Thursday, 6 September 1984 Mr SPEAKER (Hon. Harry Jenkins) took the chair at 10 a.m., and read prayers. The Clerk —Petitions have been lodged for presentation as follows and copies will be referred to the appropriate Ministers: To the Honourable, the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens respectfully showeth: That Regulations and an Ordinance now before the Parliament amend the Customs ( Prohibited Imports) Regulations and the Customs (Cinematographic Films) Regulations and supersede the A.C.T. Objectionable Publications Ordinance in such a manner as to be harmful to society by removing from existing Commonwealth law the power to prevent the importation and sale of hard-core pornography (e.g. X- rated videos) and publications which consistently incite the use of hard drugs; the power to prevent the importation and sale of grossly obscene publications, including those associated with blasphemy; the power to require imported video tapes/discos for non-commercial use to be registered by the Films Censorship Board. Your petitioners humbly pray that the House of Representatives, in Parliament assembled: should disallow the new Regulations and Ordinance and ensure that the Attorney-General enforce existing laws; that Censors more appropriately reflect responsible community attitudes; that further measures be taken in association with the States to protect Australians, particularly women and children, from exploitation; and that, because of the importance of this issue to society, a conscience vote be permitted to all Members of Parliament And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Bilney,Mr Cadman,Mr Dawkins and Mr Rocher. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of certain citizens of Australia shows : That, with the exception of the Australian Capital Territory and the Northern Territory, all State Parliaments have enacted chiropractic legislation. That chiropractors provide a safe, effective and economical health care service that is complementary to medicine. That the introduction of a Federally funded health care system restricted to the services provided almost exclusively by the medical profession restricts the freedom to select the health care practitioner of one's choice and does nothing to reduce the high cost of health care in Australia. That a financial disadvantage will be incurred by those citizens utilizing chiropractic care, many of whom find that their health complaints do not respond satisfactorily to traditional approaches. Your petitioners therefore pray that the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled ensures that chiropractic services are included in Medicare when it is introduced. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Cadman,Mr Hawker,Mr Leo McLeay and Mr Rocher. To the Honourable the Speaker and members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia sheweth that whereas: 1. They are completely satisfied with the design of the existing Australian National Flag. 2. They are aware it properly reflects the immutable characteristics of Australia, namely: (a) The Union Jack, itself the creation of three Christian Crosses, represents the Nation's historical origin and the source of its language and law; (b) The Southern Cross on an azure blue background signifying its geographical location on this planet Earth; (c) the large star depicting the advent of Federation in 1901. 3. They know the Flag has been a source of inspiration to generations of Australians in peace and war. 4. They recall that millions of native-born Australians and newcomers to these shores from other parts of the world have become united under its proud symbolism. 5. They are certain that any change to the Flag will produce division in the Australian community. Your petitioners therefore pray that your honourable House will: Propose and pass a motion that 'the existing Australian National Flag be changed only with the approval of the Nation as expressed in a Referendum'. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Charles,Mr Fisher,Mr Hawker and Mr McGauran. To the Honourable the Speaker and members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of certain citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: That the Australian flag symbolises the continuity between Australia's past, its present and its future; That the presence of the Union Jack on the flag represents not a subservience to Britain, but a reminder of our inheritance of the fruits of hundreds of years of struggle for individual liberty against the forces of tyranny and oppression; Nonetheless recognises the rights of Australians should they wish as a people to change the design of their flag. Your petitioners humbly pray that no change be made to the Australian flag except with the consent of the people in a Referendum. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Cadman,Mr MacKellar and Mr Ruddock. To the Honourable the Speaker and members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled: The humble petition of the undersigned Citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: 1. That the overwhelming majority of Australians are completely satisfied with the existing Australian National Flag. 2. That we are totally opposed to any change in the Australian National Flag as provided in Section (3) of the Flags Act, unless such proposed change is first voted on by the people of Australia and passed by a majority of voters in a majority of States. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Fife. To the Honourable the Speaker and members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens respectfully showeth that: 1. They call on the House of Representatives and the Government of the Commonwealth to reject the recommendations of the Commonwealth Schools Commission contained in 'Funding Policies for Australian Schools', concerning proposed increases in State aid to private schools and the proposed community standard for education funding. 2. They call on the House of Representatives and the Government of the Commonwealth to declare a three year moratorium (1985-1987) on increases in State aid to private schools and on grants for new private schools and for increased private school enrolments. 3. They call on the House of Representatives and the Government of the Commonwealth to re-affirm their primary obligation to government schools and to implement all 1983 ALP election promises for increased funding to government schools. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Charles and Mr Scott. To the Honourable the Speaker and members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens respectfully showeth: 1. They are completely satisfied with the design of the existing Australian National Flag. 2. They are aware it properly reflects the immutable characteristics of Australia, namely: (a) The Union Jack, itself the creation of 3 Christian crosses, represents the nation's historical origin and the source of its language and law. (b) The Southern Cross on an azure blue background signifying its place in space. (c) The large star depicting the advent of Federation in 1901 and each point depicting a State and the Territories of the Commonwealth. 3. They know the flag has been a source of inspiration to generations of Australians in peace and war. 4. They recall that millions of native-born Australians and newcomers to these shores from other parts of the world have become united under its proud symbolism. 5. They are certain that any change to its form or to its acceptance as the sole Australian National Flag will produce division in the Australian community. Your petitioners humbly pray that the members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled: Will ensure that the existing Australian National Flag remains sacrosanct from change and remains the sole national flag. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Groom and Mr Rocher. To the Honourable the Speaker and members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled: The petition of certain citizens of Australia shows that the current discriminatory application of sales tax on confectionery at the rate of 20 per cent is an unfair and unjust burden on this important manufacturing industry and your petitioners therefore pray that confectionery be treated in a similar fashion to all other foods, including snack foods, which are exempt from sales tax. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Humphreys and Mr Rocher. To the Honourable Speaker and members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: That an airport in the north-western region (commonly called Scheyville) imposes disastrous economic, environmental and social costs on our community. An airport would destroy 2,000 households and impose upheaval, noise and pollution on one million people presently unaffected. The cost of an airport in the north-western region is greater than the alternatives, whilst fog and close proximity to R.A.A.F. Base Richmond would make operations impractical. It would destroy the historic village of Pitt Town, environmentally important wetlands, and their unique adherent wildlife. Your petitioners reject these proposals and call for endorsement of the MANS Committee findings. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Cadman. To the Honourable the Speaker and members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned electors of the Commonwealth of Australia respectfully shows: That we, electors of the Commonwealth of Australia, view with extreme concern and express forthwith our complete abhorrence of the relaxation of the former Federal laws concerning censorship classifications to allow publication and importation of hardcore pornography. Therefore we, the undersigned, do fervently request the Federal Government to repeal the 'A.C.T. Classification of Publications Ordinances' as they affect publications and videos. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Donald Cameron. To the Honourable the Speaker and members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully shows that: We hail as a victory for the not-so-silent majority, the decision of the Hawke Federal Government to now conduct an inquiry into the effects of hard core pornography and violence upon people and especially children. We view with deep concern, and deplore the decision of the Government, to allow the sale of this objectionable material to continue and become even more widespread during the period of the inquiry. We request the Federal Government to immediately re-enact the previous laws which banned the entry into Australia and the sale of hard-core pornography and violence in video and publication form. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Donald Cameron. To the Honourable the Speaker and members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully shows: That we sincerely believe that the new Commonwealth censorship procedures for publications and the A.C.T. Classification Ordinance 1983 standards for classification of printed materials, No. 1-February 1984 passed by the Senate last Wednesday, removing from existing Commonwealth law: (a) The power to prevent the importation and sale of hardcore pornography (e.g. X-rated videos); (b) the power to prevent the importation and sale of grossly obscene publications including those associated with blasphemy; (c) the power to require videos for non-commercial use to be registered by the Films Censorship Board before release from customs. Was a step in the wrong direction. It is the view of the religious community on the north side of Brisbane, of which we are a part, that the new laws should be amended immediately to give protection to all Australians, particularly women and children from exploitation . It is believed that those materials that come under category 2 classification should not be allowed to be made available to all, and the knowledge that this kind of material described under classification 2 is now lawful under the new regulations is nauseating. We believe it is the duty of the Government to protect society from those who would incite paedophilia, child pornography, terrorism and extreme cruelty. We believe this protection should be extended to cover items such as are currently listed under category 2. We respectfully request that amending legislation be drafted accordingly. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mrs Darling. To the Honourable the Speaker and members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of concerned people respectfully showeth their desire to stop the commercial exploitation of the kangaroo. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that your Honourable House re-apply the ban on the export of kangaroo products. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Dr Everingham. To the Honourable the Speaker and members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia, respectfully asks: That the Government of Australia be responsible for the staffing and financing of the Australian Cadet Corps as run in Government Schools. The undersigned pray that the Law be changed so as to allow all students who wish to take part, the opportunity to participate, regardless of their financial position. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Hawker. To the Honourable the Speaker and members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth that: 1. Omega by sending low frequency signals, penetrating sea water enables hunter -killer submarines to establish their position and to launch a 'first strike' attack. Omega is also used by AWACs, the flying radar stations, and for other military purposes. 2. Omega is an important U.S. military base and a potential nuclear target. A nuclear attack on Omega would have a disastrous effect on Victoria and Melbourne . 3. Omega and other U.S. bases in Australia endanger, rather than protect us. They add a new unnecessary menace to a nuclear arms race that must be stopped, if we are to survive. Your petitioners pray that Members of the House assembled will close Omega. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Kent. To the Honourable the Speaker and members of the House of Representatives assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: That in November 1978 more than sixty two per cent of the voters of the Australian Capital Territory in a Referendum rejected the introduction of Territorial Government or Local Government in the Australian Capital Territory. That until the findings of the Commonwealth Grants Commission Inquiry into Australian Capital Territory finances have been made public and there has been a Referendum of the voters of the Australian Capital Territory as to their attitude to Territorial or Local Government. Your petitioners most humbly pray that the Government take no further action or legislation in respect of Territorial or Local Government in the Australian Capital Territory. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Milton. To the Honourable the Speaker and members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled: The humble petition of certain citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: That we are patients, colleagues and friends of Dr J. Martinick. That she is apparently being victimized by the Department of Health and the Federal Police regarding itemisation in 1983. That at no time in the last year the Department of Health Liaison officer or investigator had approached Dr Martinick to discuss any apparent problems. That the Federal Police who are not a representative of the Department of Health made the first contact with her. That we are perturbed that the normal procedure of investigating an irregularity was not adhered to in this case and we request that the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled should clarify this situation and amend the Health Insurance Act if necessary to ensure that the Medical Practitioners in future receive a fair and just hearing. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Rocher. To the Honourable the Speaker and members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens respectfully showeth: That the phasing out of the recurrent grant to residential colleges will be detrimental to the ability of disadvantaged and country students to receive a tertiary education. That alternative arrangements to fund needy students will be of no net benefit to those students, owing to the higher costs of administering such arrangements. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the recurrent grant to residential colleges be maintained as the most efficient and equitable means of ensuring that all citizens, irrespective of background, have equal opportunity to receive a tertiary education. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Rocher. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of we, the undersigned citizens of Australia, respectfully showeth: That the introduction of Medicare has not resulted in a cheaper, fairer system of health care as promised by the Federal Government. Rather, it is an expensive, bureaucratic scheme, depersonalising medical services and conducive to medical mediocrity. While recognising the responsibility which exists to assist those in need, we humbly request the Government to review this system which moves towards the nationalisation of Australian medicine. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Ruddock. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of the State of Western Australia showeth that the Attorney-General amended the Customs (Prohibited Imports) Regulations under the Customs Act 1901, to permit the importation of obscene and indecent pornography into Australia. Your petitioners therefore, humbly pray that: the Government will restore the former section 4A of the Customs regulation to prohibit the importation of material that is obscene, indecent or blasphemous. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Dr Charlesworth and Mr Tuckey. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the citizens of Queensland respectfully show: last year, over 3,300 people died on Australian roads; alcohol is a factor in 50% of road deaths; alcohol advertisements do not show the perils of driving after drinking alcohol ; alcohol advertisements are glamorous and increase their effect on teenagers, indicating drinking alcohol as the social pastime; Your petitioners therefore, humbly pray that the Parliament will legislate to ban the advertising of alcohol from commercial television and radio. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mrs Darling. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the citizens of New South Wales respectfully show: last year, over 3,300 people died on Australian roads; alcohol is a factor in 50% of road deaths; alcohol advertisements do not show the perils of driving after drinking alcohol ; alcohol advertisements are glamorous and increase their effect on teenagers, indicating drinking alcohol as the social pastime; Your petitioners therefore, humbly pray that the Parliament will legislate to Ban the Advertising of Alcohol From Commercial Television and Radio. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Maher. To the Honourable the Speaker and members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled: The humble petition of certain elected representatives and officers of Local Authorities in Australia shows considerable concern that the Australian Bicentennial Road Development Program levy, at 2 cents per litre on petrol and diesel, was indexed in the 1984 budget, but that funds raised from indexation of the levy will go into consolidated revenue, and not specifically into expenditure on road funds. It has been estimated that indexation of the levy will raise $491 million over the next six years to 1988-89, of which local Government could have expected to receive $58 million. This is a further denial of funds to local Government, following $13 million lost this year from Personal Income Tax Sharing entitlements. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Government will amend the Australian Bicentennial Road Development Trust Fund Act, so that funds raised through indexation of the levy will be placed in the Trust Fund, and used for much needed road construction work. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Ewen Cameron. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of certain citizens of Queensland, Australia, respectfully showeth that we are totally opposed to any change in the Australian National Flag as declared in the Flags Act (1953). Your petitioners humbly pray that Parliament in its wisdom will take no action to change the Australian National Flag. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Moore. To the Honourable the Speaker and members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of certain citizens of Whyalla South Australia, electors of the Division of Grey, respectfully showeth: That an operation was introduced to Australia for 'Down's Syndrome' children. This operation consists of reducing the size of the tongue of the children which helps them to breathe through their nasal passages, and also enables them to speak much more clearly. There are certain setbacks. 1. the operation can only be performed in Melbourne at present. 2. the operation which in our opinion is a necessity for the well being of these children is not covered by Medicare. 3. the operation costs approximately two thousand five hundred dollars ($2,500). We hope to change all this by producing this petition to federal parliament. We are signing this petition so that 'Down's Syndrome' children do not have to be denied this treatment and can live their lives to the best of their ability. Your petitioners humbly pray. That the Government take steps to make this operation available under Medicare and the appropriate action to ensure that any loss incurred travelling to and from the service centre for such an operation are fully recoverable. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr O'Neil. Petitions received. Mr CADMAN(Mitchell) —Mr Speaker, I know that you will appreciate this motion. I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That this House- (1) for the third time in as many months, condemns the Leader of the House for:- (a) his failure to provide opportunity for the business of private members, (b) the failure to allow the traditional Adjournment Debate, the only regular opportunity for any Member to raise matters of concern, and (c) the curtailment of the Budget debate to the least number of speakers for many years; (2) calls on the Government to face the Parliament and justify its decisions by allowing free parliamentary debate, and (3) condemns the Leader of the House and the Prime Minister for limiting open government by wanting only set-piece controlled discussions of matters of national significance. Mr MILDREN(Ballarat) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That this House- (1) notes- (a) with deep concern the policy of the Opposition as announced yesterday by the honourable Member for Hume, whereby there would be no direct funding to local government for country roads; and (b) that under this policy, councils will be solely dependent upon State Governments and their own ratepayers for road funds; (2) deplores the callous disregard for the needs of rural industry and country people at a time when country roads are in such desperate need for upgrading, and (3) notes with satisfaction the contrasting increase of 60% in road funding under the present Government to local government throughout Australia. Mr COLEMAN(Wentworth) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That this House- (1) notes the arrest in Thailand of the distinguished writer and editor Sulak Sivaraksa on a charge of lese-majeste or defaming the Thai royal family; (2) recognises and respects Thailand's reverence for its royal family, and (3) calls on the Australian Government to convey to the Thai authorities the House's hope and confidence that freedom of speech and of discussion will continue to be protected by Thailand's laws. Mr GEAR(Tangney) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That this House- (1) notes that- (a) in the final year of the Liberal/National Party Government 258 000 Australians were added to the unemployment benefits scheme, and (b) during the first year of the Labor Government 51 500 Australians were removed from the unemployment benefits scheme, and (2) congratulates the Government on pursuing sound economic policies that have produced this amazing turnaround. Mr McGAURAN(Gippsland) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That this House- (1) condemns the Government for its decision to phase out support for students attending residential colleges at universities; (2) notes that this decision will most severely disadvantage students receiving the TEAS allowance, as well as country students; (3) further notes that this decision makes a mockery of the Government's professed commitment to widening access to tertiary education for disadvantaged groups, country people included. Mr O'Keefe-They don't care about the workers. Mr McGAURAN —They absolutely do not care about students, country people or the workers. Mr SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member, with his notice, is already getting close to the border of what is argument and what is motion. I suggest that he complete his notice of motion. Mr McGAURAN —Mr Speaker, I am grateful for your guidance, being a tertiary educated person yourself. I conclude: (4) calls upon the Government to retain the subsidy so that free and open access to tertiary education is not denied to a significant number of disadvantaged and country, young people. Mr LINDSAY(Herbert) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That this House- (1) condemns the former Government's policies which brought about the virtual bankruptcy of the Australian National Line, (2) deplores the confusion among numerous coalition spokesmen for transport matters as to whether the Australian National Line should continue to serve north Queensland ports, and (3) condemns the Queensland Government on its failure to provide subsidies to allow continued Australian National Line shipping services to north Queensland. Mr HODGMAN(Denison) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That this House calls on the Government to give a firm and unequivocal commitment that it will not enter into any negotiations for any joint venture with the Soviet Union, involving the State of Tasmania, without the full knowledge and consent of the Tasmanian State Government. Mr RONALD EDWARDS(Stirling) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That this House- (1) notes that semi-professional sportsmen, in particular footballers and cricketers, are disadvantaged by current tax arrangements applying to their sporting incomes; (2) recognises that in general these people earn high incomes for short periods with relatively high marginal tax rates, and (3) urges the Government to consider the question of tax averaging for sportsmen and women. Mr BLUNT(Richmond) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move : That this House deplores the Government's failure to provide adequate finance for tertiary education, which has forced the withdrawal of $250 000 provisionally allocated to the Northern Rivers College of Advanced Education for funding an Associated Diploma course in Small Business Management. Mr TUCKEY(O'Connor) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That this House- (1) expresses concern that the reference to redundancy in the recent Arbitration Commission decision on job security includes dismissals relating to economic downturn and financial disaster, and (2) in the light of the Government's support for this decision calls on the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations to introduce legislation to at least protect employers who take this decision to save their business and the jobs of those remaining. Mr BRAITHWAITE(Dawson) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That this House- (1) notes that the honourable member for Dawson telegrammed the Minister for Transport on 8 August 1984 requesting the retention of the shipping service to north Queensland due to increased cargo over the past 6 months, and (2) Condemns- (a) the Minister for not replying to that telegram and for taking the easy option in cancelling a service in preference to the other option of reducing the costs of ANL to those of the international competitors, and (b) the honourable members for Leichhardt and Herbert for their willingness to acquiesce so readily to the cancellation of the service instead of representing the interests of their northern constituents. Mr McGauran proceeding to give a notice of motion- Mr SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member knows the rules about using material which should be used in debate rather than in a motion. I suggest that he reword his notice of motion. Mr TUCKEY(O'Connor) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That this House calls on the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations to include the effect of such bans and limitations as the recent million dollar New South Wales Grain Handlers dispute in the highly distorted 'days lost to strike' figures that he presents to Parliament. Mr WELLS(Petrie) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That this House- (1) calls on the State Government of Queensland to submit to Commonwealth audit the books relating to the $23m special Medicare federal grant in order to establish that those funds have not been used for National Party anti-Medicare advertising or other party political purposes, and (2) notes that if Queensland had a Public Accounts Committee, uncertainty on this question would never have arisen. Mr Tuckey having given notice of a motion- Mr SPEAKER —Order! The notice of motion is out of order. Mr McGAURAN(Gippsland) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That this House- (1) condemns the Minister for Transport for his refusal to fund a feasibility study into the proposal by CSIRO for a high speed train linking Sydney, Canberra and Melbourne, and (2) calls on the Government to display the same courage and vision exhibited by Dr Paul Wild, Chairman of CSIRO and fund a feasibility study on his proposal. Mr LUSHER(Hume) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That this House- (1) notes the new-found interest on the part of some Members of the Government in transport matters, but acknowledges that it has