Mr CAUSLEY —My question is to the Minister for Primary Industries and Energy. Minister, is it true that very little sugar is imported into Australia? Is it also true that the price of sugar on the domestic market is dictated by the price set by the Queensland Sugar Corporation? Is the member for Burke cruelly misleading cane growers when he says maintenance of the tariff will be of benefit to them?

Mr ANDERSON —I thank the honourable member for his question. I must say at the outset that, if there is one thing to be said about the member for Page, it is that he understands the sugar industry a great deal better than the shadow minister for primary industries. Somebody said, `That's not hard.'

The member for Page is absolutely right. The customs duty on imports of sugar last year was about 700 bucks. That is how much came in. Almost nothing; it was almost negligible. A little over $700 is all it was. Almost no sugar came in last year. And he is absolutely right. The retention of the tariff would not yield returns to Australian producers because the price is established by the Queensland Sugar Corporation.

The member for Burke, who in this instance can be described only as a cheapjack opportunist, really needs to be confronted with a very simple reality, and that is that no-one in this place and no-one outside believes anything other than, as the Financial Review in its editorial pointed out, had the Labor Party retained government, they would have abolished the tariff.

That is the reality. It is as simple as that. Why? Because they set up the competition policy—which they said was going to be the great saviour of Australian jobs and of rural and regional Australia—under which the review was conducted and under which this recommendation was made. So they are a bunch of total and absolute hypocrites on this issue, as well as being people who do not understand the sugar industry. They miss out on both.

It is quite simple. They have walked away from virtually everything they said they believed in in government, and now they have walked away from competition policy as well. They have walked away from that mainstay of their commitment to economic reform in this country.

We are the people who are securing the future for rural Australia. It is this side of the House that is securing the future for sugar farmers and for the rest of the nation's farmers. It is we who tackle this nation's major problems in terms of interest rates and an overvalued dollar. ABARE's research shows that that is delivering far more tangible benefits for the sugar industry than anything that you delivered or might deliver. You take them back the other way.

And it is not only that; it is packages like the AAA package which the Prime Minister and I recently launched. That has been universally recognised in rural Australia as being focused, well targeted and the best thought-out policy approach for rural Australia for decades. It is we who are providing such important programs as a communications upgrade approach for rural Australia.

The final point that I cannot help making—it is a vitally important one—is that the sugar industry is an export industry, and it is this side that is tackling waterfront reform. You are the people who are identifying with those who want to block it. You want to look after the privileged few at the expense of Australia's exporters, including our sugar exporters and the jobs that depend on them. The best my opposite number can come up with: he was out on my local radio station the other day giving his imprimatur to a report from somewhere the other day that says that what farmers ought to do is diversify into—wait for this—insect breeding to cash in on growing demand for bush tucker!