Home » Hansard & Papers » Legislative Council » 07/04/2005 » Article 43 of 56 »

SHEEP INDUSTRY

Page: 15240

The Hon. AMANDA FAZIO [4.23 p.m.]: I move:

1. That this House notes:

(a) the dishonest campaign being conducted against Australian woolgrowers by People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) which has resulted in major American retailer Abercrombie and Fitch boycotting Australian wool in its 749 US shops,

(b) the comments of the South Australian Farmers Federation that until better methods of preventing fly strike are found, the practice of mulesing to prevent fly blown sheep will continue,

(c) the statement from the wool industry research body, Australian Wool Innovation, that an injection to provide the same outcome as mulesing is several years away,

(d) the condemnation of PETA’s campaign by RSPCA national president Dr Hugh Wirth, who stated radical and extreme animal rights groups set back the work of the RSPCA, and

(e) that without the practice of mulesing to preventing fly strike a lot of sheep will suffer a very slow, long and painful death where they wither away to nothing and die in agony.

2. That this House calls on:

(a) PETA to stop its dishonest campaign of misinformation, and

(b) the Federal Minister for Agriculture to mount an education campaign in the USA targeted at retailers and consumers to inform them of the requirements for this practice and the cruel consequences for the sheep population if this practice was to be discontinued.

This lengthy motion deals with a very important issue not only to the people of New South Wales but to all Australians involved in the agriculture industry, particularly woolgrowers. Since 19 October when I put this motion on the Notice Paper, People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals [PETA] has successfully lobbied by way of demonstrations and petitions a number of other prominent American clothing retailers, so that at least three or four other major clothing chains in America are boycotting Australian wool products because of a dishonest campaign that is being conducted. I will give an overview of PETA's campaign and what it is doing to reinforce in people's minds the continuing importance of the Australian wool industry. I know it is a long time since we used to say Australia "rides on the sheep's back" but it is still an integral part of our agricultural industry.

The Australian wool industry is being threatened by extremist animal rights organisations that are based in the United States of America. These organisations are not interested in the welfare of our wool industry or our sheep and are bent on their own misguided ideological crusades. These organisations, most notably PETA, are running a campaign against the Australian wool industry and the practise of mulesing. The campaign threatens local jobs and the livelihood of regional and rural communities in New South Wales and across Australia. The campaign involves using fear of protest as a tool to get clothing companies to boycott Australian wool. And the extent to which these people go is quite significant. I urge honourable members who are interested to look at the PETA web site.

The Hon. Melinda Pavey: I have. It's disgraceful, isn't it?

The Hon. AMANDA FAZIO: Yes, I agree with the Hon. Melinda Pavey that it is disgraceful. They show a video of sheep mulesing that is not counterbalanced by any footage or mention of the horrific effect on sheep of fly strike, which is why farmers conduct the practice of mulesing. The PETA campaign has been run in such an emotive way with "Your friend, the sheep. Sheep are intelligent, friendly animals that can be kept as pets" in Germany and other countries. School children are shown quite horrific postcards and photographs of sheep that have been mulesed. PETA plays on the emotions of young children who think that lambs are nice cuddly little things that one might pat in a petting zoo—which, by the way, PETA is also opposed to. It is a very discredited campaign but one that is very effective and emotive. PETA pickets outside shops where Australian wool goods are being sold.

PETA's incredibly simplistic solution is that the reason Australia does not look after its sheep properly, which is why they get fly strike, is because Australians run too many sheep on properties. PETA says we should actually do two things, apart from banning mulesing. We should run fewer sheep so that we can look after them more properly—I do not think it understands that people on properties in Australia run 30,000 or 40,000 head of sheep in really good times. It must think people have 50 or so sheep with bells on their neck, name tags, et cetera. PETA's second great suggestion is that Australia should not use any merino sheep or merino crossbreeds because merinos with their crinkly skin and heavy wool loads are not appropriate to be farmed in Australia. The fact is that Australia's wool industry is founded on merino sheep. If one were to do something crazy like trying to get rid of merino sheep the wool industry in Australia would be destroyed overnight.

