practices in these plants and no overmanning; that technology is up to date and competitive with European and Japanese technologies; and that the market share-- Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Rocher) —Order! The time allotted for the remaining stages of the Bill has expired. Amendment negatived. Original question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —The question is that the remaining stages of the Bill be agreed to. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a third time. Debate resumed from 28 April, on motion by Mr Barry Jones: That the Bill be now read a second time. Mr Moore-I seek leave to incorporate in Hansard the Opposition's amendment in regard to the Anti-Dumping Authority Bill 1988. Leave granted. The amendment read as follows- 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: (1) further complicating customs procedures; and (2) adding another layer of bureaucracy thus increasing costs to the customs service while still denying the service the expertise recommended for it in the Review of the Customs Tariff (Anti-Dumping) Act 1975''. Mr McARTHUR(Corangamite)(6.12) —I wish to complete the remarks that I was making on the cement industry when I was speaking to the Anti-Dumping Authority Bill 1988. I was referring to the market share of the Australian cement industry and addressing the question whether there was true competition in the industry. I draw attention to the effect of the Prices Surveillance Authority and the fact that there are only two main producer companies in Australia. I raise the issue whether there is genuine competition between these two companies. I note that the control of cement is in their hands. Likewise, the control of the raw materials of sand and stone and the Readymix plants around Australia is basically under the control of these two major cement operators. A smaller independent operator is coming into the Australian market to provide competition. That competition might be provided by that company by importing some cement to Australia so that it can supply the smaller operators. We need to establish whether there is dumping in the cement industry and whether the consumers are being looked after in terms of competitive price. I notice that unions and management have run a very strong campaign on the dumping issue, both in this Parliament and publicly. I look forward to the Australian Customs Service giving a calm assessment of the dumping proposition put forward by those companies. The Opposition will not vote against the Customs Legislation (Anti-Dumping Amendments) Bill 1988. But we support the faster procedures along the lines of the amendment that the honourable member for Ryan (Mr Moore) has referred to. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. The Bill. Mr MOORE(Ryan)(6.14) —by leave-I move: (1) Clause 6, page 6, line 3, omit ``70 days'', substitute ``55 days''. (2) Clause 6, page 6, line 19, omit ``70 days'', substitute ``55 days''. (3) Clause 6, page 7, line 13, omit ``180 days'', substitute ``120 days''. These amendments are designed to reduce the number of days that are set out in clause 6. I have moved the amendments merely to bring the legislation into line with the recommendations of the Gruen Review of the Customs Tariff (Anti-Dumping) Act 1975. In doing so, I recognise that the Department of Science, Customs and Small Business will need substantially more resources to enable it to meet those deadlines. But, in any case, any effective dumping mechanism has to be properly resourced. Mr BARRY JONES(Lalor-Minister for Science, Customs and Small Business)(6.16) —The Government rejects the amendments moved by the honourable member for Ryan (Mr Moore). It is important to keep those maximum periods for reporting in the Customs Legislation (Anti-Dumping Amendments) Bill because there will be occasions when it will be necessary to use the full time available. Certainly, I give an undertaking that our intention would be to try to speed up procedures without interfering with natural justice. The 180-day period is set as a balance between the requirements to provide natural justice to all parties while ensuring that industry is provided with relief and trade is not disrupted in the interim. Before initiating the dumping complaint, the Australian industry will have had the advantage of time to prepare its case. Other parties, such as the importer and exporter, must be allowed time to respond and submit evidence which must be adequately considered and investigated before a preliminary finding is made which could profoundly impact on trade. The experience with legal challenges in the Federal Court to various procedural steps has confirmed that the provision of natural justice requires adequate allocation of time to the procedure. I also submit that the new time limits generally accord with the approach in the United States of America, Canada and the European Economic Community. The period is set out in legislation in the United States and in Canada. In the case of Canada, for example, the times within which dumping investigations are conducted are almost identical. One can have an option of a 90-day period or a 135-day period plus a further 90 days. The crucial difference is that in Canada the independent tribunal commences its 120-day inquiry into injury and investigation after the preliminary determination-that is, at either day 90 or day 135-and not at the conclusion of the customs investigation; that is to say, the final determination of dumping on either day 180 or day 215. A further critical difference is that in Canada each organisation looks at only one element of actionable dumping. Customs looks at dumping and the margin of dumping while the tribunal looks at whether the dumping has caused injury. In Australia's case, within 180 days the Australian Customs Service will finish its full analysis of both the dumping and the injury to the industry. It is then proposed that the Anti-Dumping Authority take an absolute maximum of 120 days to examine independently the total question of dumping, injury and causal link. In effect, this is an independent review appeal mechanism for industry or the importers. This time is not seen as excessive, given the importance of the task, and protection to the complainant Australian industry cannot be eroded because of the provisional measures which have been put in place. The statutory time limits for the submission of evidence or information and for the decision-making process will impose a discipline on all participants, including the Australian Customs Service. As I said in my second reading speech, I hope that it will not be necessary to use the maximum period. I think if there is an urgent case-- Mr Moore —Fast track it. Mr BARRY JONES —then the fast track method is appropriate. I am sure that I am on common ground with the honourable member for Ryan when I say that this provision increases the role of ministerial discretion. Amendments negatived. Bill agreed to. Bill reported without amendment; report adopted. Bill (on motion by Mr Barry Jones) read a third time. Consideration resumed from 28 April, 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. Sitting suspended from 6.21 to 8 p.m. Debate resumed from 28 April, on motion by Mr Barry Jones: That the Bill be now read a second time. Mr MOORE(Ryan)(8.00) —The Research and Development Legislation Amendment Bill arises from a review process, the results of which were presented to the Government in 1987 and in which the operations of the research and development program were examined and a number of amendments were suggested. In this Bill the Government has come forward with two significant amendments, one to the Income Tax Assessment Act 1936 and the other to the Industry Research and Development Act 1986. The amendments arose out of a technical review in 1987 of the 150 per cent concession for research and development. These amendments were foreshadowed in November 1987 by both the Treasurer (Mr Keating) and the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce (Senator Button). This Bill will implement the decisions resulting from the review. The amendments are designed to stimulate investment in research and development projects and to ensure that Australia obtains a worthwhile return for revenue-subsidised research and development. It is intended that the Bill will increase the effectiveness of the administration of the research and development concession by transferring those powers and functions of the Industry Research and Development Board presently provided for in the Income Tax Assessment Act and the Industry Research and Development Act 1986. One of the main features of the Bill is that the discretionary powers of the Board will be extended to enable it to determine the eligibility of companies and projects seeking the research and development concession. The powers of the Board will be tightened to prevent exploitation of the research and development concession for other than intended purposes. The Government frequently uses the wonderful term `unintended outcome'. Mr Barry Jones —Serendipity. Mr MOORE —It is something like that. The legislation seeks to provide safeguards projects by requiring that to be eligible, projects have sufficient Australian content. Furthermore, revenue-subsidised research and development projects shall be exploited to enable them to realise their full commercial potential for the benefit of Australia. Those are nice words, although I am not sure how the Government intends to go about achieving that objective. Importantly-and this is probably one of the most significant parts of the amendment-small business will have greater accessibility to the tax concessions, as this legislation will enable the Board to register a wider range of research agencies. The contracted expenditure incurred by companies whose annual research and development expenditure is less than $50,000 will be extended, enabling a wide range of small business which would not otherwise be eligible to enter the area of research and development. Finally, for the purposes of the tax concession the Bill establishes a new category of research body, a registered research agency, to replace the approved research institutes. The Bill also provides for joint ventures for costly or risky projects. The amendments will enable the Board to provide prior in-principle approval and subsequently to jointly register participating companies. Under this amendment the companies register will reduce the risk of unfavourable tax treatment further down the track. Those changes certainly make research and development far more accessible to small business, one of the areas that have been heavily penalised in relation to research and development. It was not possible in the past to get a tax concession for more than the usual amount of expenses incurred and an organisation was certainly not eligible for the 150 per cent tax deduction until it had spent at least $50,000, which is well beyond the capacity of a wide range of small businesses. That measure is to be commended. The ability to go into joint ventures is also welcomed by the Opposition. This is an area in which I believe we will see a considerable take-up because ventures in the future are a risky business. One must make a judgment as to how far one can go. If a joint venture is properly constructed with research and development on one side and salesmanship and management on the other, there is no doubt that the outcome for those involved will be very beneficial. The proposal to exend the tax concession to a new category of research body, the registered research agency, is also welcomed. This will enable a wide range of private enterprise research facilities to be used properly, probably on a wider scale. Many corporations in Australia run significant research laboratories, in some cases involving time lags in terms of use. I know of a number of corporations which have quite expensive set-ups and which would welcome the opportunity to contract out or contract in for work which may be supplementary or which might take up some of the down time which occurs in some private institutions. On top of that, I think the move away from the research institutes is a healthy way to engender some competition between the various institutes in Australia and private enterprise. The Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation has made a valuable contribution over the years. Nevertheless, these days, with the wide range of scientific development that is taking place, it is very opportune to cross-fertilise with the private sector research institutions in Australia, some of which are of a very high quality. The provision to ensure that projects have sufficient Australian content is worth while, but not of the greatest moment, I would have thought. The main thing is to get research work done in Australia rather than our having to buy the copyright to overseas research, which is expensive and sometimes involves a massive time lag. The discretionary powers of the Board are to be extended to enable it to determine the eligibility of companies for the tax concession. I think that is also a worthwhile step. It concerns me that the board of any institute such as this which has to make a judgment will inevitably be forced into making qualitative decisions which could well be wrong. I have only recently come by the 1986-87 report of the Industry Research and Development Board. The sand in the glass did not run too strongly when that report was being prepared. By the time it came to hand it was almost a year out of date. Mr Barry Jones —Budgetary restraints, you understand. Mr MOORE —I thought it was the efficiency of the Government which I hear so much about! In chapter 9 (1), under the heading `evaluation', the report reads: The Board is required to evaluate the effectiveness of the operations under the Industry Research and Development Act 1986 and to report on this evaluation in each of its annual reports. Hence my interest. The report continues: The Board is of the view that evaluation of its operations and monitoring of the schemes which it administers are vitally important to its own ability to carry out the functions for which it was set up. At this stage it is too early to comment on the effectiveness of the Board's operations against the broad objectives of the incentives. The Board will commence evaluation in 1987-88 and report in that year's Annual Report. I hope that that report will come down fairly quickly because it is important to see how these sorts of schemes are operating. I know from the experience of the Executive Director of this organisation, who has had a very lengthy association with research and development and a good background with the Department of Business and Consumer Affairs, that such matters will be considered to be most important in the future. The report continues: The Government has requested the Bureau of Industry Economics (BIE) to undertake cost effectiveness reviews of the tax concession . . . That is vitally important. Far too often these sorts of investments-and I am speaking here as an investor-are made on the basis of the tax concession rather than the worthiness of the project. An assessment of the worth of a project is certainly a matter of business judgment but there is no doubt that the tax concession is the all-important item to the investor. The report continues: A large portion of the information on which the BIE will base its evaluations will be collected by the Board. So it is important to address ourselves to the importance of the Board. Paragraph 9.1 continues: This information will include: information based on company registrations for the tax concession-in providing this information to the BIE, the board will preserve the confidentiality of companies; information on applicants for grants under the GIRD scheme; and information on the progress and success of individual projects supported under GIRD. Under the heading `Future plans', it is stated: Much of the Board's resources in 1986-87 were devoted to developing administrative arrangements for its responsibilities under the GIRD scheme . . . The Board considers that it is now in a better position to undertake the ongoing administration of these schemes. It will, therefore, be able to place more emphasis on other activities designed to achieve its objectives. In particular, high priority will be given to the additional functions directed by the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce in June 1986, viz: organising forums for the discussion and implementation of research opportunities- they would certainly have their place- ensuring adequate public awareness of IR&; and fostering greater understanding and collaboration between Australian and overseas R& activities. That is particularly important if we are to save ourselves some money. Membership of the Board is one area in which the Opposition disagrees with the Government. It is proposed in clause 11 to increase the size of the Board from 10 members to 13. It strikes me that the 10 members of the Board are all competent people. I do not personally know all of them, but I know a number of them. I am aware that all the ones I do not know have held positions of significance and because of that their contributions would be valuable. On top of that, the secretariat, on the basis of the executive directors and others, seems to be made up of people with competence in the area. I refer to the Board committees. The Chairman of the Tax Concession Advisory Committee is a member of the Board, and a number of its members come from such places as Hungerfords and the well-known firm of solicitors, Barker and Gosling. Even an Assistant Commissioner from the Australian Taxation Office is a member of that advisory committee. That in itself would frighten most businessmen. Similarly, the Discretionary Grants Committee is chaired by a member of the Board, and he is assisted by people on the Board and from outside. It is the same situation with the Technical Qualifications Committee and with the Biotechnology Advisory Committee, the New Materials Technology Advisory Committee and the Information Technology Advisory Committee. So in all there are some six advisory committees and a board. I have made observations before about government advisory committees in relation to company law. Some are very good and some serve a purpose, but undoubtedly there is a tendency for the secretariat to be the guiding hand in all their discussions, and because of the secretariat and the number of committees the Opposition fails to see why another three members should be added to the Board of 10. Thirteen is quite a large number. It is only half the size of the Federal Cabinet, nevertheless it is a sizeable number to run a business orientated research project. Thirteen members is too many; the current 10 seem to be performing adequately. In the committee stage we will be opposing clause 11. I turn to the future of these research and development grants. For a very long time Australia has never had the companies with the capital base or the profitability to spend money on research and development. It has been a matter of record, and a matter of some regret, as well, that it has been far cheaper for companies to buy technology rather than spend money on it themselves. Until such time as Australian companies are bigger, more profitable and more research orientated this is likely to continue. Therefore, the incentive offered in this plan, which is a continuation of the previous Government's plan in a slightly different form, is welcomed, and I hope that industry will respond to it. We cannot sit back and continue to run business on the basis of franchising. Franchising means putting ourselves years behind the industry front. To accept that position is to condemn the nation to a secondary role in the technical and manufacturing areas. For that reason the Opposition supports the general thrust of the Bill. I wish it well, as I wish the secretariat and all the members of the Board well. We should all follow its progress, and certainly I look forward with great interest to reading the new report which will surely come out at a far greater pace than the last one. We support the Bill, except for the size of the Board. Mr ALLAN MORRIS(Newcastle)(8.17) —I was pleased to hear the comments of the previous speaker, the honourable member for Ryan (Mr Moore). I do not doubt the Minister for Science, Customs and Small Business (Mr Barry Jones) will explain in great detail the reasons for the extension to the Industry Research Development Board's membership. In supporting the amendments I would like to refer to the background of this legislation and the creation of incentive for research and development in Australia. We have all seen the figures indicating how poorly we have performed in this field, and we can all give reasons why this has occurred. The honourable member for Ryan suggested that capital base and profitability were factors, and they may well be. Frankly, I believe they are not the major factors. Our manufacturing industry, in particular, has tended to be derivative. We have tended to use licences, pro- cesses and procedures and even equipment developed in other countries to manufacture products strictly and solely for the Australian market. Market size was important, but we never looked outside the Australian population as a natural base. That meant, therefore, that we were investing in relatively small production volumes. It also meant that production was a mechanical, procedural matter rather than an intellectual, creative matter. In the process, of course, we tended to induce a high cost of production. For many years we saw what was called `technology transfer'. That is a fairly ambiguous phrase which to some people meant we were doing well because we had modern technology and that we should therefore be proud of our achievements. We were producing things that were produced in some of the world's leading countries. That misnomer, that misuse of that terminology, I think did a great deal of damage to the psychology of Australian manufacturing because the perception was a very wrong one. The technology transfer that we perhaps exploited and developed for so many years was a form of aping. It was derivative. It was, essentially, copying. Our creative skills were being used to replicate products designed and manufactured elsewhere. I am fascinated by the number of times Australian ingenuity was used to modify products and production processes during the period. Licence holders were able, in many cases for no charge whatsoever, to have their product improved. They were able to use an improved version in their markets as a result of Australians looking for better ways of doing things. That whole psychology of the derivation of licensing crippled us for decades. One could have said, `Why do we not just stop licensing?'