developed a bit late, and (2) commends the Opposition for its far-sighted and national interest-based transport policies being espoused by the Shadow Minister for Transport. Mr YOUNG(Port Adelaide-Leader of the House)(10.16) —I move: That, unless otherwise ordered, government business take precedence-- Mr Cadman —Six speakers a side on the Budget. Mr YOUNG —He is like a budgerigar. I move: That, unless otherwise ordered, government business take precedence of general business on each day of sitting until the Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 1984-85, the Appropriation Bill (No. 2) 1984-85 and the Appropriation (Parliamentary Departments) Bill 1984-85 have passed all stages in the House. This will not come as a surprise to members of the Opposition because it is exactly the same motion that they moved for several years. In fact, when I looked for precedents in order to see that the business of the House was conducted speedily and efficiently, I had to look no further than the precedents that had been set by the former Fraser Government under the magnificent House leadership of the Leader of the National Party of Australia (Mr Sinclair) who every year moved this motion. Of course, it will make way, in regard to this year's Budget, for what I see as one of the most magnificent speaking lists I have seen for a long time. I know that the person most immediately affected by this, of course, is the Deputy Leader of the National Party, the honourable member for Gwydir (Mr Hunt), who was to speak during General Business at lunchtime. I know that some of us who have been affected by his speeches in the past are a bit disappointed that we will not hear him-not that he is so intelligent or coherent or that his speeches have so much detail, but he is not bad for a bloke from the bush. I see that he is the first speaker on the appropriation Bills; so we will at least have the opportunity of hearing him once today, and I think that that would be plenty for the appetite of anybody who is listening to the national Parliament. As I say, we will be giving full opportunity for members to speak. There is a very long list of Opposition and Government members who wish to speak in the Budget debate. We will give them every opportunity to speak, not only at this stage but also in the Committee stage on each of the departments, in order to see that a full debate takes place. Mr Cadman —It is a shambles, an absolute shambles. Mr YOUNG —I notice that the name of the honourable member who interjects is not on the list. Mr Cadman —Yes, it is. Mr YOUNG —Is it? Mr SPEAKER —Order! I suggest that the honourable member for Mitchell make sure that he is here for the Budget debate. Mr YOUNG —He is eighteenth on the list. I would have thought that he had done pretty well to be listed eighteenth on the list of Opposition speakers, for all the yelling he does. Hopefully, he will be able to speak. I cannot understand why members of the Opposition have taken 15 minutes this morning in giving idiotic notices of motion in order not to be able to debate the Budget. One would have thought that they would have come here this morning, knowing that we have given over the full day for a debate on the Budget, and taken every opportunity to get into the debate as quickly as possible. Instead of that, we have heard all of those idiotic notices of motion which will never see the light of day but which they want to be able to propagate before the Parliament resumes its normal business. This is the sort of thing they run into. What we have done is no more or no less than what has been done by-- Mr Lusher —Is this Parliament going to sit on? Mr YOUNG —The honourable member should sit in his correct seat. Mr Lusher —When will we get up? Mr YOUNG —We will get up when all of the business of the Parliament is completed . The Leader of the Opposition said to me yesterday: 'When are we getting up, Mick?'. I said: 'What is your hurry?' We have the Budget to debate and lots of Bills to introduce. One would have thought that all these magnificent parliamentarians on the other side of the House would be interested in debating all the issues that come before the Parliament. Mr Hunt —We want him to declare a cut out. Mr YOUNG —A wet cut out! Not only will the Opposition have the opportunity to debate the Budget issues in the House, but also at some time in the not too distant future it will have the opportunity to debate them outside the House. We know that the Opposition will have some nasty things to say about us and in response we might have some nasty things to say about the Budgets the Opposition brought down in the last six or seven years. Mr SINCLAIR(New England-Leader of the National Party of Australia)(10.21) —The Australian Labor Party is running to a precipitate early election. Labor is now intent on shutting up this place as soon as it possibly can. We know that yesterday the full papers on the Black report on an Inquiry into the Circumstances Surrounding the Making of a Customs Declaration were tabled in the House. Mr Black inquired into some activities by the Special Minister of State ( Mr Young), who is also the Leader of the House. We were very interested in reading a few things in the Black report. We will be commenting about them in due course. The Budget itself is also under scrutiny. We heard yesterday in Question Time how the Government had suddenly realised that the community is finally recognising it for what it is, namely, a high tax, high spending government. The Government knew when it introduced Medicare that the ordinary citizen would be affected. Medical standards were reduced. Costs to individuals went up. The Government knows that the people out there are beginning to realise that the Medicare package is a fraud. The Government is now in a position, by introducing this motion, to put into place its run and scurry tactic, a tactic that is designed to take all these people out of the House as soon as possible so that the activities of this House in scrutinising the Government will in some way be precluded. I say 'in some way' because I think it is important that we realise just what the Minister has done today. The list of speakers for the Budget debate is interesting. It includes about half the members of this House. I know how concerned you are, Mr Speaker, that in your responsibilities you exercise your charge to care for the rights of the individual member. Why, the honourable member for Casey (Mr Steedman), I know, looks to you constantly for care and attention to the protection of his rights. So indeed do all of us on both sides of this House. If half the members of the House wish to speak on the Budget and we are told that the Budget debate will be closed tonight, I wonder just how the members of the back bench are to be protected. Of course, one of the other ways in which members of the back bench can be protected is by General Business motions. I think it is very commendable that so many members, not just from the coalition parties, although significantly from them, have been prepared to raise matters of concern to themselves and to their electorates. I commend to every interested member of the Parliament and member of the Australian electorate the notices of motion that appear on our Notice Paper. I begin with one about which we have a motion to consider. What is it about? It is about uranium. Surprise, surprise! It is a motion that the Labor Party obviously wants to run away from. It is a motion which identifies the fact that it has the sort of policy which is totally in conflict with common sense, a policy which says that Roxby Downs uranium is sacred and can be exported, but that uranium from the Northern Territory, Queensland and Western Australia cannot be exported. We wanted to highlight for the benefit of the Australian electorate the fact that this Government has a uranium export policy which is anomalous and discriminatory and which shows direct political prejudice in favour of that hard pressed Labor Government in South Australia. I would think that even the honourable member for Casey-- Mr Peacock —The honourable member for Casey agrees with that. Mr SINCLAIR —How true it is! My colleague, the Leader of the Opposition, pointed out that he was sure that the honourable member for Casey would be delighted to speak on that motion. I think it is very unfortunate that the Leader of the House, in failing to care for the rights and privileges of individual back benchers, fails to give even his colleague the opportunity to speak. I am sure that if the Special Minister of State consulted with the Minister for Territories and Local Government (Mr Uren) he would find that he would love to tell this House what he feels about this Government's uranium policy. Perhaps the Minister for Defence Support (Mr Howe) also would be delighted to speak on uranium. Mr Milton —Mr Speaker, I take a point of order. I draw your attention to the fact that by talking about notices of motion the Leader of the National Party of Australia is attempting to go into the whole debate on every notice of motion. It must be out of order, Mr Speaker. Mr SPEAKER —Order! The Leader of the National Party is within the Standing Orders. If the honourable member reads the motion he will see that it is a matter of Government Business taking precedence of General Business. Mr SINCLAIR —I am delighted that the honourable member for La Trobe has raised the matter because, no doubt, he also objects to the Government's uranium policy . That is what this is all about. This Government is running scared. That is why it is going to the polls. It does not have to go to the electorate to elect half the number of senators to take up office on 1 July next year until at least late April or perhaps early May of next year. So what is the Government doing? It is trying to avoid debate on uranium, and that of course is the product of today's debate. I think it is of some interest that we are not just talking about a debate on uranium. Do you know, Mr Speaker, that on the Notice Paper today we have 720 notices of motion? Those 720 notices of motion cover taxation, migration, roads, decentralisation, Medicare-- Mr Hunt —Unemployment, youth. Mr SINCLAIR —Unemployment, social welfare, youth, rights of women. They cover every known activity within Australia. Why does this Government want to call off General Business? It is because it is running scared. These notices of motion are important. Seven hundred and twenty of them will fail to see the light of day because the Special Minister of State does not want to see them debated in this place, where they should be debated. But it is not just 720 notices of motion which are involved. We all know that within our Standing Orders we have two separate types of notices of motion. I commend to honourable members a look at the notices that are given for special sitting days. We have, as I have mentioned, the notice of motion relating to uranium which has been given by my colleague the Deputy Leader of the National Party, the honourable member for Gwydir (Mr Hunt), and which condemns the Government for its illogical and damaging policies on the mining and export of Australian uranium. It identifies: . . . possible retaliatory actions by the French Government and other European Economic Community nations such as the dumping of subsidised surplus agricultural products into Australia's Asian/Pacific Basin and Middle East markets. That is a very important issue. If we have a look at the next notice of motion, it states in part: (1) expresses its grave concern for the welfare and safety of West Papuan refugee William Mathew Mayer . . . We know that yesterday the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (Mr West) spoke on this issue. I would have thought that, instead of abusing Question Time as he tends to do, it would have been appropriate for him to come into the House and tell us the position of his Government in regard to our concern that Australia's relationship with Indonesia has run down under this Labor Administration. It would have been proper for the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs to come in here and tell us what he is doing about his migration policy which has been the genesis of so much concern. Why, we even had the Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr Hayden), in Question Time the other day, talking about the Government's migration policy, trying to reintroduce the concerns in the electorate that we thought had properly been laid to rest. So that notice of motion would have been an issue that properly would have been debated in this place if the Government were not running scared. We have another notice of motion which is most interesting. It states in part: (1) rejects the appropriateness of Mr Temby re-examining the evidence given to the Senate Select Committee on the Conduct of a Judge. That is a matter that I have been reading about this morning. Mr Speaker, I think it is important that we realise that this House will apparently be denied the opportunity to talk on a substantive motion about a matter which is the responsibility of the Parliament only, to wit the propriety of actions of a member of the High Court Bench. That question of propriety is specifically included in the notice of motion that has been put to this House by the honourable member for Mitchell (Mr Cadman), and it is one of those notices of motion which should be considered, were time permitted by the Government. Then we have the question of tax. The honourable member for Bradfield (Mr Connolly) gave notice of a motion relating to tax deductibility to be given to Australians to invest in companies established to purchase or lease areas of environmental significance. We know that this Government is not concerned with the environment. We know that it rejected all those in the environmental movement who looked to the Australian Labor Party in some way to try to solve the problems of the environment that supposedly so beset the previous coalition Government. What arrant nonsense! The Government is not genuine in its practice or in its rhetoric. Sadly this Government in moving this motion is denying us even the chance of considering what sorts of proper tax incentives might be introduced to encourage proper environmental and conservation measures on the part of concerned members of the manufacturing and private sector around Australia. There are 720 of those motions plus the motions that are identified for special sitting days, which account for another 20 or more. It is important that honourable members realise that of course we have an alternative opportunity, in the Budget. We appreciate the generosity of the Special Minister of State. He has told us that we will have time to debate all the issues within the Budget. The only thing is that he has also foreshadowed that the debate will close tonight. So we are going to have one of the shortest debates on the Estimates that we have had for a long while and we will be precluded altogether from talking at all on all these matters. I think that that is very sad. There is another matter that I wish to raise relating to the Standing Orders. This also concerns me. When earlier this year a recommendation on the new Sessional Orders was introduced into this Parliament, we were told that we would sit through lunch