But this information is not being put forward to anyone. PETA is only giving a very emotive message to "look at what these evil Australian farmers do to sheep". I have been to sheep and cattle farms in England and know that in the height of summer their idea of bad flies is nothing in comparison to what we encounter in Australia on a sheep property, not even at the height of summer. The blowfly problem in New South Wales and other areas of Australia is simply not comparable to the situation in England and in some parts of America. We have a different problem and we have had to tackle the approach to it in a different way. To simply say that if we ran smaller flocks of sheep we would be able to keep an eye on them and make sure that they were not subject to flystrike shows the complete ignorance of these people about the farming industry in New South Wales.

Most farmers, whether running sheep or anything else, try to ensure their animals are healthy, not diseased, and not subject to any problems from parasites, flies or anything else. It is in the farmers' best interests to make sure their animals are as healthy as possible. The idea that somehow Australian farmers have to do mulesing simply because their flocks are too big and neglected is ridiculous. The practice of mulesing is undeniably painful for the sheep, but it protects them from the harsh realities of the Australian outback. Other methods are being investigated, and money is being put into research to ensure the development of other methods.

There is general consensus that within a decade the practice of mulesing will no longer be necessary, because Australian farmers will have alternatives. There may be an injection to ensure that the sheep's rump remains fairly smooth and will not have problems associated with the accumulation of urine and faeces in the wool. Those accumulations create dags in the wool, and the dags attract flies.

The simple fact is that at the moment there is no alternative to mulesing, and if the practice were stopped, each year hundreds of thousands of sheep would probably die from flystrike, an awful condition. PETA and other animal rights organisations should understand that flystrike equates to sheep being eaten alive by maggots. That is the reason for mulesing. Though PETA claims to be an animal rights activist, it would subject sheep in Australia to that fate. That is quite appalling.

We need to consider the importance of the Australian wool industry. This is not the 1950s, and Australia no longer rides on the sheep's back. But the wool industry is still a very important part of the Australian economy. In fact, it is vital to Australia's economy and the world's clothing industry. Australia is the world's largest producer of wool, an industry valued at $3.3 billion in 2002-03. In that year Australian wool accounted for 48.5 per cent of all wool used in the world's clothing. That is because much of Australia's wool clip is of fine grade; it is of a better quality than wool produced overseas. At the premium end of the clothing market, for example Italian wool suits, in which very fine, premium fabrics are used, buyers prefer very fine micron wool from Australia because it is of the best quality.

It is widely accepted that Australia produces the world's best quality woollen fibre, and that is Australian merino wool. The Australian merino is recognised worldwide for its ability to produce wool that is pure, white, soft and fine, but strong. Sheep have been a vital part of the Australian scene almost since the first fleet arrived in Botany Bay in 1788. In 1800 the colony's number of livestock was recorded at 6,124 sheep and only 1,044 cattle. New South Wales is the main wool-producing State in Australia, with over 36 per cent of the national flock in 2002. It is difficult to put a number on how many people are directly or indirectly supported by the wool industry, but there is no doubt that a collapse in the Australian wool sector would devastate rural and regional communities in New South Wales, with follow-on effects to be felt throughout capital cities.

What is mulesing? It is a practice to stop merino sheep from being attacked by blowflies—the most challenging and difficult task faced by sheep and wool producers. The New South Wales Department of Primary Industries describes and defines the Australian sheep blowfly, Lucilia cuprina, as the major pest species of blowfly in Australia. It is responsible for initiating over 90 per cent of all flystrikes. Unlike the native blowflies, Lucilia cuprina breeds mostly on living sheep. Females are attracted to the smell of fleece rot and lay about 250 eggs in clusters in damp fleece.

Mulesing is a vital part of sheep husbandry in Australia, particularly with merino sheep. It involves surgically removing the skin around the breech, or backside, of the sheep to prevent wool growth. This reduces the risk of flystrike by the unique and very aggressive Australian blowfly. Without mulesing, blowfly eggs are laid in moist wool. The flesh-eating maggots create painful wounds, causing the sheep considerable pain and often death by blood poisoning. Mulesing is the only effective currently available method of providing sheep with lifetime protection from breech flystrike. Without this procedure, up to three million sheep would face death. Even the RSPCA supports the practice of mulesing in particular circumstances. I would like to refer to an RSPCA press release regarding the practice of mulesing, particularly in locations where the risk of flystrike is high. It says:

The RSPCA considers mulesing a necessary means of eliminating or minimising the pain and suffering caused by flystrike.