. That would not have worked, firstly, because the access to products would have taken a long lead time to develop. In recent years a number of licensing companies have allowed Australian manufacturers to extend their market area. An oft-quoted example is the Ericsson company. It was supplying most of the Asian markets from Sweden. It was manufacturing in Australia, but the Australian product was not able to be sold out of Australia. Products from Europe were being sold to our neighbours. We were not allowed to supply those markets. Now Ericsson has extended the Australian capacity into the Asian region. That has been true of many other suppliers. The difficulty of addressing that matter in the timeframe that was available to us in 1983, in the context of a significant crisis in manufacturing, was fairly profound. Some can argue and have argued that the methodology of using the tax concession was very brutal and all-encompassing. Quite frankly, it was. The problems at that stage called for fairly brutal solutions. These amendments are part of the process of making the legislation more sophisticated and refined. Clearly, there was a capacity for tax minimisation. So, rather than being used for the development of new products and new capacities, it was used simply to reduce the taxation payments from some companies. It was also difficult for companies with no research and development base to be able to take advantage of the concession, whereas the larger companies which had research and development staff or experience were able to move in and utilise this concession very quickly. Many of them did. The smaller companies found it much harder to use the concession. It also meant that a company had to be profitable. Part of these amendments is directed towards the second aspect. The first aspect related to tax minimisation; the second related to the need to ensure that we accommodated the newer emerging companies so that they were able to invest in research and development. At the same time a problem arose as to what was research and what was development. How was it to be classified? The changes brought forward in the legislation, in terms of research agencies, will be fairly important. It makes the application much more flexible which, in turn, means a greater degree of monitoring. Some, perhaps, will suggest that this legislation and these amendments will be cumbersome and difficult. That is totally unavoidable in the context in which we are working. We are trying to find a measure to accelerate massively an attitudinal situation in Australian manufacturing, to shift the focus away from just producing to learning how to produce and how to design. I am seeing this concession impacting on industries with which I am familiar. It is being talked about increasingly and mobilised increasingly. The results are gradually coming through. In the years to come we will see the results coming through much more significantly in our figures. One would hope that over time our manufacturing culture will have absorbed this concession and adjusted company spending priorities so that research and development are a normal part of any company scene, and will be looking to design, to manufacture and to create rather than using licences. The sooner Australia is licence free-that is a long way away-the sooner we can start talking about being a genuine manufacturing country. The honourable member for Ryan referred to this aspect in the context of where one is in the system. When a company manufactures under licence it knows that it is a long way from the front. Even without a licence it can still be well behind. Australia will increasingly be at the forefront of world manufacturing-not necessarily in the large volume items, or in the mass market sellers, the big products, but in the more sophisticated items, the small batch items, the items that require a higher and higher degree of manufacturing skill. This legislation will have an enormous impact of allowing us to bridge that gap, to make that transition. From the Government's point of view it has been difficult to bring these amendments together in an appropriate form. I do not think anybody expected that it would have been easy. It is important that industry and the community at large realise that this concession is so vital. It had to be done as well as possible. I do not doubt that in the months and years ahead we will need further changes and fine tuning or refining. That is the way it should be. It would be quite pointless for us to expect to sit down and design such a complex process and to get it perfect from day one. We have to accept that, as it impacts on industry, industry will respond and there may be further need for fine tuning. I hope that in the years ahead we will not need tax concessions for research and development and that there will be profitability within industries that will allow our capacity to use Australian brain power, skill and ingenuity to generate products that are appropriate to us and to the markets within our region. I hope that in the years ahead research and development will become a significant part of company priorities rather than being the last thing on the Budget and the first thing to get cut when a company runs into difficulty. I hope that in the years ahead it will be part of our manufacturing culture and psychology, that research and development will automatically be considered as the most vital part of any company's forward program. In that kind of future, measures such as this taxation concession should and will become irrelevant. How far away that future is, quite frankly, I would not like to predict. I believe that it is coming and I believe that this concession eventually will serve its own purpose in making itself redundant to a significant degree. In supporting the amendments, it is important to place on record, and for government members who have worked with and are close to industry to convey to the Minister and to the Cabinet, the fact that industry is responding, that it understands this concession, that it appreciates it and that it is trying its best to make it work at its end. Mr SMITH(Bass)(8.26) —The honourable member for Ryan (Mr Moore) has already spoken in this debate as my colleague in the shadow Cabinet who is the shadow Minister for business and consumer affairs. I, being spokesman on science and energy, also support the Research and Development Legislation Amendment Bill. Mr Deputy Speaker, given that the Minister for Science, Customs and Small Business (Mr Barry Jones) is at the table, I ask for your indulgence to associate myself with the remarks made by my colleague the Deputy Leader of the Liberal Party, the honourable member for Kooyong (Mr Peacock), in congratulating the Minister on the awarding to him of an honorary Doctor of Science degree at the opening of the conference of the Australian and New Zealand Association for the Advancement of Science the other day. Through you, Mr Deputy Speaker, I say to the Minister that, as one of the younger members of this House and one of the newest arrivals, I have watched him for some time-I also used to watch television-and to see a man who has been in public life for a quarter of a century awarded that honorary degree was timely and perhaps overdue. Having been given the task of being the Minister's shadow, I know that it is a formidable task. He has done a lot for science in this nation and it is a pity that some of his colleagues do not listen to him more closely. Given that, I am sure that we both agree that science is important. This Bill is important to the development of science in this country. The previous speaker, the honourable member for Newcastle (Mr Allan Morris), said that he hoped that research and development would become part and parcel of ordinary budgetary processes and would not be the first casualty in cuts. He saw it as a shame that we needed to put in place something like 150 per cent tax deductibility. Indeed it is. But they are the facts of life and we must deal with them. There is a growing realisation of the importance of science and the importance of research and development in this nation. All of us, regardless of where we stand in this House, ought to be prepared to embrace it wholesomely because our future certainly is tied up with the success we will have in these fields. As I said, we do not oppose the Bill. However, we propose to move an amendment which has been circulated by the honourable member for Ryan. It is an amendment to clause 11 which we oppose. Clause 11 effectively says-- Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member is not free to refer specifically to clauses by number other than at the committee stage. He is free to speak to the Bill. Mr SMITH —Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. As you have noticed, I am new. One of the points we want to raise refers to the extension of the number of board members from 10 to 13. We believe that, as there are a number of supporting committees to the Board, perhaps that is not necessary. That is the reason for our proposed amendment. Primarily, the Bill extends the discretionary powers of the Board to enable it to determine the eligibility of companies and projects to participate in the scheme. It also has a requirement that projects have sufficient Australian content and that the results of revenue subsidised by way of the research and development 150 per cent tax deductability are exploited on normal commercial terms for the benefit of Australia. That is a particularly important point and I will refer to it later when I give specific examples. The Bill also recognises that the number of small companies that seek research and development support is important. I think the Minister for Science, Customs and Small Business made that point ably in his second reading speech. Indeed, in my view much more can be done in this field because it is the small company utilising external research and development sources or generating its own internal research and development that provides the best opportunities to rapidly expand the research and development dollar expenditure within this country. I think there needs to be a far greater commitment by industry and that government should be looking more closely at ways in which it can foster that outcome. I ask the Minister-I do not know whether he will have time to sum up, given that the Bill has been guillotined-whether the registered research agencies, referred to at page 3 of the second reading speech, relate to the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation, the Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation (ANSTO) and, more particularly, the Defence Science and Technology Organisation (DSTO). Interestingly, the first question that was a dorothy dixer, much to my chagrin, asked of the Minister for Defence Science and Personnel (Mrs Kelly) in this House only this week, related to the DSTO. I think that the DSTO is an underestimated repository of science excellence that we and Australian industry could be utilising to far better effect. The Minister's proposals to focus more attention on the links between the DSTO establishments and industry are certainly welcome and I think that this nation will benefit from it. If one relies on importing defence equipment and know-how, it has a monumental effect on one's external balances and terms of trade. If we can generate the capacity to develop domestic industries, perhaps with export potential, to have some expertise in science and defence science, where we can pick up some of the work ourselves, it would be of benefit to us all. Perhaps the Minister will mention that. The Australian Statisticians's recent catalogue Research and Development, Business Enterprises, Australia, 1986-87, Preliminary indicates that those smaller companies that could develop in the defence science area have availed themselves of the 150 per cent tax deduction. We all hope that many more will do so. If I remember correctly, I think the Minister said in his second reading speech that it is probably a little early to make some clear determinations as to how successful that has been. Certainly by the time 1991 comes around, when the 150 per cent deductability comes to an end, we all hope that there will have been a major increase and that whichever party is in government will have to make a decision as to whether or not it will continue. I interpolate that a Bill which is to come before us later tonight deals with a tax deduction in the film industry. When the deduction was taken away prematurely, that industry collapsed. One hopes that if the 150 per cent research and development deduction is not shown to be working extremely successfully in 1991 we will not take it away prematurely; rather, we will recognise the very important role it has played. The Minister made some interesting points in his second reading speech. In order to refresh the memory of honourable members I will quote from page 8 of the speech: The latest statistics suggest that, typically, Australian companies invest in research and development only half that of world competitive companies. Before the introduction of the tax concession it was a third. The progress of the last three years is encouraging but not sufficient. It is important for the House to realise that, based on current information, that increase research and development is not sufficient. This is no time to be complacent, and that is partly why we support the Bill. We think there is a lot more work to be done, a lot more research and development to be done. We do not want to start walking away from the possibilities that research and development will bring to this country. At page 9 of the second reading speech an interesting point is made, and it relates to the point I made earlier about government instrumentalities involved in science: There is a goldmine of commercial exploitable research in government funded research organisations and academic institutions. Indeed there is. The speech continued: There is no shortage of innovative ideas and enthusiasms in some of our smaller companies. That is also correct. Those two areas-academia and research institutes such as ANSTO, CSIRO, and indeed the gene shear technology which comes from basic research that was announced by CSIRO recently-are the areas we need to be capturing. If it be that government should be there fostering, supporting and encouraging, I think that is a useful role for government to play. Some figures I have sought leave of the Minister to table later on in my speech show that Australia has a long way to go when measured against international performance. However, not all has been rosy with the 150 per cent deduction. I am sure that the Minister would agree with that. A letter dated September which I received recently from KEL Aerospace Pty Ltd-I am sure that the Minister would be aware of the criticisms-makes this point: It is a sad commentary on the 150% tax concession that so many top research managers could not understand the complexities of a scheme which was originally intended to assist Australian business. If that is the case, perhaps we should be looking a little more clearly at how we approach industry with the details of this scheme. I know that some of the issues have been addressed since those comments were made. We ought to bear in mind that we do not want to get too complex about it. The Australian Scientific Industry Association, with its bulletin of August 1987, issued a Press release stating that it had campaigned and lobbied particularly hard for 150 per cent tax deductability for genuine research and development in industry. Finally, it was picked up by government, and we applaud that. At the end of the Press release the Association talked about the effect of imputation on that tax deduction and detailed where the problems were. It stated: As it now stands, the 150% tax deductibility is nothing but a Government-sponsored fraud! That is probably putting it strongly, but the point the Association was trying to make is that when the imputation effects are taken into account, the shareholders are the ones who are funding the tax deduction and it is not an offset against that company's tax liability. I notice that in Mr Fricker's Press release in September there was some response in terms of seeking further details about Australian Taxation Office rulings and the draft Industry Research and Development Board guidelines on how to judge whether research and development activities are so considered for tax purposes. Some of those issues may have been picked up, but I make the broad point that there has been some disquiet among the possible recipients of those grants in that they want a more streamlined approach and less complexity. They want to ensure that they benefit when one takes into account the impact of the imputation system. I now make a broader point regarding research and development which concerns Australia's role in that area. When I looked at the first report of the Industry Research and Development Board, which this Bill is all about, I was struck by what appeared at the very beginning. As someone once said in a song, the beginning is a very good place to start. The very first sentence reads: We were struck by what seemed to be a widespread Australian view of technology as in some sense external to national life. That was the examiner's report from the 1986 Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) review of national science and technology policy. Mr Justice Gordon Samuels, who is the Chancellor of the University of New South Wales, with which the Minister now has some direct connection, said: Can it be that the importance of science and technology to the economy and thus to the life of the country is still only dimly understood? I think both those comments are true. The Board's response in chapter 2 detailed the importance of research and development to this nation. Perhaps those honourable members who are sitting in their rooms should run down to the Government Printing Office to get a copy of that. I invite them to read the Board's response because it outlines in some detail the impact on our balance of payments and our terms of trade and exactly where Australia stands in the research and development stakes. I seek leave to incorporate in Hansard an excellent table which is provided in chapter 2 of the first report of the Industry Research and Development Board. Leave granted. The table read as follows- Table 2.3 COMPARISONS BETWEEN OECD NATIONS-EXPENDITURE ON R& (LATEST AVAILABLE YEAR) Country GERD*/GDP R& as a proportion of GDP by source of funds Business enterprise Government % % % Large R& performers USA (1985) ... 2.90 1.42 1.43 Japan (1984) ... 2.65 1.77 0.59 FR Germany (1983 ... 2.54 1.54 1.00 (Group Median) ... 2.54 1.42 0.98 UK (1983) ... 2.28 0.96 1.15 France (1984) ... 2.24 0.91 1.20 Medium R& performers Sweden (1983) ... 2.46 1.49 0.90 Switzerland (1981) ... 2.29 1.56 0.49 Netherlands (1984) ... 1.99 0.92 0.94 (Group Median, excluding Australia) ... 1.70 0.91 0.72 Canada (1984) ... 1.40 0.54 0.74 Belgium (1979) ... 1.40 0.89 0.42 Italy (1984) ... 1.24 0.51 0.69 AUSTRALIA (1985) ... 1.15 0.37 0.74 Small R& performers Norway (1985) ... 1.54 0.74 0.73 Finland (1983) ... 1.32 0.73 0.56 Austria (1981) ... 1.17 0.59 0.55 Denmark (1982) ... 1.07 0.51 0.58 New Zealand (1981) ... 0.96 0.17 0.78 (Group Median) ... 0.87 0.28 0.53 Ireland (1984) ... 0.77 0.33 0.37 Iceland (1983) ... 0.74 0.23 0.49 Spain (1983) ... 0.44 0.22 0.21 Portugal (1982) ... 0.35 0.11 0.22 Greece (1981) ... 