on Thursdays. On our side of the House we have always attended to our parliamentary duties and we have been quite prepared to concern ourselves with the way in which Parliament should be conducted and to maximise the time available for debate. But what is happening now is that we are told that we will have a Budget debate through the lunch hour. Frankly I do not know whether that is fair on the members who sit at the table, on the Hansard staff who service us , on your staff, Mr Speaker, for you have to maintain the House. I believe that it is totally inappropriate for a matter of such sensitivity as the Budget to be conducted over the lunch hour. It is not just a matter of the Government running away from talking about these General Business motions, it is a matter of its having changed the nature-- Mr Young —Would you like to have uranium for lunch? Mr SINCLAIR —We would far prefer to have uranium for lunch. We would be delighted to have yellowcake with it. It would be very important if we had an opportunity here not just to see the lunch hour set aside to talk about the Budget but also to talk about all those General Business items. It is important that we understand what the Government is about. It is about trying to run to the polls early. It is about trying to hide proper scrutiny of matters that are of concern to the Australian electorate. It is about stifling debate on uranium and stifling debate on the Budget and trying to run away from properly allowing members of this House to exercise their responsibilities, the parliamentarians' responsibilities, and Parliament's responsibilities for scrutinising the actions of the Executive. This Executive really bears so much scrutiny. In so many areas it is showing a tendency to move away from the charge which the Australian electorate believes it gave the Government. It is very important that people out there in the community understand this: All the matters that have taken place in New South Wales-Marmaduke, the Premier, and whatever-are all very much linked to the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) and the Treasurer (Mr Keating). These notices of motion, which this motion seeks to preclude, are matters that are designed to give us, as members of Parliament, an opportunity to scrutinise them in public. The Opposition cannot accept that it is appropriate in this instance for this motion to be supported. Therefore, we will be opposing the motion very strongly and very vehemently, as indeed we will the premature closing of the Budget debate tonight. Question put: That the motion (Mr Young's) be agreed to. The House divided. (Mr Speaker-Hon. Harry Jenkins) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 66 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 43 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 23 —— Baldwin, P. J. Jacobi, R.Beddall, D. P. Jones, BarryBilney, G. N. Keating, P. J.Blanchard, C. A. Kelly, R. J.Blewett, N. Kent, L.Bowen, Lionel Keogh, L. J.Brown, John Kerin, J. C.Brown, Robert Klugman, R. E.Brumby, J. M. Lindsay, E. J.Campbell, G. McHugh, J.Charles, D. E. McLeay, LeoCharlesworth, R. I. Maher, M. J.Child, J. Mayer, H.Cohen, B. Mildren, J. B.Cross, M. D. Milton, P.Cunningham, B. T. (Teller) Morris, AllanDarling, E. E. Morris, PeterDawkins, J. S. Morrison, W. L.Duffy, M. J. Mountford, J. G.Edwards, Ronald O'Neil, L. R. T.Everingham, D. N. Punch, G. F.Fatin, W. F. Saunderson, J.Free, R. V. Scholes, G. G. D.Gayler, J. Scott, J. L.Gear, G. Simmons, D. W.Gorman, R. N. J. Snow, J. H.Griffiths, A. G. Steedman, A. P.Hand, G. L. Tickner, R. E.Holding, A. C. Uren, T.Hollis, C. Wells, D. McM.Howe, B. L. West, S. J.Humphreys, B. C. (Teller) Willis, R.Hurford, C. J. Young, M. J. Adermann, A. E. Hodgman, W. M.Aldred, K. J. Howard, J. W.Andrew, J. N. Hunt, R. J. D.Blunt, C. W. Lloyd, B.Braithwaite, R. A. Lusher, S. A.Burr, M. A. McArthur, F. S.Cadman, A. G. McGauran, P. J.Cameron, Donald MacKellar, M. J. R.Cameron, Ewen (Teller) McVeigh, D. T.Cameron, Ian Macphee, I. M.Carlton, J. J. Millar, P. C.Coleman, W. P. Moore, J. C.Connolly, D. M. O'Keefe, F. L.Cowan, D. B. Porter, J. R.Drummond, P. H. Rocher, A. C.Edwards, Harry Ruddock, P. M.Fife, W. C. Sinclair, I. McC.Fisher, P. S. Spender, J. M.Goodluck, B. J. Tuckey, C. W.Hall, Steele White, P. N. D.Hawker, D. P. M. Wilson, I. B. C.Hicks, N. J. (Teller) Question so resolved in the affirmative. (Budget Debate) Debate resumed from 24 August, on motion by Mr Keating: That the Bill be now read a second time. Mr HUNT(Gwydir)(10.40) —There are five specific issues to which I wish to address my concern in this debate on Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 1984-85, and they are: The evergrowing burden of public expenditure; the mounting burden of public debt and foreign debt; the crisis looming in agriculture; and our declining competitiveness in trade. This Budget will exacerbate the growing concern in all these important areas. This Budget is an election Budget and nothing more. It has two objectives: To give some credibility to the prices and incomes accord and to win the election at the end of the year. It is an expedient Budget, it is a tricky Budget. It extends tax cuts of up to $7.60 a week from 1 November to pay back some of the additional taxation that the Hawke Government has ripped off the average taxpayer since it came to office. It has given tax cuts of up to $7.60 a week but has allowed for a 23 per cent increase in income tax revenue during the year. In fact there will be an overall 10.5 per cent increase in real terms in taxation revenue. Mr Goodluck —Shame. Mr HUNT —It is a shame. The five-step income tax scale will ensure that a large percentage of wage earners will pay either 46c or 48c in the dollar. The rapid growth in the size of government expenditure this year will mean that it will reach 31 per cent of the gross domestic product. Mr Hodgman —Disgraceful. Mr HUNT —It is disgraceful. This expenditure has to be paid for one way or another. Let no one believe that the easiest way is simply to leave the Budget in deficit. This is the hardest and most costly way for the Australian people in the longer term. Not only is the tax take the highest on record but we face a residual problem of having to pay for the Budget deficit by borrowing money at high interest rates. In the first two Budgets the Hawke Labor Government increased its public expenditure by 7 per cent in real terms-that is after deducting inflation-compared to a 2 per cent increase in real terms throughout the seven years of the Fraser Government. The Government has planned for a 10 per cent growth in the Public Service in its first two years compared to a one per cent growth in the seven years of the Fraser Government. No matter how much the Treasurer (Mr Keating) tries to fiddle those figures, he cannot get away from that fact. The Government is living beyond its means. It is ignoring the capacity of the nation to pay the price. It is leaving a legacy of mounting public debt to future generations-to our kids and to their kids, and to hell with their future. It is living for the moment-the best political outcome at the end of this year-so that it can get out and try to maximise this Budget for political and election purposes. This year's excessive Budget deficit will ensure continuing high interest rates , reducing profit levels in the export industries and it will maintain a higher exchange rate. The two huge Budget deficits of the Hawke Government will continue to add to Australia's growing debt burden. Already interest and capital repayments to overseas interests represent 35 per cent of the annual value of exports. This compares to 18 per cent in 1981-82 and 10 per cent in the 1970s. So since the 1970s we have seen interest and capital repayments increase from 10 per cent to 35 per cent of the annual value of our exports. It is clear that as a nation we are borrowing beyond our capacity adequately to service long term repayments. A principal cause of high interest rates is the demand for borrowed funds by the public and government sector. The total public sector borrowing requirements are approaching $15 billion compared with $6 billion in 1981-82. The huge rises in the Hawke Government's spending will result in a lift in the Government's total interest bill of $9.2 billion. Sixty four cents-honourable members should look at a dollar note and just remember this-of every dollar governments in Australia borrow will go to meeting the mounting interest bill. Indeed, public debt now represents nearly 41 per cent of the gross domestic product. The overall public debt, which includes the accumulation of all previous unpaid public borrowings, has grown from $14 billion in 1970 to over $ 75 billion in 1984. It is now estimated that the public debt will go to beyond $ 105 billion by 1985-86, even if the Government does not borrow another cent. Australia's gross foreign debt in 1980-81 represented 11.2 per cent of GDP. Yet by June 1984 it had nearly doubled to 21.6 per cent. The National Institute of Economic and Industry Research has also released a report that claims Australia' s foreign debt has reached a level which could put Australia's long term economic stability at risk. The report shows that the interest paid on foreign debt has risen from 4.9 per cent in 1979-80 to 16.3 per cent in 1983-84. Put another way, in 1979-80 we owed 4.6 per cent of our GDP to foreigners but in 1983-84 we owed 25.6 per cent. Mr Goodluck —Disgraceful. Mr HUNT —It is disgraceful and it is very dangerous. Our declining trade performance has been ignored by this Government. The failure to increase in real terms the Department of Trade's appropriation in this year's Budget is nothing less than tragic. This foreign debt problem would not be as serious if Australia had buoyant trade balances to help meet the repayments. It is no good Ross Gittins or anybody else writing in the Sydney Morning Herald and comparing the position today with that of, say, 10 years ago because our trade situation at present is very critical and very serious indeed. We are facing the most severe competition in our traditional markets that we have ever faced. The world surplus of oil supplies has reduced our capacity to exploit our vast energy resources and our declining competitiveness is threatening our agricultural, mining and manufacturing industries. In spite of our record wheat crop last year we will finish with a small trade surplus of less than $300m-the first in five years. As I said, this is in spite of a record wheat crop that I doubt we will ever see the like of in the next decade. However, with the high cost of invisibles we will have a current account deficit of $6,697m, which is expected to rise to $8 billion this financial year. Mr O'Keefe —And a poor wheat crop this year too. Mr HUNT —Indeed there will be. It seems incredible that the Government should have increased the funds available for the export market development grants scheme by only $10m when all eligible claims for 1983-84 will increase by $23m over last year's appropriation. Australia must increase its export orientation. Unless we improve on our trade performance we will face the same problems as New Zealand, South America and the Third World countries. The rural industries account for nearly half of Australia 's export income. The Bureau of Agricultural Economics has estimated that our competitiveness in rural export industries declined by 8 per cent in the last 12 months to 30 June 1984. Excessive Budget deficits, with consequent huge borrowings, mounting public debt and high interest rates, will continue to erode the competitiveness of our export industries. Australia's export industries are facing a crisis, with high internal costs, low profit margins and a declining ability to compete for markets. Responsible macroeconomic policy and a flexible wages policy are essential if Australia is to retain strong and competitive export industries- rural, mining and manufacturing. The agricultural industries are worse off than other industries in respect of profitability. The five-year average profitability for manufacturing, the wholesale trade, retail services and mining has ranged between 9.2 per cent and 12.9 per cent. But the average for agricultural industries is just 2 per cent return on capital. Indeed, in the severe drought of 1982-83 the rate of return, including real capital appreciation, was minus 9.5 per cent. Even following the drought breaking rains last year, it rose to only a modest 1.5 per cent. Mr Braithwaite —And the drought breaks only once. Mr HUNT —It breaks only once. The total capital investment in Australian primary industry is estimated at $75 billion. A return of 1.5 per cent on capital, even in a rural recovery, is not adequate to encourage the degree of investment needed to maintain efficient production in order to improve productivity. The sugar industry is in dire difficulties. In the wheat industry, unless one gets 24 bushels to the acre one does not break even. In the sheep industry today people are practically not making a profit in respect of fat lamb production or anything else. A new poor is emerging in the Australian scene and those people are out in the rural areas of Australia. The total capital investment in the mining industry is $25 billion. Last year its estimated return was only 5 per cent. This is inadequate to ensure that our mining industry is able to compete in the long term for overseas markets. This pre-election Budget, with its further huge Budget deficit, will damage the important agricultural industries and the mining industries already hit by declining competitiveness. The resulting high interest rates, among the highest real interest rates in the world, will also place upward pressure on the trade weighted exchange rates. Our high interest rates are fuelling inflation which continues to run in excess of the inflation rates of our major trading partners of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. The National Farmers Federation pointed out recently: The differential in the rate of increase in costs reduces the ability of Australian industries to compete on world markets at current prices. The reduced export opportunities are reflected in reduced opportunities for Australian producers of exports and related industries. So, while the cost of a high deficit might not be immediately apparent, ultimately it disadvantages every Australian by reducing the capacity of our export industries to maintain existing markets and create new ones. The Federation explained in its submission in pre-Budget discussions that Australian producers have been unable to offset adverse cost differentials by securing higher product prices. In addition, the real exchange rate increased by about 8 per cent between the June and December quarters of 1983. Of course, it appreciated by a further 3.5 per cent in the March quarter. There has been a significant improvement since then but on a trade weighted basis it has not helped a great number of our agricultural export industries. We cannot hope to sustain Budget deficits three times the size of the average deficit for the seven years to 1982-83 without jeopardising our position on world markets and in turn reducing real economic growth at home. The Government has failed to take responsible fiscal and monetary