The Australian Veterinary Association President, Norm Blackman, said animals could die if not treated, and added:

If they get flystrike later on, the suffering is horrendous.

Let us look at PETA and what it does. PETA is a United States based activist group. It has launched a campaign against international and local retailers who use Australian wool. PETA believes that mulesing is a cruel and painful act that could be avoided. The act of mulesing, and PETA's campaign against it, hit headlines last when PETA pressured United States clothes retailer Abercrombie and Fitch to boycott clothes containing Australian wool until the process is eliminated. To understand the case PETA is putting forward, one has to understand the organisation itself. PETA is not your usual animal rights organisation. It is an extremist organisation that is ideologically opposed to animal husbandry and is committed to ending industries that involve animals. The PETA web site states:

PETA operates under the simple principle that animals are not ours to eat, wear, experiment on, or use for entertainment.

The fact that humans take advantage of animals for any reason is seen as moral outrage by PETA. Jack Waterford, editor of the Canberra Times, best summed it up when he wrote:

The People for Ethical Treatment of Animals are not really interested in the betterment of animals. They are against the exploitation of animals for any purpose, full stop. They do not believe there is a humane way of farming an animal for food, for labour or for pleasure.

He referred to "their first premise, that the use of animals by human beings for any purpose is wrong and immoral". PETA first made headlines in the 1990s when it was linked financially to the Environmental Liberation Front. The Environmental Liberation Front openly claimed responsibility for terrorist acts, including the torching of a $25 million apartment building in San Diego in 2003. PETA has no inhibitions about lying, or using fear and intimidation to spread its case.

Some examples of the actions taken by PETA include depositing a dead racoon on the plate of Anna Wintour, editor of Vogue, to protest the use of fur in the magazine's pages; deploying its own version of a United States industry slogan "Got Milk?" to imply that Rudy Giuliani's prostate cancer was caused by milk, and going as far as to put up billboards saying "Drinking milk contributes to prostate cancer"; appealing to university students in the United States by running advertisements saying that beer is better than milk, a campaign that Wendy Hamilton, President of Mothers Against Drunk Driving in the United States, described as "an irresponsible, recycled publicity stunt that literally puts cows before kids"; and even going as far as to travel with an exhibition called "Holocaust on your plate", which compared what humans do to animals with the Jewish Holocaust!

PETA is running a campaign against Australian wool. The campaign is not the usual campaign of raising public awareness about what it regards as an improper practice. The campaign has been based on fear and intimidation. The campaign against the wool industry includes publishing announcements of the boycott on its web site, in media interviews and news releases, including an interview on the "60 Minutes" program; intimidating two retailers in the United States, Abercrombie and Fitch and J. Crew, and one retailer in the United Kingdom, New Look, into agreeing not to purchase any goods made of Australian wool by threatening to publish defamatory material and holding protests in front of their stores; publishing announcements in the United states that retailers would face demonstrations and boycotts, beginning in November 2004, if they used Australian wool; and publishing a letter to Benetton asserting that it had been chosen as an "international target" and threatening to target its stores for using Australian wool. The campaign goes on and on.

As I said, at the moment there is no real alternative to mulesing. No-one is saying that mulesing is not painful to sheep, but the fact is that it is the best available method of preventing flystrike, which is even more painful. The Australian wool industry research body Australian Wool Innovation recognises that mulesing is not a replacement for other fly management practices. It says that growers, in conjunction with mulesing, also jet their sheep with approved insecticides, crutch their sheep, drench to control internal parasites, use fly traps where effective, and inspect their sheep regularly, especially during bad fly conditions.

The research body is planning to phase out the current mulesing method by 2010. The problem is that currently no viable alternative is available to woolgrowers. I ask the House to support the motion because this matter should cut across rural and city boundaries, on two bases. First, we need to ensure that we protect our agricultural industries, because they are vital not only for the economic viability of country areas but also for our overall economy. Second, it is not for radical extremist organisations like PETA to set the agenda for how we deal with animals. People who mistreat animals, whether they are companion animals or farm animals, are the exception. As I said, most farmers and woolgrowers ensure they have the healthiest animals possible because that is in their best interests.

The Hon. Melinda Pavey: Not let them become flyblown.

