Tuesday, 2 September 1997
Page: 7596

Mr KATTER(10.58 p.m.) —I rise to disagree with some of the things said by the honourable member for Wide Bay (Mr Truss) when he said that the sugar industry is in favour of this removal. I represent about a quarter of the Australian industry. My colleague the member for Dawson (Mrs De-Anne Kelly) and I represent more than half of the industry in Australia. Both of us are opposing these moves tonight. Clearly we would not be doing that if the industry was in favour of these moves. So I must disagree with his statements. He said that there were two grower representatives on the review. One of those grower representatives has changed his position in the meantime. What is more, those growers only made that decision because they had the gun of deregulation at their head. That is a point that cannot be overemphasised in this place.

Adding to what I said previously this evening, there are two models—the Australian economic model and the Japanese economy model. In Japan, the trade balance last year was a $131,000 million surplus, the biggest trade surplus recorded in world history. Japan is a country that does not work on the policy of abolishing tariffs. It is a country that works on just the opposite policy of doing everything humanly possible to defend and develop industries. It seems to me that we have a policy that is just the opposite. To put a $131,000 million trade surplus into perspective, the United States last year recorded a $106,000 million deficit. The average income for Japan working on a policy of aggressive trade policies—the non-removal of tariffs and doing everything humanly possible to protect and defend their workers and the workers' industries—is $37,050 per year. The average income in the United States is $26,590 per year. I would be embarrassed to tell the House what this country's average income is.

Let us go back in Australian history. The honourable member for Dawson has a very large picture of John McEwan up in her office and I most certainly will be getting one myself shortly. In 1972, unemployment in this country—the last year of John McEwan—was 2.2 per cent. In 1996, it was 8.9 per cent. The current account deficit was a $403 million surplus. It is now a deficit of over $20,200,000. (Time expired)

Mr SPEAKER —Order! It being 11 p.m., the House stands adjourned.

<ERROR> <EMSG> A start tag is not allowed at the current point, but will be allowed through error recovery. The element is "ADJOURNMENT". The open elements are "HANSARD", "DEBATE", "DEBATE.SUB1", "SPEECH", and "INTERJECT". The following elements can end: "DEBATE", "DEBATE.SUB1", "INTERJECT", or "SPEECH". The following elements can start: "ANSWERS.TO.QUESTIONS", "BREAK", "CHAMBER.XSCRIPT", "DEBATE.SUB1", "DEBATE.SUB2", "DIVISION", "ERROR", "INTERJECT", "PARA", "SESSION.HEADER", "SPEECH", "SSO", or "TALK.START". </EMSG> </ERROR> <ERROR> <EMSG> A start tag must not be used if the element is neither allowed by the current content model or by an inclusion. The element is "ADJOURNMENT". </EMSG> </ERROR>