decisions. It has opted for a tricky pre-election Budget strategy. The dismissal in a summary manner by the Treasurer, in his Budget Speech, of the great primary industries is typical of Labor's concern for rural Australia. One would would have thought that the Treasurer would realise the importance of agricultural Australia to the Australian economy and its people. The contribution of the rural industries to the economic recovery, following one of the longest droughts this century, is well known. Although the farm product represents a small share of the gross domestic product, it makes a substantial contribution towards economic activity in this country. The Treasurer did not miss the rural sector last year in the May and August Budgets when the bulk of the expenditure cuts came from rural Australia. The gutting of the tax advantages and the income equalisation deposits-- Mr Braithwaite —Absolutely neutralised them. Mr HUNT —Absolutely. The gutting of the tax advantages and the income equalisation deposits and the emasculation of the tax averaging system and the indexation of the fuel excises are just a few of the slugs that have been thrown at the farmers. The introduction of savage increases in export inspection charges, which were increased by as much as 200 per cent, remains a real slug to these export industries. The 42 per cent cut in rural adjustment assistance this year is a further example of this Government's regard for rural Australia. The increase of 150 per cent in prescribed minimum values for sheep, cattle and horses, and 700 per cent for pigs, will hit very hard indeed livestock breeders using the cost basis for valuation. Labor's belated fulfilment of a promise to increase funds for wool promotion and soil conservation are mere sops to the rural sector, yet for every rural dollar produced a further $2 is generated. The 69.8 per cent increase in the gross farm product in the December quarter last year was the shot in the arm that commenced a national economic turnaround earlier this year. It helped reduce the growing level of unemployment. Indeed, for every $100m our agricultural export industries earn, over 5,000 additional jobs are provided. With indirect employment effects the export industries account for 11.4 per cent of total employment. Agriculture has traditionally provided between 40 and 50 per cent of all our export earnings. However, there are clear signs that the Hawke Government could not give a damn about rural Australia and the farmers. It is more concerned with satisfying the wants of the Australian Council of Trade Unions. The Hawke Labor Government has had its chance. It has failed rural Australia. It has carried on from where the Whitlam Labor Government left off. It has ignored the facts that the terms of trade of farmers will deteriorate by 5 per cent in the current financial year; rural unemployment is two and a half times the average in Australia; farm incomes will fall 30 per cent this financial year ; rural indebtedness has reached $5.47 billion, or more than $32,000 for every Australian farm; and the cost of production has risen, making grain production increasingly unprofitable. Meat and beef markets have been ignored and neglected by a lethargic and nonchalant Minister for Trade (Mr Lionel Bowen) who has not even visited our largest trading partner this year, namely, Japan. Agricultural and mining industries provide more than 70 per cent of our export income. When one hits those sectors, one ultimately hits all Australians. This Government has ignored that. It has bequeathed a staggering budgetary problem to whichever party is elected to government at the next election. If Labor is elected it will immediately restructure the taxation system for one purpose only, that is, to give greater income tax cuts to the ACTU as part of the prices and incomes accord. Capital taxation is high on the Government's agenda of priorities. It will not be a capital gains tax because that will not yield enough revenue. It will be a capital taxation which will be applied as a percentage levy on the assessed value of income earning assets. This fear was highlighted recently by reported statements of the honourable member for Melbourne, Mr Gerry Hand. He made no secret of what he and his Party intend to do about capital taxation after this next election. It is there for people to read and to see. His views have been supported at various times by the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) in another capacity and by at least seven other Ministers. However, a capital tax or a wealth tax would be the last straw. It would cripple our farm industries, capital intensive as they are, and with very low yields to capital. Capital taxation would accelerate the indebtedness of farm industries, small businesses and the manufacturing and mining industries, reducing their capacity to invest, improve their productivity and compete on world markets. Capital taxation would destroy the capital structure of our private enterprise system in its current condition. It would accelerate the socialisation of the means of production. There is no room for any gung-ho approach by the Hawke Labor Government to our agricultural, mining and manufacturing industries. Yet this is the treatment they have received. I believe that Australia is on the brink of a very serious economic problem. I believe that the honeymoon is over for most Australians, and they need to know it. The honeymoon is over for the farm industries. At the rate this Government is going, it will not be long before it will be over for most Australians. Mr PETER MORRIS(Shortland-Minister for Transport)(11.01) —Listening to the Deputy Leader of the National Party, the honourable member for Gwydir (Mr Hunt), I was reminded that the National Party of Australia has learnt nothing and has forgotten nothing. His speech contained the same old rhetoric. Having listened to the protestations of the Deputy Leader of the National Party, I must remind the House that as the Minister for Transport in the Fraser Government he was one of the architects of the economic disaster that that Government created in this nation. He was a Minister in the Government that inflicted Australia with record unemployment, record interest rates, record taxation and record long term inflation. Now he seeks to blame this Government for the failures, the incompetence and the mismanagement of the Government of which he was a part. He reverted to true National Party form, that is, to divide, to confront, to set Australian against Australian, employee against employer and country dweller against town dweller, in an attempt to divide and conquer. Australia has turned away from those kinds of tactics. Last year the vast majority of Australians threw out that kind of strategy, the National Party strategy, and opted for the policies and views put forward by this Government, that is, the policy of bringing together Australians, consulting, working together, understanding the other person's point of view, and making this economy in this great country work better for all Australians. In speaking to the second Keating Budget, I want to refer to the strength in recovery that has produced a bright outlook for 1984-85. Economic activity will grow at a fast rate, creating significant new employment opportunities. Inflation has fallen to a level broadly in line with that of our major trading partners. Interest rates are on the way down. It is only 18 months since the Australian Labor Party came to power, yet in that short time there has been a complete economic turnaround. In my remarks I want to concentrate more on the role which transport plays in ensuring the maintenance of economic growth and the living standards of every Australian. The importance of transport to the national economy can be illustrated by highlighting a few brief facts. It has been estimated that at least $1 in every $7 spent in the economy is on transport related activities, that is, infrastructure, fares, cars or freight. For the individual consumer, around $14 of every $100 spent is on fares and the purchase and operation of motor vehicles . By comparison, food accounts for $17 and housing for $18. Such a high level of expenditure on transport is not surprising in a country such as Australia. It is situated far from its international markets and has a small, widely dispersed population. Clearly, the Australian economy will not maximise its performance unless its transport sector is operating efficiently and effectively. The achievement of this vital objective has been my principal task as Minister for Transport. Australia is a great trading nation. Last financial year our exports accounted for 15 per cent of gross domestic product, or some $28,000m. The nation's prosperity and much of its work force depend on this export performance. We must be able to supply overseas consumers with our products when they are required, reliably and as cheaply as possible. To this end, I have devoted much time and effort to improving the operation of our shipping industry. The Australian National Line has been given a capital injection to put it on a sound financial footing. It has been given new top management and a new legislative charter which gives it greater freedom and flexibility to operate commercially. There have been extensive, ongoing consultations with sea-going unions, aimed at developing new shipboard practices to promote greater productivity and efficiency. This has not been an easy process but progress has been made and will continue to be made. Australian flag and Australian manned ships are becoming more productive and competitive by international standards. This process has been aided by new legislation which gives Australian shipowners tax benefits comparable with those available to their counterparts overseas. As a consequence of this approach, the Broken Hill Proprietary Co. Ltd has placed orders for the construction of three bulk carriers for the coal trade with Japan and Korea. That business is new business for this nation. We did not have the transportation of coal business previously. It would not have been gained without the goodwill that has been built up between the sea-going unions, government and industry and the availability of special taxation allowances for Australian shipping. These initiatives mean that Australian shipping now faces a brighter future. It has the prospect of becoming a self-sufficient, commercially viable industry competing on its own merits in international trades. If this enhanced efficiency is achieved, the nation as a whole will benefit. Exporters will gain from reduced costs. Local shipping operations will be more competitive . Importers will also be better off. Mr Hunt —The Crawford report. Mr PETER MORRIS —I acknowledge the interjection of the honourable member. He played a role in the earlier stages in the area of taxation allowances. We had a bipartisan view about it. I am happy to acknowledge his positive participation in that area. Although the primary focus of policy is on improving export competitiveness, it should not be forgotten that importing plays an important role in the economy. Imports expand the range and diversity of products available to Australian consumers. Imported plant and technologies support employment in a wide range of Australian industries. Shipping is but one link in the Australian transport system. Shore based transport operations are also important, especially as they contribute significantly to trading costs. In the European wool trades, for example, shore based transport costs at both ends of the sea link can be as high as 70 per cent of total door to door costs. For many other export commodities it is up to 50 per cent. It is vital that our land based transport links also be up to the mark and operating at peak efficiency. It is for this reason that I sponsored a seminar early in July that focused on shore based shipping costs. A wide cross- section of Australian transport interests participated, including leaders and representatives of the stevedoring industry, port authorities, unions, shippers, shipowners and land transport operators, as well as government officials. A broad range of issues was discussed in an informed, open and frank way. Yesterday afternoon I was pleased to announce the establishment of an industry task force, headed by the Managing Director of Mayne Nickless Ltd, Mr Ian Webber , to examine the concerns which were expressed at the seminar and to propose practical measures to improve the general economic and operational efficiency of shore based transport and handling. The railways also have an important role to play in the overall Australian transport system and our export performance. There are five separate rail systems in this country-a situation that has produced its own legacy of fragmentation and incompatibility, both in terms of equipment and practices. Direct Federal involvement has been much less in this area than in the shipping industry; nonetheless, Federal initiatives have produced significant advances. I have concentrated on encouraging a co-operative approach in this industry. There are significant operational economies to be gained from each of the different systems working together, in harness, not against each other. If the railways are to maintain their rightful place in Australia's transport system, it will be necessary to revitalise the industry and to restructure its operations to improve its efficiency. As a step in this direction I have actively promoted the Rail Industry Council, in association with the Australian Council of Trade Unions, the rail system managements and State governments. The Rail Industry Council is intended to be a formal consultative mechanism to bring rail unions, government and rail management together on a national basis. This proposal will be further considered at the next meeting of the Australian Transport Advisory Council. The operations of the Federal system, Australian National, have been closely scrutinised. With the implementation of the Australian National Railways Commission Act 1984, Australian National is expected to operate commercially. There have been continuing regular consultations with Federal and State rail union representatives aimed at developing modern work practices. Investment is being made in new rolling stock and improving the track system, particularly in Tasmania where the rail system has been neglected for so long. Australian National is being revitalised and made ready to take its place in a modern, efficient, Australian rail system. Finally, there is the road freight industry. As with railways, there are tasks in which road transport has a natural advantage. Over the years there have been accusations that the road freight industry has engaged in unfair and costly competition with the railways to the ultimate detriment of the Australian transport user. In addition, the industry has faced a number of problems exacerbated by the recession, including an oversupply of capacity and poor financial prospects for many operators. To open up the issue so that the facts can be known and be properly aired for the first time, the Government established last September the National Road Freight Industry Inquiry under the chairmanship of Mr Tom May. That inquiry reported to me last week. Its report is