The Hon. AMANDA FAZIO: The Hon. Melinda Pavey is right. No reasonable farmer whose livelihood depends on his being able to produce reasonable quality goods for the market will sit back and allow his sheep or cattle to become degraded, diseased, or run down. We must stand back and consider what PETA is trying to do. Trying to stop mulesing is only part of its bigger agenda to stop all forms of farming. PETA is opposed to people eating meat and wearing leather or fur. But its agenda, which is marginalised, does not fit into the mainstream of our life.

PETA's campaign is not based on its research of mulesing in Australia. PETA has on its web site a video of people mulesing sheep. If people could see the alternative—a poor sheep stumbling around the paddock suffering from flystrike and literally dying on its feet because it is being eaten inside out by maggots—I am fairly sure that they would not like either but they would agree that mulesing is the lesser of the two evils. Mulesed sheep might have a raw rear end, but at least they will live. PETA contends that the practice of mulesing exposes sheep to increased danger from flystrike because they have raw skin on their rear end.

The Hon. Rick Colless: That is absolute nonsense.

The Hon. AMANDA FAZIO: That is simply not the case. In the first instance, blowflies are attracted to the smell of wet wool and wool rot, and to the urine and faeces caught in the wool around the rear end of the sheep. PETA's argument has no merit. The second part of the motion asks the Federal Minister for Agriculture to deliver an education campaign in the United States of America targeted at retailers and consumers informing them of the necessity of the practice of mulesing, and of the cruel consequences for sheep if the practice were discontinued.

Honourable members might note that I am not condemning the Federal Government for not doing anything. PETA, with a relatively small amount of money and a hard core group of people supporting it, has managed to attract an awful lot of publicity by taking direct action against retailers. People with colour-photo placards stand outside shops and harass shoppers. They make it difficult for people to feel brave enough to enter the shops. So far, three or four retailers in the United Kingdom and the United States of America have decided that the easiest thing for them to do is to not stock clothing made with Australian wool products.

The Federal Government, the Federal Minister for Agriculture and some of the wool industry bodies should take this fight up to PETA. They should launch their own media campaign and issue press releases discrediting PETA. They should make available photos of the consequences of not mulesing sheep. They should fight PETA at its level. PETA is not simply a group of people who look at sheep and think, "The poor little lamb. We do not want to see anyone sniffing around its rear end with a pair of shears." PETA has a much bigger agenda than banning mulesing. It has been fighting on a different range of issues for a very long time and it is very good at doing it. A full-page article in "Insight" in the Friday 11 March edition of the Sydney Morning Herald with the headline "The unkindest clip of all" underlined the need for some form of public campaign to be mounted against PETA. An article headed "Tan me hide when I'm dead" states:

"We are complete press sluts," the founder and president of PETA, Ingrid Newkirk, once told The New Yorker magazine. Newkirk even has plans to turn her death into a media event.

In her will, which is on the PETA.org website, she says: "Upon my death, it is my wish that my body be used in a manner that draws attention to needless animal suffering and exploitation."

Newkirk wants her flesh "used for a human barbecue, to remind the world that the meat of a corpse is all flesh, regardless of whether it comes from a human being or another animal, and that flesh foods are not needed".

The skin is to be made into leather products "to remind the world that human skin and the skin of other animals is the same and that neither is 'fabric' nor needed".

Her feet are to be turned into umbrella stands "as a reminder of the depravity of killing innocent animals, such as elephants, in order that we might use their body parts for household items and decorations".

Newkirk wants one of her pointing fingers sent to the owners of the Barnum and Bailey Circus to stand as the "Greatest Accusation on Earth" over the way animals have been "kidnapped" from their homes and "forced into involuntary servitude for the sake of cheap entertainment".

Her liver is to be vacuum-packed and sent to France as part of a public appeal to end "the vile practice of force-feeding geese and ducks for foie gras". And on it goes.

But Newkirk also asks that a little piece of her heart be buried at the Hockenheim motor racing track in Germany, preferably near the Ferrari pits used by Michael Schumacher.

Even animal-rights zealots have outside passions and Newkirk's is formula one.

Has it ever occurred to this hypocrite, Ingrid Newkirk, that formula one drivers wear leather suits and sit on leather seats when driving their racing cars and? But this is typical of the sort of craziness coming out of this organisation that, time and time again, has been given legitimacy by tapping into people's emotions about caring for animals. And they are right: everyone likes to care for animals. Probably everyone in this Chamber has a pet of some sort or another, or has had one at some time.