0.21 0.03 0.18 *GERD is Gross Domestic Expenditure on R& Source: Extracted from Department of Science, Science and Technology Statement 1986-87 an unpublished data collected by the former Department of Science. Mr SMITH —I thank the House. The table shows that Australia is falling behind in the research and development stakes because our levels of gross expenditure on research and development as a percentage of gross domestic product compared with other Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development countries show that we are behind. If one is to measure a country's innovative capabilities by the level of business spending on research and development then, as shown in this table, expenditure on research and development by the Australian business sector has been extremely low. Consequently, one would believe that the level of product innovation also has been low relative to that of other countries. I think that tells an interesting story. It really ought to alert us to the need to double our efforts to ensure that we encourage industry and, of course, academia and government related research activities to promote more research. One of the other interesting background papers produced by the Government, apart from, of course, the report entitled Improving Australia's Competitiveness Through Industrial Research and Development by the Australian Science and Technology Council in November 1987, is one that does not seem to have received a great deal of coverage by the media, which at times seem to like to fix on the sensational in research results but are, perhaps, less inclined to recognise their extreme importance. I refer to a report by the Department of Industry, Technology and Commerce entitled Measures of Science and Innovation. That report is extremely useful in that it canvasses some of the broader issues of Australian research and talks about the number of engineering students and science students. It is interesting to note that here in Canberra we have the problem that those people who are to teach the teachers how to teach science are not actually enrolling in the science courses. So there is a growing problem. The National Science and Technology Centre going up across the road from Parliament House may help in some small part to redress that situation. However, there is a lack of interest in science at the very vital level of teachers wanting to teach science. I do not know how we make science more attractive, but certainly when one considers its importance and reads this particular paper one can see that we need to give attention to that issue. I said that I would refer to a particular matter that focuses on some of the problems which we have suffered in scientific industrial research and development. It relates to the beta-carotene saga and the giant Swiss chemical company Hoffman-La Roche. The matter was subject to much Press speculation and a full review by the Bureau of Industry Economics found the whole arrangement with regard to the grant involved wanting. I do not think it is necessary to go into a lot of detail here but this was a prime example of a total mess-up. Some $6m-odd of taxpayers' funds eventually benefited a Swiss multinational-not that I have total objection to that. I think that the research was important work. However, it involved a section 39 grant and it was used to fund research in direct competition with privately funded research. I understand that the section 39 grants have now been reviewed. Certainly the method of awarding them has been reviewed. I think that section may actually have been taken out of the Act. I can see the advisers to the Minister for Science, Customs and Small Business nodding in agreement. The whole matter was a fiasco. I have no doubt that the matter has not been finalised yet. I have made constant calls for an investigation. I am still of the view that such an investigation ought to take place-not that we ought to go on a witch-hunt but that we ought to make sure that we do not fall into the same trap again. What I think has happened is that the Minister's enthusiasm, which is undoubted, has got away from him and perhaps he has been let down by some people in his Department-not that he is the type of Minister who would blame his Department. In any event, there have been some lapses and this whole sorry saga that ran for several years has meant that the good research that was done is now vested in a multinational company operating here in Australia. I understand that there may well have been a domestic company that could have stepped in right at the beginning and benefited from the research. The Bill should ensure that such research dollars as are provided, whether by way of tax deduction or directly from government, benefit Australian research in Australian companies. What happened in this instance is the type of thing we do not want to happen. Making freedom of information requests is an interesting exercise for a politician but at the end of the day what is important is that it does not happen again and that we make every effort to ensure that both at ministerial level and at departmental level we avoid those sorts of problems. Really it is only a product of over enthusiasm and an intention to try to do the right thing. I make those critical comments in that vein. I think that is all I need to say on this Bill. We support it, apart from the proposal with regard to the number of Industry Research and Development Board members. I reiterate that research and development are important. Those people who read the Hansard and look at the incorporated table carefully will know that there is a continuation of commitment from those on both sides of the House to research and development. The benefits that can accrue to Australia are immense. At a time such as this when we are suffering an economic crisis in terms of our balance of trade, we need to make every post a winner. I certainly hope that the Board continues to go from strength to strength. Certainly, as Opposition spokesman for science and energy, I will be watching this with extreme interest. Mr MILTON(La Trobe)(8.46) —In speaking in support of the Research and Development Legislation Amendment Bill 1988, I want to take the opportunity to convey to the House my concerns regarding the calls for increasing development from members on both sides of the House in seeming disregard of the consequences of doing so. I am one of those Australians who have a strong belief in the Gaia hypothesis. In the words of James E. Lovelock, the originator of the Gaia hypothesis, this is the scientific view: the entire range of living matter on the earth, from the whales to viruses, can be regarded as a single entity, capable of manipulating its environment to suit its own needs. I would like to make it clear that there is nothing in this Bill which runs contrary to the Gaia hypothesis provided that it is appreciated that, since the advent of the Industrial Revolution, industry has significantly altered major chemical cycles of the earth. For example, the carbon cycle has increased by 20 per cent, the nitrogen cycle by 50 per cent and the sulphur cycle by more than 100 per cent. We have also increased the flow of toxins into our air and water and into our food chains. With the increasing millions of human beings being added to the world population each year, all demanding the living standards and energy use of the people of the developed nations of the world, we will need to call a halt to the population and degradation of our planet resulting from uncontrolled development. I am not suggesting that we should sit like Luddites with a back to nature campaign. I am saying that we need to achieve a technology that recognises that the resources of our planet must be in harmony. For example, it is no good replacing coal fired power stations with nuclear power stations in order to get rid of the toxic sulphur dioxide emissions of coal fired stations when the replacement nuclear power stations produce radioactive wastes which remains toxic for thousands of years. For those honourable members who are interested in the development of the resources of our planet in a sustainable and balanced system, I suggest that the Gaia Atlas of Planet Management, edited by Norman Myers, with contributions from many distinguised and eminent scientists, makes interesting reading. I know that the Minister for Science, Customs and Small Business (Mr Barry Jones), who is at the table, would have read that atlas. I take the opportunity to congratulate the Minister on his honorary doctorate, which was well deserved. Only last week Senator Bob Collins circulated a paper advocating an expansion of uranium mining in Australia. There are a number of assertions in the paper which I will challenge in an appropriate later response, but I was interested to read Senator Collins's comments about the various environmental problems of coal fired power stations. I agree with him wholeheartedly on the seriousness of this problem. I would anticipate that the main provisions of the present Bill, namely to increase the effectiveness of the 150 per cent tax concession in stimulating research and development by industry in Australia, will encourage corporations such as the Broken Hill Proprietary Co. Ltd and the State Electricity Commission of Victoria to expand their research into reducing the toxic emissions of coal-fired power stations into the atmosphere. The Gaia Atlas also refers to the problem. I quote from page 116: Carbon dioxide is now increasing slowly but steadily. When we started to burn fossil fuels on a large scale with the onset of the Industrial Revolution, we caused a great deal of ``locked up'' carbon to be released; and this trend is now being aggravated by our burning of tropical forests. Whereas the level of carbon dioxide in 1850 amounted to 265 parts per million it has now grown to 340 parts and unchecked it would well reach 600 by the year 2050. The result is a steady warming of our planet, projected to rise by a mean 3*c above normal within the lifetime of our children. While there will be little change at the Equator, the poles may well become 7*c warmer with all this ultimately implies for the ice caps. The difficulty I have with Senator Collins's paper is that, after correctly drawing attention to the emission problem of a 1,000 megawatt coal-fired power station, he then claims-and I quote-`A nuclear power station produces none of the above'. This statement completely ignores the serious hazards of radioactive wastes, both high level and low level. I quote again from the Gaia Atlas, page 125: Twenty seven years (now 30 years) after the first commercial nuclear reactor began operating, there is still no acceptable solution to the problem of radioactive waste. Used fuel rods can be re-cycled to recover uranium and plutonium. But this process still leaves highly radioactive wastes to be disposed of. It is possible to store this waste in glass or turn it into synthetic rock but there is still considerable argument over the effectiveness of these processes. Other radioactive wastes include the tailings from uranium mining and nuclear power stations that have been `mothballed or shut down'. The point is that both-coal fired and nuclear- powered stations produce serious toxic waste problems, and parliamentarians should not be advocating the expansion of either type of power station until the waste problems are solved. In fact, my research assistant, Chas Collison, and I produced in January 1986 and January 1987 a joint paper on radioactive wastes and nuclear accidents, which we entitled `The Unresolved Problems of the Nuclear Industry'. I recommend it to all members of this House and, indeed, to Senator Collins, who apparently has not read it. Research and development into solving the problems of land and water degradation is another area where I hope the present Bill can aid primary industry in the attempts of many local authorities and primary producers in solving the serious degradation of our soil and water resources. The House of Representatives Standing Committee on Environment, Recreation and the Arts, of which I am Chairman-it is a good committee; the honourable member for Dunkley (Mr Chynoweth) is also a very active member of it-has recognised these problems and has begun an inquiry into land degradation in Australia, with the ultimate aim of searching out possible solutions. I would like to quote again from page 40 of the Gaia Atlas because it sums up the threat of erosion so well: There is no known way that we can replace our soil. If we wait upon natural processes, we shall wait for centuries, if not millenia. The disappearance of our soil threatens to undermine our agriculture, our very means of supporting ourselves. Yet because it is such a cryptic and `silent' problem, few of our leaders give it a fraction of the attention it deserves. It is hard to whip up public opinion about the issue. Europe, the continent least affected by erosion, is estimated to be losing close to one billion tonnes a year, while Asia, the worst affected, could be losing around 25 billion tonnes. The US have well over one billion tonnes a year (net of natural replacement) from its grainlands-equivalent to more than 300,000 hectares of crop-growing potential. A similar sad tale can be told around the world. I was interested to read in the March-April issue of the Athena magazine of one technological solution which, had it been promoted by industry in Australia, could well have qualified for support under the present Bill. The new technology has been developed under the Kallidendron method. Professor George Kallistratos of the University of Ioannina has perfected the method and, since dendron means tree, the method has been described as Kallidendron. The method is suitable for infertile soil in arid areas, including deserts. A mixture of 10 litres of perlite and 100 to 200 millilitres of a water absorbing polymer such as Evergreen-500 is mixed with peat, perlite, ashes, organic and inorganic fertilisers and placed in a plastic bag of 50 litres volume for fruit trees and 200 to 300 litres for larger trees. The bag is perforated to enable the growing roots to spread out of the bag into the original soil and then, together with the tree, is buried in the selected area. I have given only a brief description of the kallidendron system, and there are obvious problems involved in the watering of the trees once they have become established. In the short term, artesian wells can provide the water but, with the low annual rainfall and high evaporation of arid and desert land, we have the problem that the artesian water will diminish in future years. In consequence, the creation of water reserves for the trees and methods to restrict the intense evaporation are being investigated by research workers. Water pollution is another serious problem area on which urgent research is needed. Diseases from water breeding insects, mosquitoes in particular, and water based and water borne diseases are serious killers of human beings. Water washed diseases such as trachoma infect some 500 million people each year, and defective sanitation is another killer, causing fatal intestinal illnesses in children. Finally, in the little time I have been allocated, I would like to mention the serious pollution caused by lethal chemicals. I would like to quote again from page 122 of the Gaia Atlas: Our planetary environment is a closed system. Persistent materials pumped into the air, dumped in rivers and seas, or hidden from view in landfills, do not simply melt away. The waste by-products of our industrial processes are a growing threat-sometimes an international threat. The developed world regularly exports to the Third World hundreds of millions of kilograms of potentially lethal chemicals-chemicals classified as too dangerous for use in their country of origin. The irony is that these same chemicals (especially pesticides) return to the developed world on bananas, coffee beans, tomatoes and other foodstuffs imported from the developing nations. The investment in research and development which the Research and Development Legislation Amendment Bill will assist will stimulate investigation into the problems which industrial processes are causing with the pollution caused by chemical wastes in the soil and in our water. I support the Bill and, as this is probably my last speech in this historic chamber, it is most relevant to draw attention to the serious problem which unplanned development can cause to Australia and to our environment. I take this opportunity of thanking all the staff who have helped to make this Parliament so effective and who have also provided so much hard work in supporting the efforts of members in this House to represent their constituents. As I say, this is probably the last opportunity I will have to do that; and I want to ensure that I thank not just the people who help us so much here in the chamber but all of those who help to make this Parliament one of the most effective parliaments in the world. Dr HARRY EDWARDS(Berowra)(8.57) —In beginning my speech, I also would congratulate the Minister at the table, the Minister for Science, Customs and Small Business (Mr Barry Jones)-who was my erstwhile opposite number when I had the task of being shadow Minister for Science and Technology-on the Doctorate of Science that he received from the Australian and New Zealand Association for the Advancement of Science. Well deserved. I very much want to say a few words about the Research and Development Legislation Amendment Bill. It is very important. It focuses on the so-called 150 per cent tax concession for research and development. That is, indeed, a most important direct incentive to encourage industrial research and development-especially `development' which may be defined along the lines as, the translation of scientific research and innovative ideas into actual industrial technologies, hopefully leading to profitable job-generating businesses, sometimes entirely new industries, but more often and more importantly having the effect of furthering structural change and upgrading, revitalising and renewing existing industry. The overall area of research and development is the part where Australia's performance has been and still is lagging, that is, in the area particularly of private industry research and development especially-the translation of innovative ideas into actual technologies and the development of new job-generating industries. I cannot forbear in this connection from pointing out that the proposal for this tax incentive was a key initiative of Liberal-National Party policy in the run-up to the 1984 election for which, I might say, as the then shadow Minister for Science and Technology, I was largely responsible. I am pleased that it has been implemented by this Government, and I believe the statistical record shows that it has been successful in lifting industry's technology and development performance. The measure before the House attempts to refine the proposal and prevent improper exploitation so far as that can be done. The thrust of the Bill is to extend the discretionary powers of the Industry Research and Development Board to enable it to determine the eligibility of companies and projects to participate in the scheme and thereby reduce the incidence of companies being required to reimburse tax benefits. Its thrust is also to restrict the tax concession from being exploited in ways other than those intended, as I mentioned. That includes ensuring that pro- jects have sufficient Australian content and that the results of revenue-subsidised research and development are exploited on normal commercial terms for the benefit of Australia. Further, it increases the access of small companies to expert research and development resources by enabling the Board to register a wider range of research agencies which can be contracted to conduct eligible research and development for companies. It also enables firms to participate in joint ventures for costly or risky projects. So it is an important measure, particularly, as I say, in addressing the situation in Australia where private industry research and development lags. In the area of scientific research and innovative ideas Australia stands up well in international terms. The statistic is sometimes quoted that Australia, with about 0.3 per cent of the world's population, produces about 2 per cent of the world's science, quantified in terms of the internationally recognised scientific papers, that is an excellent ratio of output to population. The translation of such scientific research and innovative ideas into new industrial technologies and the effect on industrial development, employment and so on are where the lag has been and still is. One quantification in that area is that compared with the 2 per cent of world science we have about 0.7 per cent of world patents. At all events there is enough every day information to make that point plain. There are undoubtedly constraints on this sort of activity in Australia, including in particular the small scale of the Australian economy and the very high cost of developing new products and processes. While those constraints are very real, they are not decisive, as experience in smaller countries overseas indicates-and indeed, to some extent, as our own experience indicates, if we go back far enough. In the 1960s and up to the early 1970s, industry expenditure on research and development was in the order of 0.5 per cent of gross domestic product (GDP). That is not startling; overseas the percentages are one per cent or 1 1/2 to 2 per cent in this area as distinct from government-financed research. Nevertheless, that is better than the performance in recent years. I would lay the blame at the feet of the Whitlam Government back in 1973-74 when a variety of measures adversely impacted on manufacturing industry. There was the massive increase in government expenditure, inflation, and costs and various other factors, including the strong appreciation of the Australian dollar; manufacturing industry took a strong downturn. Only in recent years has there been a significant recovery, but still only to the order of about 0.3 per cent of GDP. What needs to be stressed in that regard is that it is not such direct measures as this tax incentive that are important and other such government interventions as the management and investment companies program. What is also important is the overall economic climate. If the overall economic environment is not right, there will not be a healthy, flourishing industry or the type of development I am talking about. Industry research and development, new business investment and growth in a dynamic economy all flourish together. It is important that such specific measures as this and the other measures I referred