now with the printers and I expect to be able to release that report in about a fortnight's time. Its report will be an important element in the development of an Australia-wide transport strategy aimed at striking an efficient balance between the land transport forms, whether they be rail or road. So far I have focused on the people side of transport. This is an important aspect of an industry which employs large numbers of people throughout our nation. By tapping this human resource through co-operation and consultation among employers, unions, users and government, improvements have been made in developing more efficient transport systems at a low budgetary cost. Much remains yet to be gained from this approach. Efficient transport systems also need infrastructure. I will spend the remaining time available to me to outline briefly the major capital expenditures our Government has included in the transport budget. Our Government will provide $1,245m under its roads funding programs this financial year. This amount represents an increase of 46 per cent on the level of Federal expenditure for roads provided in the last Fraser Budget. These funds will be spent on a variety of roads-maintaining and upgrading the national highway system, urban and rural arterial roads and local roads. I stress that better roads mean less wear and tear on vehicles, lower operating costs for motorists, businesses and industry, shorter travelling times and savings in fuel . The benefits that will flow from the expenditure on roads will be widespread. Road construction and maintenance also create jobs directly. The experience of Federal and State road authorities is that every $1m spent creates about 40 jobs in the road construction and associated industries. On that basis, Federal spending in 1984-85 on roads can be expected to support 20,000 jobs directly and a further 30,000 jobs indirectly. In addition to those benefits, expenditure on roads and improved roads has road safety spin-offs. Current road casualty rates are a horrifying social problem. In addition to the human tragedy and trauma caused by the carnage on the roads, there are very real economic costs involved. It has been estimated conservatively that road deaths and injuries cost this nation some $3,000m a year. Mr Hunt —Tragic. Mr PETER MORRIS —I acknowledge that it is a tragic situation. On average each fatal road crash costs the community $300,000. By improving our roads we reduce one of the major causes of road crashes and we save the economy resources that can be used productively to improve our living standards. Road improvements alone will not, however, solve the problem of the road toll. Road user behaviour is a major factor that must also be addressed. Recognising this, our Government has allocated $2.1m for road safety promotion and research programs in 1984-85. A major initiative that will occur later this year is the National Road Safety Symposium, the first in more than a decade. This will allow interested persons and experts to focus on and define national road safety priorities. Other major expenditure provided for in the Budget is a $26m grant to the Tasmanian Government for the purchase and modification of the Nils Holgersson to replace the present Bass Strait ferry, the Empress of Australia. This new ferry will double the passenger carrying capacity across the Bass Strait and will provide a major boost to the Tasmanian tourist industry. In addition to that, a sum of $29m is being provided for the continuation of the Tasmanian freight equalisation scheme while it is currently under investigation by the Inter-State Commission. I deplore the attitude of some members of the National Party of Australia in attacking the provision of that $26m to Tasmania for the replacement of the Empress of Australia ferry and in attacking the provision of funds for cargoes across the Bass Strait under the Tasmanian freight equalisation scheme. I note that the Federal Liberal Party members from Tasmania have made no response to the National Party's attack. Finally, I mention the $4.3m being provided for the construction of navigation aids marking Hydrographer's Passage. This is a new deep draught shipping channel through the Great Barrier Reef north-east of Mackay. The completion of this passage in 1985 will provide a more direct route for shipping through the reef. This is expected to reduce the cost of transporting Queensland coal to world markets by $7m a year and will help make that industry more competitive on world markets. It is an example of how a modest government transport expenditure can produce real economic benefits for an Australian industry. I have briefly outlined the Federal transport initiatives for the past 18 months. The allocation of $1.5 billion for transport in the 1984-85 Budget consolidates these initiatives and provides for further advances. The result will be a more efficient and more effective national transport system. This will mean lower costs and greater competitive opportunities for our industries both at home and abroad. With this will come economic development and growth, new jobs and rising living standards. I reiterate that under this Government transport is making a positive contribution to sustained economic recovery. I commend the Budget to honourable members. Mr ROCHER(Curtin)(11.17) —This Hawke socialist Government will go down as a government of record; that is, a government of record spending, record taxation, record deficits, record borrowings, as well as the all-time record for the greatest number of election promises broken over the shortest imaginable period. If the Guinness Book of Records does not have it in mind to list the cynicism of the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) towards election promises, it will miss a golden opportunity to inform its Australian clientele of the abysmal, record shattering performance of the Hawke Government. How about this for a sampling of promises broken in just 18 months under the present Government? Although the list is far from complete, it highlights the duplicity of the Prime Minister. There was the promise on attaining office-that is, immediately after 5 March 1983-to grant tax deductions to six million Australians. That promise was just as immediately broken. There was a promise that there would be no change to taxes on lump sum superannuation payments. That promise has been broken. The promise to maintain the housing loan interest rebate-broken. The promise to keep the health insurance rebate until the introduction of Medicare-broken. The promise to not means test pensions for those aged over 70-broken. The promise to not introduce an assets test on pensions-broken. The promise to not take money out of pensioners' cheques- blatantly broken. The promise to abolish the chemist prescription declaration form-broken. The promise to increase spouse and sole parent rebate-broken. The promise to maintain drought relief to help rural recovery-broken. The promise to reduce the price of petrol by 3c a litre-broken. The promise to reduce charges for private patients in public hospitals by $60 a day-broken. The promise that there would be no further job losses in the steel industry-broken. The promise that the level of real funding for local government would be maintained-broken. The promise that the tax threshold for ordinary income earners would be increased to $5,000-broken. Then, given the contrived expectations today about an early election there was the daddy of them all-the Prime Minister's solemn undertaking, delivered no doubt while smiling with the corners of his mouth pointing to the ground and eyes unseeing and upturned into his Louis XIV bouffant hairstyle, that his Government would serve a full term of three years. The breaking of that promise was foreshadowed less than one year after he took office. That is just a grab bag sample of broken promises; it is by no means complete. There is a host of other broken promises and undertakings not kept, at least 123 in all at the last count. All this was from a Prime Minister whose self-professed integrity he believes should be beyond question. Let there be no doubt that the Prime Minister's integrity is only self-professed and has no basis in fact. Despite well and truly broken promises which resulted in means testing of over 70s pensions and assets testing of pensions, effectively meaning that the Government has taken or will take money out of pensioners' cheques, we witnessed in this Budget the cruel and cynical attempt by the Prime Minister, lacking in any perceivable integrity, to buy back the votes of pensioners with a miserable $2.50 a week. They will not accept that as the bribe it was intended to be. Not only will that pittance not buy much for the Government, it will not go any way at all towards the need the Prime Minister feels to be loved at large for his non-existent integrity. Australia's pensioners know only too well that the consumer price index is not a measure of the real inflation, of inflation as they experience it. They know that the CPI does not measure or reflect in any way increases in their costs of living. We could ask the pensioners or any housewife in Australia whether an extra $2.50 a week would cover the additional weekly cost of food in their supermarkets and shopping centres, even after taking into account CPI increments . As the Prime Minister does not intend to honour his promise to see out a full parliamentary term, it is surely not too much for pensioners to expect him to honour his promise to increase pensions to 25 per cent of average weekly earnings during the life of this Parliament. That was a reasonable expectation, but it will not be realised. Since its election in March 1983, the Hawke Government has been more preoccupied with creating illusions than with creating good government. This year's Budget is but the latest attempt to distract less than well-informed Australians from the Government's real lack of economic skill and ability as well as from the direction to be taken at the behest of left wing ideologues who effectively call the shots. Any change to radicalism must be preceded by radical economic destabilisation. Let no one forget that the Prime Minister, when President of the Australian Council of Trade Unions, presided over periods of unprecedented economic destabilisation in this country. Who can forget the Hawke -inspired wage explosions of the 1970s? We have today a so-called accord, which promises to become discord. We have seen those pathetic television advertisements which portray events the wrong way round, in which the discord should follow the sweet music generated by the Fraser Government's wages pause. That discord is not far around the corner if we have learnt anything from this Government's outright vocal support for industry funded, non-contributory superannuation for, firstly, the building industry, and after that, all members of unions affiliated with the ACTU. Apologists for the Government will point out that the impost of superannuation on industry in no way breaches the infamous accord. Whatever they may say, it will add considerably to the cost of employment, as will this Government's advocacy of horrendous redundancy clauses to be written into awards, along with its reckless addiction to occupational safety. These add-on cost imposts augment the launching pad that is wage indexation and will form a significant component of the fuel which will see skyrocketing employment costs regardless of the capacity of individuals and industry to pay. There is nothing in this Budget which will ensure that Australia's cost structure becomes more competitive. There is nothing which will mitigate a cost structure that is high by any international standards in a country which relies on international trade more than most others for its economic wealth and the wellbeing of individual Australians. Above all, there can be nothing more economically debilitating than tax hikes of the magnitude called for in this Budget. It might be said that they are necessary. Certainly, if a 16 per cent expenditure increase for the year to 30 June 1984 is acceptable, to be further increased by 13 per cent in this current financial year, one might be conned into accepting an increase of $6.7 billion, or 23 per cent, in personal income taxes. Let no one overlook a 40 per cent increase in expenditure on health, some $1.8 billion this year, following the then massive 29 per cent increase last year. That is entirely attributable to the introduction of Medicare, that deplorable creature of obsessive socialists. Let no one forget this Budget's provision for a 29 per cent, nearly $1.3 billion, increase in interest payable on Commonwealth Government borrowings, bringing the total interest bill for the year to a staggering $5.6 billion, and increasing. Commonwealth revenue from all sources, including a further $6.7 billion from income taxes, will increase this year at a rate which is double the increase last year. Following a 9 per cent increase last year, this year will see the total grab by this socialist Government surge a further 18 per cent to a record $57 billion. Despite this record confiscation of money by taxes and charges from the otherwise disposable incomes of individual Australians and businesses, the Government remains unable to balance its books and has budgeted for the second highest deficit in Australia's history , a deficit exceeded only by the same Government's record of last year. Even the economically illiterate amongst the Government and its back bench must see the folly of spending so much in excess of revenue collected. The Government, as any other government would be, is forced to borrow to make up the difference. It borrows from overseas and from within Australia. Those billions of dollars being borrowed by the Government inside Australia are inhibiting the already inhibited accumulation of capital and its availability to the private sector for investment. Because of an influx of foreign capital and because the private sector does not have the necessary confidence in the economic skill of this Government, there is now an apparent abundance of money. However, the extravagance of this Government and its consequential appetite for borrowing to offset its inability to balance the books have maintained interest rates at levels much higher than they should be. Further, the Hawke Government now has a considerable stake in high interest rates. If rates do not remain high, there is every likelihood that much of the foreign inflow which props up the current balance of payments will cease. Worse, there is the very real danger that short term foreign funds will be repatriated in large lumps very quickly. This Budget furthers the socialist objectives of the Australian Labor Party in many ways. Nowhere is this stark reality more in evidence than in the delivery of health care. Few Australians will have failed to notice by now that Medicare is just one step along the road to nationalising an industry which hitherto has served Australia so well for so many years. If anyone doubts the intentions of the Hawke socialist Government towards nationalisation of doctors and deliverers of health care, let him ponder the words of the non-medical Dr Blewett, who is now the Federal Minister for Health. In 1982 he said: Private fee-for-service