The Hon. Melinda Pavey: Or wears leather shoes.

The Hon. AMANDA FAZIO: Yes, most people have leather shoes, except perhaps for Mr Ian Cohen. This campaign is really very unfair. Australian sheep producers look after their sheep. The practice of mulesing prevents sheep from suffering from flystrike. If people want a better idea of exactly what PETA are up to and the sorts of things it does I recommend that they look at an article in the 14 April 2003 edition of the New Yorker magazine headed "The extremist. The woman behind the most successful radical group in America" by Michael Specter. It goes on for page after page about how Ingrid Newkirk got involved. What spurred her into her campaign of absolute excess was the abandoning of some cats next door to her house when she was about 20. That experience turned her into an absolutely fanatical animal rights activist.

One of the good things about Australia is that we have never resorted to the extremism of animal liberation that exists in the United Kingdom, where people kill those who are involved in animal experimentation. They have actually dug up the body of a person who ran an animal laboratory. They firebomb research laboratories and they attack people who own intensive farming operations. That is the type of activity that the people of New South Wales have been spared. But I assure honourable members that if PETA wins this contest, extremist activists in Australia will take up the cause. The victory will attract extremists and encourage them to engage in the same type of craziness in Australia that they have engaged in overseas.

We should respect the fact that husbandry and the manner in which animals are treated continually improve. We should also respect the fact that New South Wales has quite strong animal welfare laws. People who are deliberately cruel to animals are dealt with according to law, and that legislation will be strengthened by amendment in the near future. I urge honourable members to completely reject the dishonest campaign being conducted by PETA and ask the Federal Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry to run a counter campaign to confront these extremists.

The Hon. RICK COLLESS: Not only Federal, but State too.

The Hon. AMANDA FAZIO: I do not mind if all the States that have a sheep industry are involved. I would not object to an amendment in those terms because I really think that PETA has to be confronted head-on to make it clear that we will not be blackmailed by its dishonest campaign. If PETA believes so strongly in the rights of animals, why does it not equally consider the rights of people to go into shops unfettered by protesters, to buy whatever goods they want and to make up their own minds on matters in a fair and balanced way?

I find it disturbing that PETA's web site is emotionally exploitative and preys particularly on young teenagers who are uncertain about where they are going in life and want to latch onto something. Teenagers usually like animals, so PETA's biased campaign could have a very negative effect on them. If PETA was willing to engage in argument on the facts of the matter, my attitude would be different, but PETA does not operate like that. I urge honourable members to support the motion and reject PETA's very dishonest and very damaging campaign. I ask honourable members to support our Australian woolgrowers.

Mr IAN COHEN [4.52 p.m.]: I have listened with interest to be arguments advanced by the Hon. Amanda Fazio and I am particularly interested in her quoting the RSPCA as saying:

The RSPCA considers mulesing and necessary means of eliminating or minimising the pain and suffering caused by fly strike.

It is interesting to consider the Hon. Amanda Fazio's dissertation on the misinformation circulated by the People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals [PETA] and her reference to PETA's followers as extremists. PETA champions several issues and I am sympathetic to some of them but I hasten to add that I am not an extremist. I wish to read the RSPCA's statement in its entirety because selective quoting of the statement may distort this debate. In a media release on 15 October 2004 entitled "Statement by the RSPCA Australia regarding mulesing of sheep" the RSPCA said:

"RSPCA Australia does not endorse or accept mulesing as an essential sheep husbandry procedure. In particular geographical locations where there is a high risk of fly strike and it has been established that there is absolutely no acceptable alternative to mulesing, the RSPCA considers mulesing a necessary means of eliminating or minimising the pain and suffering caused by fly strike.

I find it rather misleading and inappropriate for selective quoting to be used at the commencement of this debate because the opinion of this august body, the RSPCA, has been given a completely different complexion from the message it intended to convey in its press release of 15 October 2004. The Hon. Amanda Fazio takes objection to the propaganda circulated by PETA, and on similar grounds I take objection to her quoting half a press release during what I think should be an up-front as well as a quite interesting and worthwhile debate. I congratulate the Hon. Amanda Fazio on bringing this matter before the House for debate, but her selective quoting distorts the concern that a respected animal welfare organisation, the RSPCA, has about mulesing.