to are implemented in the context of a flourishing, growing and dynamic economy. In this economy we are still plagued with high inflation, rising costs, interest rates that are still very high by international standards, and taxation rates for individuals and companies that are too high. We may hear something about company taxation tomorrow night. All these factors threaten our international competitiveness where we have relied, particularly for improvement, on the devaluation of the Australian dollar, but that, of course, has been creeping the other way. In terms of those requirements, the importance of a strong reduction in government expenditure tomorrow night cannot be stressed too much. That would take some of the heat out of the real economy as the Government takes up less, and would take some of the weight off monetary policy so that interest rates would not have to rise to counter the overheating of the economy and also avoid the effect of maintaining too strong a capital inflow and the continuing appreciation of the dollar. In this context the policy required is not just a so-called science and technology policy; what is important is getting the overall situation right, and instituting other important reforms such as a reduction in business taxation-I say again, we may hear something tomorrow night-changes in depreciation schedules, changes to the inflexible and restrictive Australian wages and industrial relations system, reducing the profusion of regulations in our economy and so on but there can be no doubt that this specific measure, the 150 per cent tax concession for research and development, is also very important. We are under the guillotine in debating this Bill, and to enable the honourable member for Dunkley (Mr Chynoweth) to address the House briefly, I shall finish at this point. Mr BARRY JONES(Lalor-Minister for Science, Customs and Small Business)(9.09) —I am sorry to choke off the honourable member for Dunkley (Mr Chynoweth), but it was necessary for me to reply to a couple of the points made by the Opposition, particularly the proposed amendment. I thank the honourable member for Ryan (Mr Moore), the honourable member for Newcastle (Mr Allan Morris), the honourable member for Bass (Mr Smith), the honourable member for La Trobe (Mr Milton) and the honourable member for Berowra (Dr Harry Edwards) for their contributions. I was touched by the graceful references to my DSc honoris causa conferred by Macquarie University at the opening of the centenary Australian and New Zealand Association for the Advancement of Science Congress last week. I very much appreciate the references. There was some concern about the expansion of the membership of the Industry Research and Development Board from 10 to 13. The impression was created that it was a wretched excess, but there are very sound practical reasons for it. Since the Board was originally established with its 10 members in July 1986 it has been given additional functions by the Government. Four generic technologies are now declared; there is a national procurement development program, the promotion of research and development generally, and also additional tax incentive functions. Those new functions mean a need for more expertise on the board, a need for a proper balance concerning members' talents and backgrounds. In addition, in order to avoid any attempts to rort the system, the 150 per cent tax incentive has created much more work in the certification than was envisaged. The Industry Research and Development Board wants each committee to have two board members, one to chair it and one to back him up. There may not be always full board membership which makes back-up difficult when someone is overseas or otherwise engaged. With a busy board, that often happens. There are now seven committees which are involved with tax concessions, discretionary grants, biotechnology, new materials, information technology, communications technology and national procurement development. I think a strong practical case could be put for increasing the number from 10 to 13 simply to make it work. In some cases, it is going to be necessary to have a deputy of some sort to stand in for people who are unable to attend. If these people are not there, the work, of course, just does not get done. A couple of other matters were raised. The honourable for Bass was concerned about the registered research agencies (RRA) which are to be set up. He asks specifically whether the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation (CSIRO), the Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation (ANSTO) and the Defence Science and Technology Organisation (DSTO) were eligible for it. The answer is yes, they are. These registered research agencies replace the approved research institutes for the purpose of the tax incentive. These RRAs will be registered in respect of specific technology or technologies where the Industrial Research and Development Board considers that they are competent. So one can imagine CSIRO being registered perhaps in 20 different areas and DSTO in a different number of areas. Registered research agency names and specific technological fields will be made public to provide companies with a reference when they need specialist help. As is the case with all organisations of excellence in research and development, CSIRO, ANSTO and DSTO would receive registered research agency status on application to the board. But they do not replace the approved research institutes for other purposes such as the receiving of donations and other kinds of scientific research. The honourable member for Bass also mentioned the celebrated story of the section 39 public interest grant for the algal biotechnology project. Looking back on that project, I think I would have to apply what Senator Evans described in another context as the streaker's defence-`it seemed a good idea at the time'. There is no doubt that the recommendation of the advisory board created by my distinguished predecessor was not only unanimous but also extraordinarily enthusiastic. There is no doubt that if it had worked out as had been originally intended we would all be applauding the wisdom and foresight of the Government. We are very anxious that the community get a proper return from that investment. The Department of Industry, Technology and Commerce has recently advertised in the national Press seeking expressions of interest from companies wishing access to the intellectual property from the project which remains with the Commonwealth Government. The aim of the Government is to give Australian industry access to the technology for development for the benefit of Australia. I still have some hope that this project will be a successful dollar earner with considerable export potential. Expressions of interest are currently being considered with a view to licensing companies as soon as possible to use the technology. I know that the honourable member for Dunkley, if he were able to do so, would wish me to say that we have had many lost opportunities in the past. He is particularly concerned about the bad old days of the 1950s when the government of the day decided that computing did not have a future and told CSIRO not to do it any more; and the celebrated interdepartmental committee in Canberra in 1955-56 which said that transistors had no future and that we ought to put all of our public resources into the electronic valve. Mr Lindsay —Which is absolutely essential to our nation. Mr BARRY JONES —As the honourable member for Herbert says, they are absolutely essential to our nation. But we have been very slow in our recognition. Sometimes our response has been glacially slow. But I am glad that there are a whole number of areas in which there is genuine bipartisan approach. I commend this very important Bill to the House. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mrs Darling) —Order! The time allotted for the remaining stages of the Bill has expired. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER —The question is that the remaining stages of the Bill be agreed to. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a third time. Debate resumed from 18 May, on motion by Mr Punch: That the Bill be now read a second time. Mr SMITH(Bass)(9.16) —I rise tonight actually to speak in support of the Government's amending legislation, the Australian Film Commission Amendment Bill 1988. I do so in my capacity as Opposition spokesman in this chamber for arts and the environment. The Opposition has considered this Bill in some detail and has decided that it will not oppose it. The restructuring of Film Australia, which is the Government's film making body which specialises in the production of material, films and videos and departmental training and education films, follows the report of a review group which reported back in January 1987. Interestingly, this report was mentioned in last year's May statement, but it has taken 12 months finally to get the legislation into the House. One would wonder why it has taken so long to introduce this legislation and I am sure that in summing up the Minister for the Arts and Territories (Mr Punch) will have an explanation. But we have been sitting and waiting for some time for this legislation finally to come before the House. Perhaps in the knowledge that it was being supported by both sides, it might well have been opportune to bring it forward a little earlier. In any event the legislation is now before us. We see some advantages in the legislation and that is why we are supporting it. We welcome the removal of the specific film making role of the Australian Film Commission as this will force the Commonwealth to concentrate on matters related to its promotion and distribution of Australian films. We hope that this move will also open the field of departmental training and government educational films to the private sector. Indeed, I think that is probably the intention of the Minister in this legislation. Obviously the Minister would be anxious to tell us, but we might have to wait until tomorrow night to see what is in the May statement, about films this year. We would like to know-and the Minister can give us a preview if he likes-what is going to happen in respect of financial support for the film industry. Mr Punch —Oh, okay! Mr SMITH —I thank the Minister-he is going to get it. It is interesting to note that in the Bill we have just dealt with, the Research and Development Legislation Amendment Bill, we were talking about a 150 per cent deductability for research and development for industry. I say that by way of a related comment. The film industry took a massive dive when the 150 per cent tax deductability on films was removed, and I will make some more comments about that. But when one can identify an industry which is of benefit to this country it is important that one does not prematurely take away support. I am sure that the Government will come forward with proposals to support the film industry, to redress the imbalance that has now quite alarmingly crept in and left the industry in a state of crisis. Indeed, for all its bluster, the Australian Labor Party is not the great film industry friend that it makes itself out to be. As I have said, the film industry has gone downhill and it really is in a crisis situation. It will be up to the Minister, even though he is a new Minister, to correct the mess that he has inherited from his predecessors. At the moment there are only four projects in production compared with 64 this time last year. That is a massive drop in activity in the film industry. This obviously has effects on employment but, more importantly, it has effects on what is a very important industry to Australia. The Minister knows, as do other members of the House, that in 1984 figures-and I do not quote with extreme accuracy-the value of this industry was, I understand, somewhere in the vicinity of $250m. So it would be worth a lot more if it was still going at the 1984 level. The level of film industry funding has dropped from $140m to under $40m in the past year as a direct result of the Government's policies and inactivity. There have been no new starts on major productions in 1988. A new 20 per cent sales tax on the production of videos and sound recordings is about to commence. Perhaps the Minister for the Arts and Territories can give some details as to the expected impact of the sales tax impost and whether or not he has taken into account the calculation of that impact in proposing his new incentives, which will probably be announced tomorrow night. The so-called new initiatives and film proposals that we were told of in March this year have still not arrived. If the gestation period takes as long as the drafting of amendments to this Bill, we could be waiting another 12 months before we finally see some action. I hope that that is not the case. Really what we need from the Minister, being as young as he is-says this sage old man-is a little more action and a little less rhetoric. I will make some comments about the history of the film industry, because I think it is important to have that in mind when the House considers the particular issues involving the Australian Film Commission Amendment Bill. The Commonwealth's first direct involvement in film production occurred in 1911 under the aegis of the Department of External Affairs. In 1913 a Mr Bert Ive was appointed to coordinate Commonwealth film activities. In 1921 film was placed under the responsibility of the Cinematic and Photographic Branch of the Development and Migration Commission. Thereafter, during the war years, film activities were controlled by the National Film Council, Department of Information. The National Film Board took over after the war and the Film Production Unit took over in 1950. The Commonwealth Film Unit came into being in 1956 and continued until 1972. In 1972 Film Australia was established within the Department of the Media. Thankfully, we no longer have a Department of the Media; we are now beyond that stage. In 1972 the halcyon days of film finally reached Australia and we embraced it with a vengeance. In 1975, with the passage of the Australian Film Commission Act, Film Australia was placed under the Australian Film Commission (AFC) as the production division responsible for the special activities of the Commission. In January 1987, as I said earlier, a major review of Film Australia was presented to the Government. The review canvassed four options, ranging from a complete closure of Film Australia through to the establishment of Film Australia as a more economically efficient operation focusing on the production of both departmental films and films of special national significance. In this legislation the Government proposes `option four with knobs on', according to Ms Robin Hughes, Film Australia's General Manager. Under the legislative provisions, and I have mentioned some of them, the AFC will no longer have the function of making major films and television productions. It will become a promotion and distribution body only, and this role becomes exclusive to Film Australia. The Bill also effects transfers to Film Australia of specified assets, liabilities and staff. I will now deal with staff because I think that that issue has caused some concern. Indeed, it is of some immediate concern because, interestingly, in the Herald yesterday, Monday, 23 May, there is an article headed `30 face sack in federal film plan'. The article goes into some detail and quotes members of the Australian Theatrical and Amusement Employees Association, who talk about their concerns. The article also refers to the General Manager of Film Australia, Ms Robin Hughes, as follows: . . . offers would be made to those employees they would like to transfer to the company- which this Bill creates- others would be offered positions within the Film Commission, and the rest would be offered voluntary redundancy packages . . . Ms Hughes said the re-structuring was necessary `in order to operate as part of the industry rather than as part of the Public Service'. I think that that is probably a commendable position. Perhaps the Minister, when addressing these staff issues which I think are important, should spell out a little more clearly than I can pick up in the preliminary guidelines he has provided whether or not these employees will come under the aegis of the Public Service Act. One point that I want to make in reference to staff is that we have been waiting for 12 months for this to happen. I do not know why there has been such a long gestation period. If we are now going to see the revamped Film Commission, the company, begin with a strike, that is hardly an auspicious start. I hope that the Minister will take into account the fact that he must do something quickly to forestall any repeat of the comments and headlines we have had. All honourable members want this to work, so headlines such as those to which I have referred require the Minister's attention. Perhaps the Minister could also respond to the question of the Public Service Act. Some questions remain with respect to the guidelines as settled by the Minister. What is the consultation process proposed for the staff director? In view of the industrial action I have just mentioned, this will be important, but we must not let the staff director be the power, which seems to have been the case in the past with the Australian Broadcasting Corporation. Perhaps we could have some detail as to how the Minister will make that determination. Interestingly, the Minister's guidelines state that the staff appointee to the board of directors, and I think there is to be only one, will be a suitable nominee, and that person is to be chosen by the Minister. However, if they have all been on strike, how will the Minister determine who is a suitable nominee? Perhaps the Minister can tell us what is meant by `a suitable nominee'. Obviously this has been drafted with care to provide the Minister with some flexibility, but I am sure that in addressing the staff issue the Minister will have to do so to their satisfaction. In relation to the power proposed in the articles for the Minister to appoint and remove directors, one does not need to go back very far to see what occurred with respect to the Australian National Maritime Museum Council fiasco. In that case the Minister, after receiving his new job, moved in almost straightaway and three senior members of the Council were notified that they were no longer required. I refer to Mr Alex Dix, Christine Klugman and Rear Admiral Andrew Robertson. They were removed from the Council. I understand that two of them received a call from the Minister's principal private secretary and that the Minister actually spoke to the Chairman, Mr Dix. Members of the Council said that the treatment of the three had been insulting and that the Government was `causing a wreck by its ineptitude'. They also said that the sacked administrators were the `most experienced in museum work'. A point can be drawn from that when one looks at the articles of Film Australia. If the Minister is to give himself the power to appoint and dismiss at whim, perhaps those who are putting up their hands to volunteer should be a little wary, based on that incident with the Museum, which I think was extremely regrettable. Interestingly, in the telegram to the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) protesting at these dismissals the sackings were described as `ham fisted' and it was pointed out that they would destabilise the Museum, which I think has only seven months to go before it opens in Darling Harbour. Interestingly, those who telegrammed the Prime Minister in those terms were continuing Council members-Professor Bolton, Mr Bruce Stannard and Mr John Evans. So I think the Minister may have trodden on a few toes in that respect. A broader point is that, if the Minister is going to vest in himself the power to appoint and dismiss, he should provide some guarantees in his summing-up or at least say publicly that he will be reaching into the broader community and placing experts on these boards. The film industry needs the best available. The industry does not need a reaching down from the political process to put one's friends into place. Unfortunately, much as I personally respect him, the man appointed as the replacement for one of the dismissals from the Maritime Museum Council is Ken Wriedt, a former Labor Leader of the Government in the Senate and now an Opposition spokesman in Tasmania. I do not think that that appointment augurs well. Even though Mr Wriedt was a merchant mariner 40 years ago, he does not come to the position with any expertise. As I have said, if someone takes a job from this Government he should watch his step and make sure that he receives guarantees of some longevity in the appointment to make it worth while, otherwise he is likely to receive a telephone call to the effect that he has been dismissed. A word of caution on Film Australia: the Government should not stack it with its mates. It should put capable and knowledgeable people in the positions. The film industry needs the best people available, not a lot of has-beens. If that is the case the Government will be doing well. We certainly do not want to see the likes of the former Minister who is now the back bench member for Parramatta (Mr John Brown) turning up on a board such as this. My colleague in the Senate, Senator Puplick, the spokesman in this area, will also be making some comments about the proposed chairman of the Commission and whether or not there is, at least prima facie, a clash of interest there. As I said, the Opposition supports the film industry. It has a proud record and the present and former governments can claim an