medicine is deeply entrenched in Australian society, strongly defended by the medical profession and favourably evaluated by the population at large. I could not agree with him more. He went on to say: That is a fact of life and whatever changes we desire in that system will have to take place gradually and incrementally. Those words-that stated intention-have not been retracted by the Minister. Indeed, they have been reinforced by his deeds and actions time and again. As has already been said, the first important steps have already been taken. Medicare has been born much to the discomfort of those who may have been lulled into believing that they would continue to enjoy the same treatment and standards as those which were in operation before the introduction of Medicare. The concept of fee for service is completely unacceptable to this Minister and to this socialist Government. They suffer privately insured patients only because it is expedient to do so. These apologists for sympathisers with the private sector in some other areas of economic endeavour have no such pretended scruples when their beloved but disastrous health care plans might be put in jeopardy. Medicare and the manifestations of Labor Party dogma and doctrine in this Budget are complete anathema to the coalition parties. We hold that patients must be free to select the doctor of their choice, in or out of hospital, and free also to insure against the cost of higher medical expenses so cruelly prohibited under Medicare. We hold that individual doctors should be free, along with other Australians, to determine the rewards for which they can ask for their highly skilled services. Any doctor's first duty must be to his or her patient and not to a government and, above all, not to a coercive socialist government. Of course, all these inroads into what was once an excellent health care system in Australia before Whitlam have their price. This is no better illustrated than by referring again to increased expenditure on health, which is up by a massive 80.5 per cent as a consequence of the first two Hawke socialist Government Budgets, and all because of Medicare. Claims and inferences of a one per cent increase in personal income tax by way of a so-called Medicare levy are patently meaningless. While there is an officially acknowledged tax hike of one per cent for Medicare, the cost of that abomination would necessitate a 1.7 per cent tax if the total cost of Medicare were to be recouped by a so-called levy. The cost of Medicare this year will be over $2 billion. Against this, the one per cent impost will yield less than $1.2 billion. The shortfall of $830m will be paid for out of other taxpayers' contributions. It is therefore an unofficial but nevertheless real additional levy, taking the total to 1.7 per cent and not one per cent as claimed. More accurately, it is part of the minimum $6.7 billion deficit which the country must borrow and which will be paid for by future taxpayers, with interest added. Tomorrow's taxpayers will have to foot the bill again for expenditure incurred in large lumps by a ruthless socialist government determined to buy its way into power at an unnecessarily early election. The Hawke Government's ruthlessness is no more apparent than in the area of taxation. I refer not just to the secret taxes inflicted on a largely unsuspecting taxpaying public. Despite a massive increase of 23 per cent to be conscripted by way of personal income taxes, there has been no serious commensurate attempt to balance the Budget by containing expenditure. That tax hike on the earnings of individuals will be the largest since the dim, dark days of World War II. This is most certainly a government of record taxation and record expenditure. Even the excesses of the Whitlam years pale into insignificance alongside this mob. This Budget takes big Government to record highs in terms of its tax grab. At the same time, the Government has studiously avoided the hard decisions which economic responsibility demands. It has left around the loaded gun that is this year's contribution to our indebtedness as a nation for innocent future generations to pick up. Worse still would be the mortal damage to our economic future if a Hawke government were given another chance by the electorate to pick up and pull the trigger of the loaded weapon it has left lying around by embarking upon another round of socialist extravagance. Phoney tax cuts aside, it is the continued mammoth growth of Commonwealth taxes , expenditure and deficits that gives rise to grave concern for the future. This Budget is not shaping up as the political document it was intended to be in what is to be a premature election year. Over the past couple of weeks sober analysis of the Budget by responsible commentators shows that it has failed in its only real objective, which was to bribe the Australian electorate to vote again for this socialist rabble. Australians are only too well aware these days that governments can give nothing that they have not confiscated from the earnings of others. Wealth measured by the gross domestic product or by any other means has first to be created by the enterprise of individuals and entities before those individuals and entities can pay tax to enable this, or any other government, to do the many things it was elected to do. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mrs Child) —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mrs DARLING(Lilley)(11.38) —There are many ways of measuring the effectiveness of the 1984-85 Hawke Government Budget. Undoubtedly the most important way is to measure the reaction of the people out in the electorate, the people for whom the Budget was framed. The electorate's response is that the Budget is very successful indeed. Another way is to measure the response of Opposition members to the Budget. Although I find this response in many ways most unsavoury, it does indicate the Government's success, for the Opposition can find no real failure in the Budget. Its strong tendency to spend most of the time available for analysis of the Budget in fearmongering about completely unrelated matters thinly veils its envy at our delivering a Budget which it was unable to do in seven inept years. I exclude the honourable member for Gwydir (Mr Hunt), who led the Opposition debate this morning, from this charge of fearmongering. But quite frankly I am appalled at the immoral attitude of some Opposition members, most certainly not all of them. I am speaking of the irresponsible, noisy minority who appear to believe that any fear may be invoked, any misinformation perpetuated and any number of people hurt in the interests of getting a vote or just of scoring political points. I refer in this context to the assets test inspection lie. I find it very irresponsible that pensioners have been told that inspectors will be going through their goods and evaluating them for the purposes of the assets test. As has been explained, in November, 70 per cent of Australian pensioners will receive a letter from the Department of Social Security telling them that they will not even have to fill in a form because records have shown that they will not be affected by the assets test. Of the other 30 per cent, it is gauged that half of these, only 15 per cent of all Australian pensioners, will even have to fill in a form. The evaluation for the purposes of this form will occur by means of discussion between the pensioner and the Department of Social Security. If evaluation is necessary it will be done in the usual way by taxation officers. Meanwhile, one Queensland pensioner took his money, $2,000, from the bank because of these lies that an inspector could come around-and that money was stolen. I find that disgraceful. Another instance is the lie that Labor has encouraged pornography and the distribution of pornography in Australia. The Labor Government is the only government that has moved to introduce some sort of regulation of video pornography. We do acknowledge that there is more to be done here. We have set up a committee to look at this. But, again, I find it appalling that people have been misled and are writing to me saying that this is an area in which this Federal Government has acted detrimentally. There was no comprehensive legislation before the Federal Government organised meetings with all State Ministers, including Mr Tony Elliott, who represented the Queensland Government. He met with the Federal Government in July last year and April this year and he was part and parcel of the classification, which is now being used as some terrible weapon against the Hawke Government. In other words, all the State governments took part in the classification discussions at that time, including the one on the X classification, even though some have changed their minds about it since. The Federal Government itself will certainly move to ensure that this hard pornography does not remain rife and come into the possession of our young people. I wish to look at the past only insofar as it is constructive to do so as a means of evaluating this Budget for the future. This Budget closes the gap between Canberra and the Australian electorate. The Government's commitment to the people out in the electorate, the people whom we represent, is reflected in our direct assistance payments to local government which include $37.2m for children's services, an increase of $14.9m or 66.8 per cent. That is an indication of this Government's commitment to the family. We have also allocated $25.2m for the aerodrome local ownership plan, which is an increase of $8.7m or 52.7 per cent. We have given $7.9m for aged and disabled persons homes, an increase of $629,000 or 8.6 per cent. We have given $4m for nursing homes, an increase of $1.6m or 65 per cent. This shows that we are concerned. There is more to be done here but we have shown our commitment in a most difficult Budget by increasing that amount by 65 per cent. We have allocated $2.5m for the delivered meal subsidy, an increase of $272,000 or 12.3 per cent. This is an excellent service provided by people out in the community in delivering meals to the aged and housebound. This Budget is indeed a victory for the little people. In many instances it is a direct result of electorate representations. I mention particularly the move by the Government to exempt from debit tax cheques written by parents and citizens and parents and friends associations, local government and other organisations. The 10 per cent increase in the tertiary education assistance scheme will encourage parents to keep young people in tertiary education. The introduction of a new program, the basic education program, reflects the community's concern about the trend away from basic information revolving around the three Rs, that is, numeracy and literacy skills. This Government has put money towards a program which will look at children at primary school level, select those who are having trouble with numeracy and literacy and give them extra education so that when they come out on to the job market they at least will not be disadvantaged by not being able to spell, express themselves correctly or even do simple sums which, regrettably, has been the case in many instances in the past. The Government has looked at low income earners, particularly with its introduction of a graded tax scale which allows us more leeway in drawing the extra taxation money from people at the top of the earning level and giving relief, as the public is aware, to those in the middle and lower ranges. We have also supported the dual education system. This Government acknowledges that education should be for the benefit of the child. No one who puts the welfare of our young people first can have any objection to funding based on need. This is truly a policy aimed at benefiting the family. With the community standard, every school will be able to afford standards which ensure that no child will miss out on quality of education. We in the Government, and particularly our Minister for Education and Youth Affairs (Senator Ryan), know that there is no point in just giving resources to schools if we do not give them in such a way as to ensure that needs are met, that classes are not too large and that children are able to have that individual attention which will now flow from the funding based on a community standard. Probably the foremost feature of this Budget is that it consolidates economic growth. It shows that the accord is working. There are many members on the Opposition benches who would like to pull down the good work done by this Government in calling together government, unions and employers, in effect, to sign a social contract with each other for the benefit of the nation. The accord is working and because of this success more funding is coming in through tax revenue and the Government will be able to move from the point of this Budget which consolidates the growth in last year's Budget to a situation where we can put more funding into specific areas to raise the quality and standard of living in Australia. In the past there has been reason for gloom. The Fraser Government did not acknowledge unemployment and therefore had no good policy and there was no improvement in the situation. Inflation was up to 11.5 per cent; depression yawned at our feet in Australia, but now there is reason for hope. The year 1983 -84 was one of strong economic growth. There was 5 per cent growth in non-farm gross domestic product. People bought more. There were 232,000 more jobs, a 3.7 per cent growth. The inflation rate halved to 6 per cent, not counting the Medicare factor, and there were fewer strikes, a matter which had been of great concern to many people in the Australian electorate. These people are now pleased to see that the time lost owing to industrial strife is down by 30 per cent. There were 30 per cent fewer strikes as a result of the policies of the Hawke Government. This Budget maintains the course for 1984-85. There will be 5 per cent growth in the non-farm GDP. There will be more jobs, an employment growth of 2.5 per cent. Inflation is down to around 5 per cent. The accord is a major reason for the success and it is supported by tax cuts, increased employment and welfare spending. There is not the extent of welfare spending that we would wish to move to in following years, but our welfare spending shows that we are keeping faith with our commitment to people on lower incomes and those without incomes. We are introducing new policies for occupational health and safety. The Budget also prepares for long term economic growth and I point particularly to the 40 per cent increase in the skills training program aimed at adult retraining. While we have had, and still have, concern for the number of young people who are out of work and who have never had a job, there is a new sector of people-males around the age of 45 years-who are being retrenched and cannot get other work. The Government is concerned about these people and has increased the allocation for a program to assist them as well as introducing many other job training programs. Because we have kept our promise to introduce tax cuts, the typical Australian pay as you earn taxpayer who has been struggling to make ends meet now has some relief. Some members of