[Interruption]

The Hon. Amanda Fazio selectively quoted the RSPCA. It is quite clear that the opinion intended to be conveyed by the RSPCA is quite different from what the Hon. Amanda Fazio conveyed. The time allocated to me today is limited, and I intend to continue when the debate is resumed. Let us consider the alternatives to mulesing. I believe that most farmers would rather not resort to mulesing, but for many reasons practices become entrenched until alternatives are developed, such as non-surgical procedures and chemical control of flystrike. Research is being undertaken presently, and my understanding is that mulesing is not the only effective method available to control flystrike. I understand that alternatives are already available.

The Hon. Rick Colless: There are alternatives for different breeds of sheep. That is what you do not understand.

Mr IAN COHEN: I acknowledge the interjection by the Hon. Rick Colless, who suggests that the answer to the problem lies in different breeds of sheep. In this day and age members of Parliament are obliged to examine appropriate methods of controlling flystrike by the application of humane animal husbandry practices while different solutions, including breeding research, are investigated. I hope the Hon. Rick Colless does not intend to use the fine wool argument, because some fine wool sheep are enveloped in fabric and confined to create high-quality wool. Massive flocks of sheep are being kept in an inappropriate environment.

The Hon. Rick Colless: That is absolute nonsense.

Mr IAN COHEN: Sheep are not native to Australia. They were introduced into Australia purely for the purpose of animal husbandry, but in some cases that was done with the knowledge, sympathy and understanding of people who were capable of rearing animals in rural areas of Australia in the most humane way possible. It is about time people in the animal breeding industry devoted more time and resources to breeding research to produce sheep that do not have the problems that are characteristic of current flocks.

The Hon. Melinda Pavey: Genetically modify them?

Mr IAN COHEN: If that is the only answer, fair enough. I am sure there are alternatives, because great advances have been made over many years in bloodline breeding. An Australian Wool Innovation [AWI] Ltd project involving a team of scientists from the University of Adelaide is developing a non-surgical alternative to mulesing for the control of flystrike in sheep. The researchers are working on a method that causes wool in the breech of sheep to fall out, inhibits regrowth, and contracts the skin. Essentially, the effect of this treatment is the same as mulesing because it results in a wool-free breech and fewer skin folds.

The treatment involves injecting a naturally occurring protein under the surface of the skin. The protein disrupts the normal structure of the skin and after a few days the wool falls out. As the breech area heals, the skin tightens and shrinks, removing skin folds around the treatment area. The treatment has been so effective that three or four centimetres of skin in the breech treated with the protein shrinks to a line that is one or two millimetres wide. Subsequently the animal is less susceptible to soiling around the breech area and is better protected against flystrike during its lifetime. Another advantage of the treatment is that, unlike conventional surgical mulesing, there is minimal disruption of the epidermis, which is the top player of the skin.

The new method involves no surgery and has no side effects. A commission report estimates that without mulesing or an alternative, up to three million sheep a year perish when conditions are conducive to prolific flystrike. I acknowledge the variation in opinion among members of this House, but I believe we have a major problem to contend with. I also acknowledge that the Hon. Amanda Fazio is genuinely concerned about the welfare of animals. It is important to recognise new sets of values based on the recognition of animal welfare rights. When we engage in intensive animal husbandry, it is appropriate to devise ways of minimising flystrike while maintaining the humane treatment of animals. The benefit of mulesing to Australian sheep producers is significant. I do not have a precise figure.

The Hon. Rick Colless: Millions.

Mr IAN COHEN: Yes, I agree. Mulesing reduces the number of sheep lost and increases production. I assure the Hon. Rick Colless that no-one denies the economic benefits of mulesing. In the context of this debate, PETA effectively and efficiently has been portrayed as an eco-terrorist extremist organisation.

The Hon. Melinda Pavey: Do you support PETA?

Mr IAN COHEN: My comments should be construed in the context of the motion. Together with the RSPCA and many other community organisations and individuals, I support re-evaluation of the mulesing process. The issue is that the AWI has invested about $700,000 in the research and development of a non-surgical alternative to mulesing, including $400,000 in a project being conducted at the University of Adelaide. It has allocated at least another $1 million dollars for similar research over the next three years. The results of the project so far are promising, and the AWI is providing all necessary support.

Pursuant to sessional orders business interrupted. The House continued to sit.

smile-wailful