active role in supporting it. It is interesting to note that the Age newspaper in an editorial in February said that the film industry, if prudently administered, could prove to be one of `inestimable benefit in projecting Australia to the world at large'. Indeed, it can, and we hope that the Minister for the Arts and Territories will approach his administration of the film industry in that vein. Film Australia had sales to the value of $1.75m in 1986-87. So it has been quite successful, and this new entrepreneurial charter is a step in the right direction. There were several major productions last year. There was the major bicentennial film called Australia; there was a joint venture on Chinese technology, Roads to Xanadu; there was a co-production on social history entitled Willesee's Australians; and there was something that is dear to my heart-the Australian Broadcasting Corporation science project Last Chance for the Lucky Country, which was an excellent production. There was also a co-production on the environment called State of the World. Film Australia Pty Ltd has a broad charter and I understand that under the new arrangements it will be totally up to the company itself to determine what it is going to do. The 50 projects on education and training for the departments last year netted in the vicinity of $3.47m. There has been a staff reduction from 133 to 106. I believe that Robin Hughes did a commendable job when she took over. I do not need to go back through the history of all of the problems that existed when she took over. We wish the organisation well. We want it to succeed. We will watch with interest the Minister's administration of this Government film unit with the view to ensuring that we avoid the types of headlines that we have seen in the past, such as `Film industry facing collapse, says Sam Neill', `Funding crisis hits Australian film industry' in the Australian Financial Review and `Film industry boom or bust' in the Australian of 16 May 1988. There is concern in the community about the direction of the film industry. I would love the Minister to reply to me tonight but tomorrow night will do as long as there is some response to my concerns. I hope he will be able to answer the concerns that I have voiced in this second reading debate, in which, as I have said, the coalition joins with the Government in wishing the Bill a speedy passage. My colleague the honourable member for Mayo (Mr Downer) will be speaking in this debate. He was a spokesman in this area and I know that he had personal concerns about the future of the film industry. This will give him an opportunity, even though the debate has been guillotined, to make some comments. Ms McHUGH(Phillip)(9.33) —Film Australia, the production division of the Australian Film Commission, is now to become Film Australia Pty Ltd, a wholly Commonwealth owned company. The Minister for the Arts and Territories (Mr Punch) in his second reading speech made the point that, in one form or another, Film Australia has existed as the Commonwealth's film making body for three-quarters of a century. He spoke of its unique place in Australian cinematic history and of its innovation and technical excellence. Everyone here tonight-the Opposition and the Government-wishes the new Film Australia Pty Ltd the success and the unique place in Australia's history that the former Film Australia has had. I too will go back a little into the history of Film Australia to pay some small tribute to some of the greats of Film Australia. I am indebted to Judy Adamson, who supplied some of the information. Judy Adamson, who has worked with Film Australia for 20 years, has made a mark as a historian of the film industry in Australia. The first film-maker to be employed by the Commonwealth Government was employed in 1911. His name was James Pinkerton Campbell. He was employed as a photographer-cinemaphotographer to film the building of Canberra. He was required to work out of his own home. He processed the film in his bath and the cost to the Government was his salary and his materials. This first employee was sacked after one year following a bureaucratic decision on the grounds that he was shooting too much film and did not understand how film worked. Despite this bureaucratic judgment, James Pinkerton Campbell's photographs and stills are well known to us all today. They are the pictures of early Canberra that we all treasure and boast of so much in this historic year. In 1913 the then Government appointed Mr Bert Ive. I have with me a copy of a letter from the Department of External Affairs appointing him as a cinemaphotographer and photographer at a salary of #5 per week and a travelling allowance when absent from headquarters of 12s 6d per day with free rail, coach and steamer transit. Enclosed with the letter appointing him was an order for a railway ticket from Sydney to Melbourne with a sleeping berth. Bert Ive went on to become one of the greats of the silent era, as so many of the employees of the Commonwealth Film Unit went on to become the greats of Australian cinema. Films were made and photographs taken for overseas migration publicity and for government departments, carefully costed against departments, with the bills paid on average six months or more after the filming. From 1925 to 1930 films were released each week successively by Paramount and MGM, and the money was remitted to Consolidated Revenue. The Commonwealth has always made money from Film Australia. The Australian National Film Board was set up in 1945 after 14 years of preparation and was disbanded in 1973 when the Department of the Media took over the Film Unit. It started at a eminent committee of individuals, including Ministers. It appointed a Producer-in-chief, who headed its Film Division. In 1946 Stanley Hawes was employed. Yesterday Stanley Hawes handed over all his personal records to the National Film and Sound Archives. Stanley Hawes came from Britain, from the documentary movement, via the National Film Board of Canada. He was a contemporary of John Grierson, the man who invented documentaries. The British Crown Film Unit, as it was called, was abolished in the 1950s, much to Britain's regret today. Prior to World War II, 300 films were made for the Commonwealth Film Unit but when Stanley Hawes came the era of the greatest films began. I will list a few of them to remind honourable members of the great and proud history of Film Australia. In the 1940s there was the memorable film by John Heyer, The Valley is Ours. In the 1950s we had Maslyn Williams's New Guinea Patrol. In 1967 we had Ian Dunlop's award winning Desert People. In the 1970s there was a series Three to Go, including Peter Weir's Michael. That was the film that launched Peter Weir on his illustrious career. Another famous award winning film-indeed, an Academy Award winning film-was Bruce Petty's Leisure. Another famous film from Film Australia was Greg Reading's Counterplay. Another was Graham Chase's film, still shown everywhere today, Thirst. Amongst the films that will last forever is the film history series, including The Passionate Industry by Joan Long. Another is The Australian Eye series, a history of Australian artists by David Muir. We also had the migrant experience series. Another film to bring great credit to Australia in the 1980s was Annie's Coming Out by Gill Brierly. A film already referred to by the honourable member for Bass (Mr Smith) was Last Chance for the Lucky Country, a highly reviewed and outstandingly excellent film shown by the Australian Broadcasting Corporation (ABC). In fact, it was the first time that a film that one could say was straight government propaganda for Australian trade was shown in prime time on a network slot, I think at 8 p.m. on the ABC. Other films that have brought a great deal of enjoyment to the public are Graham Chase's Democracy, part of the yet to be released Real Life series; Hell Fire Pass about the Burma Railway, a brilliant film which was shown on Anzac Day this year; and Graham Chase's Cooee, part sponsored by the Department of Veterans' Affairs. This film will be a feature documentary at the Sydney and Melbourne film festivals. Another film which has had rave reviews is Cane Toads, currently doing roaring business-a magnificent success for Film Australia. The history of Film Australia in recent years has been assessed like this: in the 1940s films were made about national traditions and expansion. In the 1950s to 1960s there was an emphasis on Australia's potential as an exporter, for example, in mining. In the 1960s and 1970s Film Australia moved into social issues. I think that is where it has had its greatest success. It is a documentary film-maker. We have to ask what a documentary film is. A distinction should be made between featurettes and documentaries. A featurette is about places and processes; a documentary is about people. A documentary takes a routine subject and makes it interesting. Film Australia has taken countless routine subjects and made them fascinating. What is more, it has made artistic masterpieces. As the new company begins, all of us who are grateful for the work of Film Australia will be expecting a very great deal. The employees of Film Australia have often worked with facilities, schedules and finance that the public simply does not associate with film-making, yet the public has come to enjoy countless numbers of the films of Film Australia. In the new company producers, directors, cinematographers and sound recordists will be employed under contract. We wish the new Board the good fortune to be able to choose its future direction as well as its future directors and producers, with an understanding of Film Australia's exceptional history so that Australians can continue to be as proud of the new company as we have been of Film Australia and, Madam Deputy Speaker, of its staff. We are all confident that the new Board will not equate efficiency and excellence with mere staff reductions. We are all confident that market forces will allow that nothing can equate with the loyalty, the dedication and the extraordinary skills of the former employees of Film Australia, one of the Commonwealth Government's most successful units. Let us wish the new Board all success so that the end of Film Australia as it was is not the end of a great unit but the continuation of excellence in Australian film-making. Mr DOWNER(Mayo)(9.43) —Sam Goldwyn would have been proud to have been associated with Film Australia had he heard the speech of the honourable member for Phillip (Ms McHugh). Certainly one does not want to detract from the achievements of Film Australia since 1911, when its predecessors were established. However, I must admit, given that the Federal Government has retrenched some of the employees of Film Australia, that some of the comments of the honourable member for Phillip about the dedication of the employees might not necessarily be reciprocated. It is with great pleasure that I say just a few words on the Australian Film Commission Amendment Bill in the limited time available to me, particularly because in general terms I have a very high regard for the Australian Film industry-not just for the talents of the people in the industry, which I think are very great, but also for the contribution that the film industry has made to the promotion of the Australian national character, to the expression of the Australian personality and, I guess, to the creation and furtherance of a national consciousness. As a former diplomat, I have also seen the Australian Film industry's enormous achievements overseas in projecting Australia. That was long before the days of Crocodile Dundee and Crocodile Dundee II. Many wonderful films that went before did a great deal to promote the virtues of this country and to take away from the perceptions of foreigners the rather simplistic cliches that they believed about our country. As others have pointed out, this legislation removes Film Australia from the clutches of the Australian Film Commission and establishes it as a wholly owned Commonwealth company along what the Minister for the Arts and Territories (Mr Punch) has described as commercial lines. I do not know how commercial we can call commercial lines when the Government is pumping $15m a year into it, but they are the words that the Minister has chosen to use. As other Opposition spokesmen have pointed out, not least the honourable member for Bass (Mr Smith), this seems a perfectly reasonable proposition. The Government is actually enacting legislation based on a statement by the former Minister for the Arts, Heritage and Environment, the honourable member for Robertson (Mr Cohen), when in May least year he put forward the proposals for streamlining Film Australia. The honourable member for Phillip might recall that that was the time the Government announced it was retrenching some of the employees of Film Australia. To give the honourable member for Phillip credit, she gave a very interesting speech about the history of Film Australia, whose predecessor, as she pointed out, was established in 1911. The point of establishing its predecessor in 1911 was that effectively at that time Australia had no film industry at all. Honourable members will recall that in the 1930s we had an extraordinarily buoyant and dynamic film industry but going right back to 1911 there was nothing. The then Government established the predecessor to what is now Film Australia. We have now arrived in 1988, and 1911 is a long time ago-it was one year after my father was born. In 1988 we have our own flourishing film industry-or at least we did until 1987-which has been largely supported by the 10ba tax concessions. We really need to look tonight at what Film Australia does and then ask ourselves whether it is really relevant in the context of our total film industry. If it is, we ought to be doing all we can to encourage it. If it is not, we ought to be looking at other ways of promoting the film industry. Film Australia has two basic functions. It has a departmental program, as it calls it, and it has a national program. The departmental program effectively makes documentaries and films for the Australian Government, such as films on behalf of Austrade to explain innovations in business and export industries in Australia; films for the former Department of Sport, Recreation and Tourism on tourism and leisure in Australia; and a number of films to promote various social objectives of the Government-and I do not object to that-such as the film made for the drug campaign. It is interesting to note that the overflow of all this work has been passed on through subcontracting work to private film-makers because Film Australia has not been able to cope with the sheer volume of demand that has come from the public sector. The second aspect of Film Australia's work is its national program. It has made a whole series of different kinds of films. As the honourable member for Phillip pointed out, some of these films have been of the highest quality. I think all of us have enjoyed watching those films from time to time. A curious feature of the national program when Film Australia was under the Australian Film Commission was that it employed a group of `leading Australians', as they were described in the Film Commission's annual report, to determine what sorts of films were to be made. That group of leading Australians put forward a number of ideas which led to the people working in what is now Film Australia deciding what to make in 1987-88 and 1988-89. Some of the highlights have been mentioned by other speakers. Its made Last Chance for a Lucky Country, Roads to Xanadu, Willesee's Australians and so on. Some of these films have done very well and have been well promoted not just in cinemas but through television as well. The national program function is basically, however, a commercial function. It is a commercial function which has really been determined by what we could describe as a sort of Council of the Great. They have put forward the recommendations for what should be done. As somebody who comes from a political party which is not paternalistic, that strikes me as being probably a rather curious way of making a decision on what sorts of films should be made. I often think that ordinary people ought to be consulted and considered when taxpayers' money is being spent, not just a few people who are in government or within a bureaucracy and who happen to think a particular film would be appropriate. However, let us not go into that philosophical debate. The question we have to ask ourselves, as I mentioned earlier, is how Film Australia, under the new structure that the previous Minister really determined, will work. I do not think, frankly, we can give credit to the present Minister; I think we have to give credit to the honourable member for Robertson. This decision was announced, if I recall correctly, in the May statement last year. So, let us not forget the role of the honourable member for Robertson in this matter and let us not give credit to the new Minister. The question is: is this terribly relevant to the way the Government and Australia should see the future of the film industry? Therefore, we need to look at the industry in its total context. At the moment, for one reason or another-and I do not blame the present Government for this-we have a bit of a hotch potch in our film industry. The Australian Film Commission has lost its film making functions to the new Film Australia company. We have the 10ba tax concession which is just lingering on. I happen to be totally convinced that the present Minister simply will buy the proposals which are put to him by the Australian Film Commission, by Kim Williams and Phillip Adams. I bet any money that the Minister will buy their proposal and set up a film bank. If that is done, they will have Film Australia, their film bank and the Film Commission. Probably what we will lose are the very progressive and imaginative tax concessions under 10ba which were introduced by the Fraser Government. The Minister ought to reconsider the importance of those tax concessions and not be too captured by the bureaucrats in the Australian Film Commission. I have had some dealings with it over the years. I ask the Minister not to be too captured by it, but to try to think about what the alternatives may be. The 10ba tax concession has been a fantastic success. There is no question of that. I do not think anybody would argue with that. There have been problems. There have been questions about whether some people have been investing in the industry just to minimise their tax burden. That surely is true. There is no question about that. The fact is that 10ba set the whole of the Australian film industry on fire. It was a wonderful success. I question why the Government is so enthusiastic to cut out 10ba and simply to have Film Australia and this new film bank that it will definitely set up. The film bank proposal is an extremely paternalistic one. There will be Phillip Adams with his lovely radio program in the mornings, his newspaper articles, his showmanship and his deliberately chosen black clothes with his passion for the Australian Labor Party worn on his sleeve. There he will be with his friend Kim Williams, who played such a political role in the last Federal election, ultimately deciding with a few people what films Australia should make, and how that will differ from the present 10ba arrangement. Although the Minister has discretion as to whether 10ba should apply to a certain project, the reality is that the 10ba proposal is a proposal whereby ordinary people in the film industry-the producers, the financiers and so on-make the decision whether the project should go ahead. They have to make that decision taking into consideration what the ordinary Australian and the overseas audience are likely to want. I am sorry that the Government will go for the old film bank proposal and that it will abandon 10ba or any kind of tax concession as a form of assistance for the film industry altogether. As far as Film Australia is concerned, which is what I really should be talking about, I do not think the Government should be walking away-and dare I say this to the Government at this time-from the proposal that it should be considering the future of Film Australia in the context of privatising it. After all, as far as the Government work is concerned, the departmental program, as Film Australia calls it, could very easily be contracted out to private film makers in this country. On the other hand, I would not like to see many of the other productive elements of the national program, as it is called, abandoned altogether. But, if Film Australia were a private company and if the Government were to have the vision to continue with the tax concessions that the Fraser Government provided to the industry to revive and to make that industry dynamic, I think Film Australia would be able to pursue what is now called its national program very effectively and very creatively. In conclusion, let me reiterate what I said at the beginning. We are blessed with a wonderful film industry and we, as members of this Parliament, will want to do all we can to ensure that that film industry continues to prosper. I very much hope that the Minister in his deliberations on the Australian Film Commission's proposals for a film bank does not fall for the demands of the bureaucrats but will use the sort of vision that was seen in the actions of the Fraser Government to ensure that our industry thrives. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Rocher) —The time allotted for the remaining stages of the Bill has expired. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —I put the question that the remaining stages of the Bill be agreed to. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a third time. Motion (by Mr Beazley) proposed: That, unless otherwise ordered, the following amendments to the standing orders be adopted with effect from 22 August 1988: Standing order 46A and 47 be omitted and the following standing order substituted: Want of quorum, all members to be counted and to remain in chamber 47. When the attention of the Speaker, or of the Chairman of Committees, has been called to the fact that there is not a quorum of Members present, any member who is within the physical limits of the Chamber shall be counted to determine whether a quorum is present and no member shall leave the Chamber until a quorum is present or 2 minutes have elapsed. Mr FIFE(Hume-Manager of Opposition Business)(9.56) —The Opposition supports the motion moved by the Leader of the House (Mr Beazley). The physical limits of the chamber in the new Parliament House are quite different from the physical characteristics of this chamber. What is proposed is a practical way of meeting the needs of members in the new chamber. As I have said on other occasions, there will, of course, be a number of things that will need to be adjusted in the new House; this is just one of them. I note that the next motion that the Leader of the House will be moving relates to the ringing of the bells. We will be supporting that motion also. However, I signal to the Leader of the House and to the Government that we will not be supporting a Bill, which I understand he intends to introduce tomorrow, to reduce the number required for a quorum. The quorum in the House of Representatives is one-third of its membership. It has been one-third since Federation and we do not believe there is any reason for that figure to be altered. Certainly the move to the new Parliament House is not a reason for the alteration proposed to the number of members who constitute a quorum. Question resolved in the affirmative. Mr BEAZLEY(Swan-Leader of the House)(9.58) —I move: That, unless otherwise ordered, the following sessional order be adopted for the first 3 sitting weeks of the 1988 Budget sitting: In all standing and sessional orders, except standing order 200A, relating to the taking of a division or counting of the House or committee for quorum purposes, any reference to 2 minutes be omitted and 4 minutes substituted. I thank the Opposition for its views on this motion which I think substantially will improve our capacity to operate efficiently in the new House. Question resolved in the affirmative. Motion (by Mr Beazley) agreed to: That this House authorises: (1) the Speaker to make arrangements for the preliminary proceedings relating to the introduction of the Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 1988-89, all or part of the second reading speech of the Treasurer, and all or part of the reply to that speech by the Leader of the Opposition to be filmed by the Australian Broadcasting Corporation; (2) the direct, live telecast of all or part of that film and the accompanying sound of the proceedings by any television station provided that a station telecasts both speeches live and gives approximately equal time to both speeches; and (3) the use by any television station of any part of the filmed proceedings and accompanying sound in subsequent news, current affairs and documentary programs. Motion (by Mr Beazley) proposed: That the House do now adjourn. Mr PRATT(Adelaide)(9.59) —I am using the adjournment debate in lieu of Question Time to ask a question of the Minister for Administrative Services (Mr West). The Torrens Road Drainage Authority (TRDA) comprises the Hindmarsh, Enfield, Woodville and Port Adelaide councils and is responsible for the safe disposal of storm and waste water from a 1,600- hectare catchment which is populated by some 200,000 residents. In 1972, acting on an undertaking on the part of the then Minister for Local Government, the Torrens Road Drainage Authority committed itself to a capital expenditure program in excess of $8m. The Commonwealth undertook to grant an easement over wetlands in what is known as the `overshoot' area at the rear of the Dean Rifle Range, an area which obviously cannot be used for commercial, residential or recreational purposes. For 16 years, the TRDA has been developing a stormwater run-off system on the understanding that it would be given effective control over that system. The Authority has developed two ponding basins on tidal swamp land near the Port River to collect storm and waste water before letting it run out to the tidal North Arm Creek and the Magazine Creek. In 1985, the Authority's ponding system was put to the acid test when a deadly spill of copper chromium arsenate found its way into the drainage system. Thanks to the existence of the ponding basin, the pollutant was prevented from flowing out into the tidal system. The ponding system is adjacent to the finely balanced mangrove ecosystem described by two separate authorities as an essential nursery for South Australia's fishing industry. The loss of the mangrove swamps would have been irreplaceable and the loss to South Australia's fishing industry would have run into millions. Following the chemical spill, the Harbison report stated that the ponding basin system played a decisive role in averting a disaster and must remain. The Commonwealth, after 16 years, has now reneged on its undertaking to grant an easement over the area in question. It has backed out of the agreement which was the cornerstone of the Torrens Road Drainage Authority's $8m investment program. The Federal Government has gone back on its word because it is offering the land in question for sale by public tender-land that has been described by experts as unsuitable for any use other than the dispersal of stormwater. Yet an officer of the Australian Property Group, acting on behalf of the Hawke Labor Government, has dared to cast aspersions on the principles of the TRDA. I quote: I must express my extreme disappointment at the evident lack of professionalism and ethics displayed by your organisation, which has seriously misinformed and misled. The indications are that there are two key players in the sale by tender: the Adelaide City Council, for its long term refuse disposal-it is easy to tax refuse, but how does one tax stormwater?-and the State Government which could well bid to establish an industrial complex or even a residential development. That would be good-dead flat with no schools, no shops, no trees, no sewerage and no public transport. It would not matter if one forgot to put out one's bins on rubbish night; one could just take them over to the Wingfield dump. The renowned Dean Rifle Range regulars have been enjoying their sport on weekends for more than 60 years. To build anything on the land would require the deposit of some two million cubic metres of fill. And then, having filled it, where would the stormwater go? Obviously, it would have to be diverted, adding millions to the Torrens Road Drainage Authority's already large investment. To cap it all, in 1986 the then Minister for local government asked the TRDA to pay $2m for the land. When the Authority protested, the Minister-this is on record-suggested the use of the South Australian Valuer-General as an independent arbitrator. However, the Minister must have made some inquiries as, within days of his suggestion, his Private Secretary wrote to the Authority disclaiming any agreement to be bound by the Auditor-General's valuation. That was a timely move because the Auditor-General valued the property at $120,000-a far cry from the Minister's $2m asking price. On the other hand, the Hawke Labor Government has put the property to tender and intends to sell it to the highest bidder, despite the fact that a caveat has been placed on the block to preclude any future use other than the dispersal of stormwater. There are 320 hectares up for sale. The TRDA is prepared to pay a fair price for a minimum requirement of 45 hectares. If that is the way the Hawke Labor Government expects to treat local government, why should the Australian people vote for the Hawke Government's referendum proposal on local government? In summary, we are talking about the foresight and initiative of the Torrens Road Drainage Authority which has successfully controlled flood and stormwaters. The South Australian Department of Marine and Harbors has constructed a levee bank system that is an integral part of the protection of the mangrove ecosystem. We have had three struggling statements from the former Minister, the honourable member for Reid (Mr Uren), the former member for Port Adelaide and the former member for Adelaide. It is called a flick pass. Where is the Australian Labor Party on this issue? The honourable member for Hindmarsh (Mr Scott) is quick to jump on the yellowcake trail, but he has missed the floodwaters in his constituents' backyard. Perhaps the new honourable member for Port Adelaide (Mr Sawford) will join me in taking up the cudgels on behalf of our constituents. Mr SNOWDON(Northern Territory)(10.04) —It is with great pleasure that I take this opportunity-probably it will be my last opportunity-to speak in the adjournment debate in this House. I rise to inform the House of events in my electorate last week which saw the Minister for Administrative Services (Mr West) having to defend himself against mischievous allegations by the Northern Territory Treasurer. The Northern Territory Treasurer, in an attempt to deflect political heat away from his own ineptitude and mismanagement of the Northern Territory economy, made allegations that the Minister for Administrative Services had interfered in the awarding of a contract worth $580,000 at the Tindal Royal Australian Air Force (RAAF) base. The Minister for Administrative Services-appropriately and quite correctly-rebutted the allegations and pointed out that he, as Minister, plays no role in evaluating or awarding contracts. Perhaps we should be charitable in this case and assume that the Northern Territory Treasurer thought that the rorts that have become commonplace and are acknowledged as being so in the Northern Territory are also carried out by the Federal Government. Let him be in no doubt that this Government is squeaky clean in this area. That shows how out of touch the Northern Territory Treasurer is. He seems to believe that the rorts that go on in the Northern Territory, and which have been encouraged in the past both in the Northern Territory and Queensland, also go on elsewhere. Let us remind the Northern Territory Government that this Government will not tolerate those sorts of activities. The truth of the matter is that the tenders for the RAAF contract were awarded by the South Australian-Northern Territory construction group on the basis of price, ability to deliver on time and whether equipment met the required specifications. The failure of Hungerford Refrigeration to get the Tindal contract has highlighted the failed policies of the Northern Territory Government. Characteristically, the Northern Territory Government has tried to shift the blame onto the Federal Government and the Northern Territory Opposition for the mess it has created. Hungerford was the first company to be established in the trade development zone in Darwin. It is now in receivership. It is the second company in the last month operating from the trade development zone to hit the wall. It is my understanding that $20m of taxpayers' money has been spent on this project. All we have to show for it is two companies going bust with the loss of 70 jobs. There are many disturbing aspects to this mess. The Territory Insurance Office took up a 49 per cent interest in April 1987 to help pay for Hungerford's outstanding debts and to get the company to operate in the Northern Territory. Indeed, a Press release put out by the Northern Territory Treasurer, dated 3 April 1987, stated: The Treasurer said he enthusiastically endorsed the decision by the TIO Board to invest in Hungerford Refrigeration, and the company's relocation and export orders demonstrated the Territory's willingness to attract and promote innovative industrial development. That is patently not the case. At the same time, the Northern Territory Trading Association warned the Northern Territory Government and the Territory Insurance Office about Hungerford's financial problems and inability to cope. But Hungerford was allowed to go ahead. There were great promises about export contracts, none of which were delivered. Instead, Hungerford was set up, propped up, with taxpayers' subsidies to compete for a local tender. It was supposed to be in the trade development zone to export, not to compete for local tenders. Hungerford failed to get the Tindal contract because it failed to compete. It failed to compete even though it had been propped up to the back teeth by the Northern Territory Government's taxation concessions. The Country Liberal Party (CLP) Government in the Northern Territory has failed to manage the Northern Territory economy. There has been no real economic planning or appropriate management. The Northern Territory Government has proven itself incapable of managing the Northern Territory economy in an appropriate and acceptable manner. No doubt the Northern Territory economy is in a very difficult situation. It has the highest unemployment rate, at around 12 per cent, in Australia. That is not the fault of the Federal Government; it is the fault of the inappropriate and incapable management of the Northern Territory Government. The Northern Territory Chief Minister has the temerity to say that the reality is that we live in difficult economic times; the business community throughout this country is unimpressed with government. Let us hear what he has to say about the accolades that this Federal Labor Government has received from the business sector. We all know what they have been. The business sector is very supportive of this Government's policies. The crisis in the Northern Territory is not only in the economy but also in the Northern Territory itself. The CLP is split asunder. As a formation of the Northern Territory Nationals, it is weak at the knees. The former Chief Minister was forced to step down. Three former members of the CLP sit in the House as Independents and there are more Ministers on the front bench than there are backbenchers. Three Ministers have been asked to step down in the last 18 months. The jackals are waiting on the sidelines to feast on the body of the Chief Minister of the CLP Government in the Northern Territory in the same way as the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard) is lying dead in the water as this country's Leader of the Opposition. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Rocher) —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr MILLAR(Wide Bay)(10.09) —As a member of parliament, and as an ordinary citizen, matters often come before me which engender a sense of outrage or injustice, but sometimes that injustice seems so nonsensical that I despair for my fellow Australians who do not possess the wit to recognise when honest citizens are being held to ransom on the pretence that they are being protected from evil. All honourable members would have, at some time, dealt with constituents anxious to elicit our assistance to obtain an Australian passport-some of them for the first time. Maybe they have not travelled out of Australia before, or maybe they have newly acquired the status of an Australian citizen thereby sharing the privileges and responsibilities attaching to being an Australian in the full sense of the word. But in recent years, with the advent of the responsible Minister's changes to proof of identity, I am often confronted with the wrath and anguish of a person who has lived in this country for sometimes near on 60 years, reared all his or her children as Australians, served under the Australian flag during a world war and is now being treated as a foreigner in his own country. That person may have held as many as three or four previous Australian passports, but the Minister for Immigration, Local Government and Ethnic Affairs (Mr Holding) refuses to acknowledge that that person is Australian without that person first proving to the Department of Immigration, Local Government and Ethnic Affairs that he or she lived in Australia between 1944 and 1949. Fine, honourable members might say, there is no problem with that. That person could show the Department his bank books, school certificates and electoral enrolment cards for that period. I ask honourable members whether they have kept their personal papers for the past 40 years. I ask whether honourable members would in moving home, perhaps from one State to another, sometimes every few years, diligently pack up all those bits and pieces they no longer feel vital to their continuing activities? Of course they would not. How does such a person prove that he was here? Perhaps if that person were a parent, a child may have been born in that period. However, that alone is not enough. Possibly that person may have kept in touch with a friend of longstanding. Let us hope so because at least such a friend could vouch for him. What I am getting at is that the Minister in his quest to protect us from those people who have a desire to deceive in respect of their identities has caught in his trap many ordinary Australians who have not thought of themselves as anything but Australian for the major part of their lives. These people consider it a personal affront to have doubt cast on their status by some clerk or public servant endeavouring to administer procedures instituted by a Minister far removed from the front counter. The Minister has substantial discretion under the regulations of the Passports Act 1938. Surely the Minister could exercise that discretion in cases where it is obvious that he is not dealing with some sinister criminal wishing to obtain a passport for nefarious purposes. I am the first to acknowledge that more often than not we can become confused as to what is our legitimate entitlement. Some of us believe that the rules are made for the man down the street; certainly not ourselves. When the Government, in the course of protecting us from ourselves, introduces measures which so obviously cause unnecessary anguish, not to mention financial strain, then it is time the Government took another look at who is benefiting from such moves. Certainly it is not the ordinary Australian who placed his faith in the Government by electing it to office. He can see only that a slur has been cast on his character by the fact that, despite all the evidence he can provide that he has been a loyal Australian for the major part of his life, he must suffer the indignity of having a clerk dismiss this out of hand because it does not fit in with a set of inflexible procedures which do not allow for human judgment to be made. Perhaps the Minister can offer a humane solution to this most human problem. Mr HOLLIS(Throsby)(10.12) —I suppose that this will be one of the last speeches I shall make in this chamber. Most certainly it will be my last speech on the adjournment. In this chamber, full of character and traditions, it is appropriate this evening that I pay tribute to someone who was a great believer in traditions. Last Saturday the Illawarra region bade farewell to one of the real characters of that area, Miss Ethel Hayton. She helped many people throughout her long life time and she worked with all the local media. Miss Hayton came to the Illawarra region with her parents as a young person. Her father died soon after. She devoted the 75 years of her life to helping the people there. I think this was reflected in her funeral service, at which we had representatives of all the religions in the region. We had representatives of the whole community, from the trade unions through to academics, all paying tribute to a person who had devoted her life to helping others. I had a special affection for her. I do not think that she was of the same political persuasion as I. A few years back she became a Member of the Order of the British Empire. As someone who is very keen on Australian honours, not Imperial honours, I wrote to her and said that although I was opposed to Imperial honours I felt that there was no-one who was more deserving of this Imperial honour than Miss Ethel Hayton, who had a great affection for the British royal family. I think the degree of respect in which she was held in the community was reflected in the large attendance at her funeral service at the cathedral in Wollongong last Saturday. She had special affection for the University of Wollongong. She was one of the people who worked towards getting the University of Wollongong established and always took a great pride in that university. She was also a very generous person. The stories were legend of the gifts and so forth that she gave to many people. She always helped those people who were less well off than herself. Even in later life, in the last couple of years, when she had not enjoyed good health, she continued to help many people in the Illawarra region. She was also instrumental in setting up the Good Neighbour Council in the Illawarra region. I think it is true to say of Ethel Hayton that she had no malice within her. She could not abide racism and she really was a tremendous citizen in the Illawarra region. She will be sadly missed because, as I said, she was a real character within the region. I think that that is something which in our society today we miss more and more. We miss people who are a little out of the ordinary, a little different, people who are genuine characters. Indeed, that is what she was. She was a character of the Illawarra. The Illawarra will miss her. I think she would have been proud of the send-off the Illawarra gave her last Saturday. The region she served so well honoured her greatly in bidding farewell to her last Saturday. The Illawarra most certainly is the poorer for her passing. Mr ALDRED(Bruce)(10.17) —There is no community demand for a casino in Canberra, so why has there been heavy pressure from the Government for Canberrans to accept one? Successive Liberal and Labor governments in Victoria have refused to allow casinos. Most recently we have seen the Greiner Liberal Government in New South Wales throw out the Labor-inspired Darling Harbour casino. In each of these two States the overwhelming concern was the substantial documentation available showing the links between organised crime and casinos. In the case of Victoria this was particularly highlighted in the very thorough report of the Connor Board of Inquiry into Casinos. Perhaps it is the miserable failure of the casino lobby in the two major eastern seaboard States that has so motivated this Federal Labor Government to push hard for the establishment of casinos in Commonwealth territories. The degree of manipulation in foisting a casino on Canberra is clearly shown in the disgracefully dishonest treatment of the terms of reference of the social impact study. The terms of reference do not cover the issue of organised crime, despite the fact that that was one of the major concerns resulting in the decision by the Victorian and New South Wales State governments not to allow casinos. Furthermore, the decision to omit a reference to cover the organised crime aspect was decided upon despite numerous departmental draft terms of reference specifically including it. Quite obviously, the Government's final terms of reference took into account the fact that public concern, together with a significant amount of documentary evidence on casinos and organised crime, would probably result in a `not recommended' result from the social impact study team. That was a loaded dice, if ever there was one. There has also been a similar manipulation of events in the Government pushing ahead to establish a casino on Christmas Island. At the outset, the phosphate mine on the island was prematurely closed long before its commercial life had expired. Indeed, the current industrial action by the Christmas Island workers, a matter that prompted the Minister for the Arts and Territories (Mr Punch) to release a statement last Friday, is a continuation of this long-running issue. In the Minister's statement he denied an allegation from the leader of the Christmas Island workers, Mr Bennett, that the Government was trying to depopulate the island. Mr Snowdon —Mr Deputy Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I do not believe that there has been any industrial action on Christmas Island. I understand that there is a statement by Christmas Island workers to say that there is no industrial action. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Rocher) —Order! There is no point of order. Mr ALDRED —However, I have in my possession a document that shows that the Hawke Government is deliberately trying to do just this. A departmental document dated January 1988 states that the former Minister, the honourable member for Parramatta (Mr John Brown), agreed to an extension of time for construction of the hotel casino for three reasons. These included: The Department's wish to slow down development to ensure that the existing population could be persuaded to leave earlier rather than later. Despite the former Minister's statement, this document proves that the Labor Government is trying to force Christmas Islanders off the island and that Mr Bennett was correct in making his allegations. I now wish to address the matter of casino operators. A documented record of meeting dated 28 August 1986 states: Government approval of the casino project depended on the involvement of Woodmore and Federal Hotels. As yet no agreement between these parties. In other words, the Government would not allow the project to go ahead without the participation of its close friend, the Chairman of the Australian Tourism Authority, Mr John Haddad, who is also the Managing Director of Federal Hotels. From this and other documents it is also very clear that Federal Hotels was imposed on the project as the casino operator without due process of tender, despite the fact that Federal Hotels was prevented from establishing a casino in both Victoria and New South Wales. One of many unanswered questions is whether Federal Hotels or some other favoured mate of the Government is to be the operator that the Government is attempting to force on Canberra. Perhaps the highly agitated and visibly nervous Minister for the Arts and Territories could answer some of these questions for us. In concluding, I seek leave to table documents obtained under the Freedom of Information Act which are relevant to the serious matters concerned. Mr Hand —Mr Deputy Speaker, I ask you to rule on a point of order. Is it in order for a member to cast aspersions of the nature of those being cast by the honourable member against the Tasmanian and Northern Territory governments-- Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Rocher) —Order! There is no point of order. The Minister will resume his seat. Is leave granted to table the documents? Leave not granted. Mr Hand —On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker: in explanation of leave not being granted, I point out that there is a procedure for showing each side documents before seeking to table them. That was not done. To throw them across the table in the way that was done is not the normal process. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! There is no point of order and, for the information of the Minister, there is no such procedure. Mr Aldred —Mr Deputy Speaker, on a point of order: does the Minister wish to take one more look at the documents? They are going to be released-- Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! There is no point of order. The honourable member for Bruce will resume his seat. Mr MILTON(La Trobe)(10.22) —On 1 February 1987 a number of Acts of parliament were proclaimed which had a substantial impact on matters relating to the functions of the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation (ASIO) and its responsibilities and accountability to the Government and the Australian people. One important aspect of the legislation was to strengthen ministerial control of ASIO and to ensure that there were means of review of certain aspects of the activities of ASIO. Two means of review were created, one being the appointment of an Inspector General of Intelligence and Security and the other the creation of a Parliamentary Joint Committee on ASIO. I quote now from the speech of the Attorney-General (Mr Lionel Bowen) of 22 May 1986 when he pointed out: The Government believes that existing oversight and accountability measures for ASIO will be improved by involving the Parliament to a greater extent in those measures. The Bill therefore proposes the establishment of a Parliamentary Joint Committee on ASIO . . . The Committee will comprise seven members, and will have a majority of Government members and a majority of members from the House of Representatives. Before nominations are made, the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Government in the Senate are required to consult with the leader of each recognised political party represented in the House or the Senate, and they are required in making nominations to have regard to the desirability of ensuring that the composition of the Committee take into account the representation of recognised political parties in the Parliament. In my view the Joint Parliamentary Committee's main task would be to ensure that any surveillance or investigation of the activities of Australian citizens by ASIO was carried out properly and with due consideration of the civil rights of such citizens. The 1986-87 ASIO report to the Parliament has included, in its comments on its activities during the year, the comment that `around fifty foreign officials in Australia have an undeclared intelligence role, or are otherwise engaged in acts of foreign interference'. Clearly, such officials must, in the course of their activities, be contacting Australian citizens and thus possibly subjecting those citizens to the attention of ASIO. I draw to the attention of this House that, on 2 June 1986, the honourable member for North Sydney (Mr Spender) made it very clear that the Opposition was totally opposed to the establishment of this Committee and gave a number of reasons for that. He went on to say: Whilst there are limitations on what the committee can do, it is plain that despite the limits on the powers of the committee, it is to have wide powers of examining aspects of the activities of ASIO. . . . . Who will have access to this kind of information? Members, the staff, the staff of some members of the committee, no doubt, and the reporting staff. This means that the risk of leakage of confidential material to the prejudice of ASIO and to the prejudice of our security and intelligence systems will be real and high. What utter nonsense. The plain fact of the matter is that the Opposition has been opposing the formation of this Committee right from the start. Mr Hollis —Why? Mr MILTON —Yes, one has to ask why the Opposition is opposing the formation of this Committee. Has the Opposition got something to hide? I point out that it is now 15 months since the legislation came into force and the Joint Parliamentary Committee has not yet been appointed, all because the Opposition has failed to nominate representatives to serve on the Committee. I understand that it is the Leader of the National Party of Australia (Mr Sinclair) who is making the opposition. Again one has to ask what he has to hide. I have found that the Government has four members on the Committee; the Opposition has three members on the Committee. Therefore, there is a chance for the National Party to have one representative, for the Liberals to have one representative and for the Australian Democrats to have one representative; so why are they in opposition to the appointment of this Committee? The Government has nominated its four representatives and yet this goes on and on, so that the Committee has not yet been able to oversee the kind of activities that ASIO is obviously engaged in because it is talking about these 50 foreign officials here who are obviously, according to ASIO, involved in subversive activities. Honourable members all remember what happened to David Combe. We on this side of the House are very concerned to ensure that Australian citizens are not subjected to some kind of slanderous statements and a media campaign against them because of accusations by ASIO. I have put questions on notice about this, and on 23 March I put a question on notice-- Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Rocher) —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr Hollis —On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker, I ask for your guidance. During the contribution by my colleague the honourable member for La Trobe, I overheard the honourable member for Mallee, when my colleague mentioned the four government members, say, `Good spies'. That is a reflection on the members. I ask him to withdraw that reflection on the members. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! There is no point of order. I will not ask the honourable member to withdraw. Mr Milton —On a point of order: the honourable member for Mallee has not withdrawn. You asked him to withdraw. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —No, I did not. I said I would not ask him to withdraw. Mr PETER FISHER(Mallee)(10.28) —After having spent 16 years in this House, and this perhaps being the last opportunity I will have to speak in this provisional Parliament House, I raise the one issue that has been the most traumatic faced by my constituents during the last 58 years, an issue that has placed deep scars on the farming community, the business community and the rural work force. The rural crisis in the Mallee and Wimmera regions of my electorate reflected, of course, a series of seasonal disasters as well as economic problems confronting agriculture generally. There is significant variation in the financial circumstances of primary producers in my region. The variation is a product of many factors, including whether land was purchased in the late 1970s or the early 1980s. Timing has always been an important factor. It would often be the case that a younger farmer who has taken over a farm would be in a better position than perhaps an older farmer who has recently bought more land in order to be able to provide living areas for his children. Approximately 1,500 primary producers were placed in a critical situation in my electorate and yet, during this most significant crisis, the Federal Government massively increased interest rates and fuel prices and introduced an assets test on pensions and unemployment benefits, and is now poised perhaps to introduce an assets test on Austudy. What has been the result of these policies Australia-wide? What rewards did country people get in their time of crisis, great as their contribution has been to export earnings? An analysis of the 1986 census data tells us that family incomes in large regions of rural Australia are but half of those in metropolitan areas. The highest proportion of families on incomes below $12,000 are today in rural regions of Australia. If one looks at the Henderson Commission of Inquiry into Poverty, which is now 14 years old, one sees that rural impoverishment was extensive, with one-quarter of country Australians in poverty compared to one-sixth of city people. This situation has worsened, and there is no doubt that the most underprivileged people today are in the country. Both the magnitude and the extent of the problem are worse. This, sadly, is not an election issue. To this Government it is out of sight and out of mind, and proud rural people simply do not make a fuss. They either refuse social welfare handouts or find that government policies exclude them from eligibility. I hope that in the May economic statement, to come into this Parliament tomorrow, no further penalties will be imposed on rural Australians, who earn 40 per cent of our export income. Our social structures in rural regions and our safety nets of volunteer help networks for which we were renowned are today breaking down. We are seeing a rapidly increasing proportion of the aged, with young people leaving our districts. Paradoxically, many people are also retiring from and quitting the cities in order to have a cheaper and more satisfying rural lifestyle. At a time when we need more services, particularly in the health, welfare, transport and communications areas, such services are under pressure and are being either rationalised or regionalised. Medicare has almost totally destroyed the bush nursing hospital system in Victoria, with people unable to pay both the Medicare levy and private insurance bypassing local hospitals to attend public hospitals hundreds of kilometres away. These pressures are also on our schools and our sporting clubs and are affecting the social outlets of our people. As usual, innovation, rapid diversity, and the capacity to meet a crisis head on and to respond under extreme economic and social pressures will ensure that our region has a future, but the tragedy has been that this Government has allowed so many people to suffer unnecessarily through this very difficult period. Mr JENKINS(Scullin)(10.32) —Last month it was my pleasure to attend a function celebrating the seventieth anniversary of the Veterans' Affairs portfolio. At the luncheon held at the Repatriation Hospital, Heidelberg, it was my pleasure to sit next to the President of the Victorian Returned Services League, Bruce Ruxton. I understand that Mr Ruxton is not sure of my opinion of him. I say with all sincerity that I respect his unfailing dedication and work on behalf of ex-service men and women and their families, but there are many occasions when I am appalled by his opinions in wider areas. One such occasion was when I noted his comments last week about a proposal by the Frankston City Council, as part of the bicentennial celebrations, to erect a Japanese garden. This is as part of the sister city relationship that Frankston has with the city of Susono in Japan. On this occasion Mr Ruxton, perhaps predictably, made certain criticisms of the actions of that Council. This reminded me of an occasion late last year when he criticised the Broadmeadows City Council, which is in part of my electorate and which has the intention later this year, again as part of the bicentennial celebration, to have an exhibition of Japanese artefacts, including a priceless Samurai warrior's suit. The Council also intends to construct a teahouse in the lower hall of the Broadmeadows Town Hall. This is part of the sister city relationship that Broadmeadows has with the city of Nagareyama in Japan. What we must realise is that in trying to have these sister city relationships with Japanese cities, the two municipalities I mentioned are merely trying to establish positive aspects of relationships between the two cities and the nation of Japan. I can understand full well that Mr Ruxton, in his belief that he is representing certain sections of his membership, can come to certain conclusions. I also understand his point that there is in Australia growing concern about the amount of foreign ownership-in this case, Japanese ownership-of a number of our resources. Although I understand that point, in the two instances to which I have referred tonight, we should perhaps take more contemporary and positive views about our relationships. Whilst I recognise the pain that has been suffered by those who were prisoners of war and the pain that has continued to be suffered by those who survived-people who were treated by the Japanese as prisoners of war-40 years down the track we must take a more positive outlook and be a little more contemporary in the way we conduct ourselves with the Japanese nation. I am reminded that another occasion early last year when Mr Ruxton made criticisms in a like fashion was when a proposal was made to restore the former Burma-Siam railway. It was to be preserved as a monument to remind people of what went on and of the way in which prisoners of war suffered during the construction of the railway, but also as a symbol of lasting peace. On that occasion the then Minister for Local Government and Administrative Services, the present back bench member for Reid (Mr Uren), had this to say: There is no progress in hate. The father of the House, with the experience he had during the Second World War, has some credibility in making statements on these matters. I conclude by referring to the conclusion of the media statement released by the honourable member, because I think it aptly puts in perspective the type of attitude we should have. He said on that occasion: Our efforts now are best directed to developing peaceful, mutually beneficial relations with Japan. Mr COWAN(Lyne)(10.37) —In the precincts of the House today I was speaking with representatives of the Shires Association of New South Wales and the Local Government Association of New South Wales, and the gentlemen concerned were here, I understand, on a deputation to the Minister for Local Government (Senator Reynolds) and to other members of parliament. They spoke to me about their concern about road funding today in Australia. Also on my desk today is a letter from the Australian Automobile Association, and the Association, too, is stressing its grave concern about road funding. During the week legislation on interstate transport and charges was introduced into the Parliament. Debate on that Bill was gagged and not everybody who wanted to speak on various aspects of concern about the deterioration of roads throughout the continent had the opportunity of doing so. The roads that I speak of are the national highways, the arterial roads and the rural and urban roads. The deputation members pointed out to me today, and I could not help but agree, that particularly in the shires of the State the roads have deteriorated greatly; and those roads are very important to the people who live on the farms and in the villages. It is beyond the capacity of local government generally to cope with the financial demands of the maintenance and development of the roads program. I appeal to the Government to consider this matter. I know that tomorrow evening the mini-Budget will be presented in this House, and I trust it will not contain further cuts to road funding. If it does, it will be a calamity for Australia. There would not be a greater priority of need in Australia. As the Minister for Defence (Mr Beazley) is at the table, I will exclude defence from that, but today within Australia there is no greater demand than money for roads so that we can keep our production costs down. Transport is a big feature in determining the retail price of a product and in the cost of production, because the product is taken either from the farm or the industry and put into the marketplace or somewhere else for manufacturing and processing. It is important that there should be competition within the transport system. One could go on for hours speaking about the necessity to upgrade the railway systems within Australia. Whilst there is competition amongst the hauliers, there is hardly any competition between railway and road transport. It peeves me at times when I travel around Australia to see how few trains are running. Trains do not have competition from trucks and motor vehicles on the rails. But the fact of the matter is that, in terms of efficiency and getting things done, industry and commerce have to rely upon road transport for freight. In many cases it would be much better for Australia and the people concerned if goods were able to be freighted by train. But this is not happening. We know from what is said in this place that about $7m a day is being added to our debt as a result of railways losing revenue. I know that railways are basically a responsibility of the States; but the Commonwealth is responsible for Australian National, which is a most important operation so far as the rest of Australia is concerned. But let me come back to roads. Every member of this House, whether he represents an electorate in the city or in the country, knows that there is lack of funding for the development of our roads in this great continent. Mr Tim Fischer —Instead, $40m is being spent on referendums. Mr COWAN —I note what the honourable member has said. There is a lack of funding for byroads, national roads and the main arterial roads that need to be safe because they are used to carry children to school or from district to district and to transport produce to factories and markets. Motor vehicle owners, who pay considerable registration fees, depend upon local government, which in turn depends upon the States, which in turn depend upon the Commonwealth. The Commonwealth has accepted the responsibility of financing the States and the councils to allow them to upgrade their road systems generally. I urge the Government to look seriously at this matter. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Rocher) — Order? The honourable member's time has expired. Mr LAMB(Streeton)(10.42) —Two weeks ago the nation celebrated Mothers Day and in September we will recognise Fathers Day. Mothering Sunday has long been observed among the churches, but modern Mothers Day as we know it was established in the United States of America following a campaign by one Anna Jarvis. Official recognition was given in 1914 when President Woodrow Wilson signed a joint resolution of Congress for government observance of Mothers Day. Likewise, Fathers Day was the idea of another American, a Sonora Dodd in 1909. Fathers Day became official when, again, Woodrow Wilson approved it in 1916. These days are observed in Australia to honour our parents and to reflect on family relationships. But, regrettably, the commercial aspect has largely overtaken the spiritual side of the original intention. But what about Children's Day? This is a question that has been asked by 11-year-old Kylie Ives of Mount Evelyn, in my electorate. She, like Anna Jarvis and Sonora Dodd, wants to set up a special day. Kylie wrote to the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) and said: I am writing to you on behalf of my sisters Tammy, Teresa, my fellow students of MDA Grammar School, also I believe all the children in Australia. She requested the Prime Minister to `recognise on a set day of the year, preferably Sunday, 23rd October 1988, a day known to the community as ``Children's Day'' '. The letter continued: We believe we are important young Australians warranting a day of recognition, equivalent to our parents. We as children no longer wish to be seen and not heard, but seen, recognised, and heard, through our request for `Children's Day'. She also wrote to the Premier, Mr Cain; the Leader of the Opposition in Victoria; and her own shire, the Shire of Lilydale, which approved of and supported her idea. She wrote to the State members of parliament who share the area of our neighbourhood, and they, too, supported her. She also wrote to the Australian Bicentennial Authority, which replied: Children's Week occurs in the last week of October, and Universal Children's Day is celebrated on the fourth Wednesday of October each year. UNICEF notes this special day internationally in many countries, including Australia. She also wrote to the Archbishop of Melbourne and Archdeacon Alan Nichols replied: While recognising the value of the sentiments you have expressed about the need for children to be affirmed and recognised in Australian society, there are at present a number of efforts in this direction at present, and would be a pity to in any way duplicate them. In particular, there is a Children's Week sponsored by the Children's Welfare Association of Victoria, and linked now with a National Children's Week, held in October each year. This is a significant effort now at not only recognising children in welfare, but affirming children in our society in a much broader way. The Anglican welfare agencies and other groups are strongly supporting this endeavour. She attached other letters from children who supported her idea and they said things like this: Children are important too. Without children there would be nobody. Everyone or nearly everyone thinks that kids are servants. We kids are the future. So Kylie Ives wants to see a children's day gazetted in the Australian calendar. Her argument is simply that children should be given fair recognition of their rights and obligations. Some countries, such as Korea, have a public holiday for children's day. Japan sets aside 5 May to honour all children of the country and to wish them happiness and 17 May as a children's protection day. Children's day is celebrated in the United States of America. The Bicentennial is an ideal time for the Government to take a national approach. I urge the Prime Minister to adopt this idea and put children's day on a more official footing, perhaps coinciding with the United Nations Children's Fund children's day. It will give yet another focus to the Government's important pledge that no child need live in poverty by 1990. Mr DOWNER(Mayo)(10.47) —I notice the way in which the previous speaker, the honourable member for Streeton (Mr Lamb), readjusted the words of the notorious statement of the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke). Tonight I want to talk about something serious-the injustice that the Department of Social Security and the Minister for Social Security (Mr Howe) have perpetrated on the residents of retirement homes in my electorate, in particular, the Victor Harbor Lutheran Home. In 1984 a PABX system was installed at that home. Those facilities included: direct indialling, direct outdialling, 24-hour emergency cover, intercommunication between residents, the care supervisor, the pastor and so on. Telecom Australia bills the home in bulk and the home individually reads console meters, individually charges all the residents connected and then pays Telecom. Therefore, residents are responsible for paying for their individual telephone service costs. Costs are not met by the home and that is the critical point. Also, their names, addresses and telephone numbers are listed alphabetically in the telephone book, quite separately from the home. Honourable members will be aware that the Commonwealth gives a concession, a 35 per cent discount on rental costs, to pensioners. In the Victor Harbor Lutheran Home 15 units out of 27 are occupied by eligible pensioners. Some of those 15 units are occupied by Department of Social Security pensioners who receive the Telecom vouchers to get the concession. This year the home tried to present those vouchers and claimed a concession for them when it paid the February Telecom statement. However, the home was notified that its cheque would be receipted as part payment only until negotiations with the Department were clarified. I originally wrote to the managing director of Telecom. Interestingly enough, Telecom advised me to write to the Minister for Social Security and also to the Minister for Veterans' Affairs (Mr Humphreys). The Minister for Veterns' Affairs wrote to me and said, `Write to the Minister for Transport and Communications'. In the end I received a substantive reply, believe it or not, from the Department of Social Security-a kind of curious bureaucratic run-around perpetrated by Ministers of this Government. The Department of Social Security said in its letter to me that it did not believe that the residents were subscribers-in spite of the fact that they are obviously paying their bills and they are listed in the telephone book-as, to quote the letter: The home itself, as a corporate body, pays for the full costs of the PABX telephone system. I have explained that that is not the case and I have explained that to the Government. However, the Government persists. Let us look at the facts. An amount was included in the initial purchase price of each unit as each unit's share of the capital cost of the whole telephone system, which was about $80,000. In its letter to me of 14 April the Department of Social Security said that `payments of the telephone rental concession in the circumstances of the residents of the home would establish a precedent that would be difficult to control'. That is a curious argument because, after all, in South Australia those very same residents receive State Government concessions for water rates and council rates, and the council rates are paid in exactly the same way as the PABX telephone bills. They also receive concessions for drivers licences, motor vehicle registrations, electricity-which, it should be remembered, goes to the home and is then divided amongst the units-St John Ambulance membership, travel, and so on. I think it is a gross injustice that the Minister for Social Security does not provide this concession to pensioners who live in these circumstances, particularly at the Victor Harbor Lutheran Home. I call on the Government to take note of the new technology, realise that retired people are increasingly living under these sorts of arrangements and make sure that they can obtain concessions. Surely the Government and members opposite do not want to deny concessions to these people I would not have thought so. If that is the case, I would expect the Minister for Defence (Mr Beazley), who is at the table, and the backbenchers behind him to take up this issue and ensure that the Minister for Social Security does the right thing by the retired people who live under these sorts of arrangements and give the people of the Victor Harbor Lutheran Home and others in those circumstances in my electorate the opportunity to obtain the concessions that are available to others. Mr COURTICE(Hinkler)(10.52) —Mr Deputy Speaker, tonight is probably the last time that I will have the privilege to speak in this Parliament House and I feel it is appropriate to speak about another house that I had the privilege of opening in Gladstone on Saturday 14 May. The Gladstone branch of the Endeavour Foundation allowed me the privilege of opening Orana House in Dixon Street, Gladstone Endeavour was established in May 1984. The sheltered workshop opened in November 1984 and now has 23 clients. The workshop training group for more severely handicapped clients commenced in 1987 and has five clients. This residential is the first for Gladstone and district and provides care for four permanents and one emergency client. In June 1987 the Federal Government approved funding of this service and provided funds of $120,000 with a further $30,000 needed to be raised locally. I take this opportunity to compliment Margaret Dalton and Yvonne Cogzell and their team for the outstanding work and tireless dedication for Endeavour. The completion of this project has demonstrated the fine community spirit of Gladstone. I take this opportunity also to compliment Allan Carman and Colin Gould of Bundaberg Endeavour and their fine team of dedicated staff for their work, effort and achievement. Last year I was also privileged in being present at the opening of the extension to Endeavour at Bundaberg. This facility houses woodworking equipment of which some of the finest trophies are now made by Bundaberg Endeavour clients. Both these facilities in Bundaberg and Gladstone are giving a more meaningful and richer life to the participants and deserve the fullest support and recognition. Many committee members have worked tirelessly over the years and the facilities that exist now are due to their commitment. I would also like to recognise Neville Collins, Executive Director of Endeavour at head office in Brisbane, for his dedication and belief in helping those less fortunate than ourselves. Both these facilities are giving clients a sense of purpose and self-respect that could well be duplicated elsewhere. I have the utmost pride and respect for both Bundaberg and Gladstone Endeavour Foundation workshops. Mr KATTER(Kennedy)(10.55) —I thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, for your discrimination in calling me. I would like to talk about the seat in which you are sitting and express the general opinion of most thinking Australians who have a sense of tradition. It is a tragedy that that seat is going to remain where it is and will not enhance the new chamber up the hill. If one were familiar with the Boyer Lectures given by the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) prior to his taking office one would not be greatly surprised that he, together with others, is responsible for the severing of this link. So much for that. We know how people throughout Australia feel about it. The other night I stood in this House and paid tribute to some great Australians. I would like to pay tribute to one other, that is, the father of the Minister for Defence (Mr Beazley), the Minister sitting at the table. He ranks with the people I mentioned the other night. Kim Beazley was a great embellishment to this House. I now get on to the major subject of my lengthy address, the Australian Pavilion at World Expo 88. The honourable member for Parramatta (Mr John Brown) has just entered the chamber. I was about to say what a disaster it was that he was not able to go forward with his plan. Government members-Hear, hear! Mr KATTER —Maybe I am throwing bouquets, but it is the third last night that we are here, so let us be kind and gentle. The Australian Pavilion is an absolute fizzler. Someone said to me, `For heaven's sake, don't go to the Queensland Pavilion first because it will make most of the other pavilions look second rate'. That is how it is. The Queensland Pavilion is superb. While I am on the subject, why did we not have the Queensland people who were responsible for the opening of Expo come down here and handle the opening of Parliament House? At the opening of Parliament House we had all the grandeur, the fanfare, the glitter and the glamour inside the House. All sorts of figures were given-6,000 or 20,000-as to the people watching the opening outside. But the people outside had nothing of the experience which we Queenslanders and others from all over Australia had at the opening of Expo. Not even a balloon went up on the grounds of Parliament House. It was an absolute fizzler. If honourable members are not aware of that they should have a look at the opening of this Parliament House, and all that happened on that occasion, the dancing in the streets, the fanfare. Why did we not use the coach that was built here to bring the Queen to the entrance? All this could have happened. The only trouble was that those responsible, with all due respect, lacked imagination. Forgive me for saying this, but one would almost have the impression that we wanted to get the place open, to get it over and done with, say goodbye to Queen Elizabeth and that would be the end of it. The people who paid for that damned House were not involved in any way. So we have three great disasters. No. 1 is the seat remaining where it is. No. 2 is the rather dull decore of the House of Representatives in the new Parliament House and the rather lousy colour of the chamber. No. 3 is the opening of Expo throwing into utter shame the opening of our Parliament House. There was nothing at all to indicate that it was a people's day, a people's occasion. It was a fizzler. The only other thing I would like to say while I am in this gentle phase of my addressing the House is that I sincerely hope that when a final decision is made about this dear old chamber, whatever the decision, three members are not put into a room as we had once. The great day came when there were two members to a room. Finally we got the magnificent little offices that we all have! Admittedly we never bring our cats down here because one cannot swing a cat in them. We all look forward to going up the hill. Mr LEE(Dobell)(10.59) —In the minute that is left to me tonight I wish to speak on the question of public liability insurance. It is an issue that faces a large number of voluntary organisations such as surf clubs, Apex, Rotary and Lions clubs, and bushfire brigades. I have been approached by representatives of the Soldiers Beach and the Lakes Beach surf clubs in my electorate. They are very concerned about the cost of public liability insurance. At the moment the Soldiers Beach surf club has to pay out more than $2,000 to the national surf lifesaving movement for public liability insurance. That is the result of people in our society being more prepared to sue. It is something which the former New South Wales Government sought to rectify with Workcover and Transcover. Something has to be done about surf clubs to make sure that they are not bankrupted by the ever-increasing cost of public liability insurance. I shall go into a little more detail as to why this is such an important issue for surf clubs. Last Saturday evening I had the honour of being present at the annual presentation night for the Soldiers Beach surf life saving club. As the honourable member for Parramatta (Mr John Brown), who is in the House at the moment, would be aware, Soldiers Beach is one of the premier surfing beaches on Australia's east coast. The President of that surf club, John Edwards, and the Secretary of the Lakes Beach surf life saving club, Judy Waldron, have approached me about this very important issue. I understand that the Brunswick Heads surf life saving club has written to most of the surf life saving clubs in New South Wales, suggesting that there be some combined action by clubs to make sure that they are not financially crippled by the ever-increasing cost of public liability insurance. Not only is the cost of the insurance premiums high, but also the officers of surf life saving clubs are concerned that, if there is a serious accident at one of the beaches which they patrol and someone successfully argues in court that one of the members of the club has failed to carry out his duty properly, the club could be sued and lose all of its assets and that, if the payment to the injured party cannot be met by the club's assets, the officers of the club could forfeit their own personal assets. Mr Sciacca —They should incorporate. Mr LEE —As the honourable member suggests, surf life saving clubs should incorporate to make sure that their liability is limited; but that costs a great deal of money and many surf life saving clubs are not aware that they should carry out that sensible action. I commend the national surf life saving movement for organising an insurance policy which covers most of the clubs. As I said, it is not cheap. It costs the Soldiers Beach surf life saving club $2,000 to hold that insurance. I understand also that there is some doubt amongst the clubs as to what exactly is covered. I think that has to be finalised. Given the hour, I conclude simply by saying how important this matter is. I hope that the Surf Life Saving Association of Australia will try to make sure that most of the amount of more than $1m that this Government provides for the clubs, thanks to the efforts of the honourable member for Parramatta over many years, will be used to provide grants for equipment to the local clubs and to provide sensible things such as public liability insurance. Motion (by Mr Beazley) agreed to: That the question be now put. Original question resolved in the affirmative. House adjourned at 11.04 p.m. The following notices were given: Mr Lionel Bowen to present a Bill for an Act to enact a national law about a corporations, securities and the futures industry, and for other purposes. Mr Lionel Bowen to present a Bill for an Act relating to fees payable for the purposes of the Corporations Act 1988. Mr Lionel Bowen to present a Bill for an Act to establish an Australian Securities Commission and a Companies and Securities Advisory Committee, and for other purposes. Mr Lionel Bowen to present a Bill for an Act to enact a national law about closely held corporations, and for related purposes. Mr Lionel Bowen to present a Bill for an Act relating to fees payable for the purposes of the Close Corporations Act 1988. Mr West to present a Bill for an Act relating to the acquisition of land by the Commonwealth and certain authorities and dealings with land so acquired, and for other purposes. Mr West to move- That, in accordance with the provisions of the Public Works Committee Act 1969, the following proposed work be referred to the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works for consideration and report: Stage 2 development of RAAF Base, Tindal, N.T. Mr Beazley to present a Bill for an Act to determine the quorum of members of the House of Representatives. Mr Punch to present a Bill for an Act to amend the Australia Council Act 1975. The following papers were deemed to have been presented on 24 May 1988. Australian Meat and Live-stock Corporation Act-Order-1988-L5/88-Livestock for Slaughter or Breeding Purposes to the Socialist Republic of Romania. National Health Act-Declaration pursuant to subsection 85 (2), dated 10 May 1988. Public Service Act-Determinations-1988-Nos 69, 70, 74, 75, 76, 77.