the Opposition have attacked this Government for believing that it is time the taxpayer had some relief. We promised that we would give it to them and there is no way that we would have backed down on this major promise, even given the mess which we inherited and given the fact that we felt we must reduce the huge deficit, as indeed we have managed to do. We have also increased by 76 per cent, to $40.9m, funding for wage subsidy schemes to assist 21,000 long term unemployed adults. Seventeen months ago there was no hope in this country. Unemployment was soaring-by a quarter of a million people in one year-and we had an inflation rate of 11.5 per cent when the rest of the world had 4 per cent. Today we see a superb contrast. There is reason for hope. Inflation is down to 5 per cent and growth is at 10 per cent-the highest in the Western world. Australia has moved from zero growth into a position of having the highest growth rate in the Western world. This means more jobs, and we have kept the deficit down and given the Australian public hope. The Australian people are not so stupid as to feel that their every little need should be met in this Budget. They are aware that we are on the way to achieving full recovery. It is hope based on proof that Australia is pulling out of the trough. The Government acknowledges that there is more to do but we are well on the way to doing it. This Budget will ensure a full economic recovery in Australia. Mr STEELE HALL(Boothby)(11.52) —To establish the credentials of this Budget, one has to examine its thrust and direction. Early to the Budget Speech of the Treasurer (Mr Keating), one finds that it is indeed an election manifesto. It simply loads the Australian community with unparalleled debt so that the Government can make promises to its friends within the union movement. It is an example of how this Government is rushing to an election, 18 or 19 months after it was successful in 1983, to forestall the public's acknowledgement and understanding of what it is about. The Budget is a document to confuse to obtain its aims, and its confusion rests on two important paragraphs on page 3 of the circulated copy of the Treasurer's statement. In referring to what he terms as his Government's economic success, he said: Central to that success was the Accord on prices and incomes between the Government and the Australian trade union movement. He went on later to say: This has only been possible because the Accord has given the Government an agreed basis of wage and price restraint. That statement is pure and utter nonsense. My colleague the shadow Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations, the honourable member for Balaclava (Mr Macphee), made this statement on 16 April this year in relation to the accord: It is a matter of great concern that, quite insidiously, Australians are being given to believe by the Government that full wage indexation represents 'wage restraint'. He continued: Labor has sought and obtained a compounded wage increase of 8.6 per cent for its partner in the accord, the ACTU, and that in only six months. Indexation cannot be portrayed as wage restraint. That is from a colleague of mine in the shadow Ministry, and it might be said by those opposite that it is a biased political statement. Let me go to the heart of this matter by referring to the appearance of Mr Simon Crean on the Nationwide program on the eve of the Budget. He said: There is therefore an arguable claim for productivity. What the trade union movement is suggesting should be done and responsibly suggesting should be done is to say, let's look at other means by which that wage increase can be taken. He went on to say: I don't think that people should dismiss the superannuation argument as an additional cost, rather it should be seen as another way of meeting the claims that are going to arise. The union movement has no intention of standing by its part of the accord; it simply intends to press across Australia a claim that will cost every employer $ 11 a week. It intends to submit next year to the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission a claim of large order in relation to increased productivity, and Mr Crean openly admits that that is another form of wage increase. The unions of this country have no intention of abiding by anything that the Government stipulates as their part of the accord. They are simply out to claim under another name the benefits of this short term increase in the country's economic capacity to pay. It represents a double dipping-a dipping in once by the Government for its taxation and expenditure purposes and a dipping in by the unions for wage increases under another name. That is quite openly admitted by one of the chief union spokesmen in this country. Of course what this Administration is about is putting over the Australian community one of the greatest sell-outs to sectional interests ever known. This Budget represents a sell-out to the unions. The Government has no commitment in this community to the poor, to the average person or to future development. It has mortgaged this community's future development and, as the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Peacock) said in his response to the Budget, Australian taxpayers will be contributing $17 a week to pay for the public debt which this Government has increased by 20 per cent this year. It is mortgaging the future to pay for December election promises. This is a clear demonstration that this Government is committed to unions and not to the general community. That is not at all surprising when the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) is an ex-President of the Australian Council of Trade Unions , the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations (Mr Willis) is an ex-ACTU research officer and the Treasurer (Mr Keating) at one time was a union research officer. Is it any wonder that this Government is selling out this community to its sectional union backing? It is not surprising in the least. The National Economic Summit Conference held in this chamber took out of the hands of the elected representatives of the community the management of the Australian economy, putting it squarely in the hands of the union movement and its industrial wing which this Government represents. That is where this Budget had its origins and they are its credentials. It is a union document which quite clearly ignores the plight of the unemployed and, as I say, mortgages the future to pay for election promises. May I say, too, that it mortgages the future to pay for the first time for the public funding of political parties. Such is the haste of the Government to rush to the polls that we will go to the elections without proper bound electoral rolls being available to the Australian electors. That demonstrates the Government's haste and where its priority lies. I referred earlier to the rise in the national debt. The national debt has risen by 20 per cent to $46 billion a year and I repeat, as my leader has stated clearly in this House, that it will cost Australian taxpayers $17 a week simply to pay for the interest on the squandering of Australia's future. The election pay-offs do not simply reside in the sectional attitude of the Budget, of the frame-up of the economic future of this country in terms of the accord and the milking of the economy by means other than properly labelled wage increases; they reside also in the paying off of the union movement with conditions especially in relation to the repeal of section 45D of the trade practices legislation. That expresses the width of the Government's obligation to its industrial parent. In this regard it is interesting to see that the Government intends to remove this quite severe discipline on those unions which act outside the law and against the public interest; but, at the same time, its intention is to increase greatly the penalties on the other side of the equation, on the industrial front, and to make the penalties for other offences by companies and company officials much more severe than they are at present. So the comparison is quite clearly there before the Australian public: Let the unions off, reward them for striking by support for superannuation funds and the like, but clamp down on the other side of the industrial equation and make it harder to run the machinery of companies and production in this community. However, the matter does not rest there in the industrial area. It gets down to individual and personal freedoms. The Canberra Times on 6 June this year carried the reference to Public Service staff being urged to join unions. The article went on to state: The Public Service Board has told all heads of departments and statutory authorities to encourage staff to join . . . relevant unions. In another paragraph it stated: In a memo to all permanent heads and statutory office holders issued on Friday, the board announced it was developing guidelines in consultation with the ACTU which would spell out minimum measures to be taken in providing encouragement of union membership. I draw the attention of the House to what has happened in South Australia under the State Labor Government. There department heads have been instructed to examine payroll records to see the number of government employees who are paying union dues and they are to advise the respective union managements of who is not paying union dues. That requirement has now been extended to school principals. Are we seeing here, in collusion with the ACTU, an agreement by this Government to do the same nationally as the State Government is doing in South Australia? We can assume that that will be the case if this Government should win the next election. That represents one of the greatest intrusions on personal freedoms that one could envisage-an examination of people's personal pay records to see whether they belong to a union. That is what is in store for the Australian community if this Government should unfortunately win office again in December. This has been followed by quite obnoxious moves, for instance in Victoria where the Government is noted for its compliance with union requirements. Honourable members would all remember with some humour the report of 18 April 1984 which stated: The Victorian Government yesterday agreed to pay about $200,000-including free concert tickets to workers-to settle a building dispute which was disrupting the final stages of the Arts Centre. The settlement includes tickets for a family of four for each of the 300 workers, and provision of the concert hall free for the use of unions once a year, probably on Labor Day. This will cost $100,000. As I said, one would think that is something of a laugh, but in fact it is a reality. As one reporter said at the time, the bus drivers blocked the streets of Melbourne with 600 buses in an industrial dispute but they had no penalties applied to them, yet the trader who traded out of hours in Victoria was fined $ 500,000 under Victorian Government legislation. How dare he offer the public his wares and goods out of hours! What a disruptive influence! It is worth a fine of half a million dollars! But someone can take 600 buses into Melbourne and tie the place up in the costliest of industrial disputes and there is no penalty. These are the standards of this Government which sits opposite and which is, of course, a product of the Labor movement. It is in fact clearly before the Australian people if they have the opportunity to study what this Government is really about, and they will respond at the next election to these facts which show what a low standard this Government adopts in relation to the entire community, and the full width of its responsibilities. The Labor Party is in fact a three in one Party. At its National Conference 41 members were from the Left, 31 from the Centre Left and 27 from the Right. That is where policy is made. The Minister for Territories and Local Government (Mr Uren) knows full well, as a long time member of the Labor movement, that what his National Conference passes he must obey, and he would not want it otherwise. In the crucial votes that affect Australia, such as whether Australia will have a limited uranium industry or have none, I think the figure was 44 to 55 votes; the difference being 11. That means that if six people had voted the other way they could have changed the history of Australian development in relation to the uranium industry. The vote was somewhat different in relation to some of the other moves of the Left. It might have got down to 42, but six or seven members of the Conference of 99, voting a different way, could alter the development of this country-not the Ministers sitting opposite on the front bench. The extra- parliamentary members, basically of the union movement, control the development of Australia. They are quite clearly in full control of the events of this Government, as was demonstrated this year at the National Conference. The Left is five or six people away from controlling Australia. This is the Left which would say: 'No American bases, no uranium mining whatsoever'. There are only six of those sorts of people who keep Labor away from Australia's future in those respects. It makes a mockery, of course, of the somewhat humorous reference that 'Bob Hawke is the only thing that stands between Australia and the Australian Labor Party'. He does not stand between Australia and the Labor Party. There are six people unknown in this House, unrepresented here, who stand between the Labor Party and Australia and the Prime Minister will be powerless, if he should win office again, to stop their predatory moves on this country. Mr Uren —Your fear frightens me. Mr STEELE HALL —Well, it does frighten me, I tell the Minister. I am frightened, as so many Australians have been frightened in the past and will be again when the veneer of this Government is ripped away by reality and when they understand that this coming election is simply a fence between the reality of the Left, which has been kept at bay for a short period, and the reality of what will happen after the election when it is unleashed. The Minister for Territories and Local Government can hardly wait to get his leftish policies operating, to get his next National Conference going under another Labor Government and to see that the six vote the other way. He cannot wait. He is well-known for his leftish views. I say this: He is totally honest about his leftish views, which is more than can be said for some of his colleagues. He does not hide his views that Australia should be a socialist state-he does not hide them at all-but his colleagues do and they prate about the control of the Right in the Labor Party in Australia. It is the flimsiest partition against the road to ruin for Australia as regards the sensible management of its economy. As I have said, Australia is at great risk in relation to this Budget because the debt is the main factor which hangs over it all. It is a prospect for this country of great future hardship that the interest must be paid on it. At some stage in the future the Government will have to take out of its revenues the amount to reduce the structural deficit and to repay past borrowings. It is an enormous burden to place on the Australian community, especially for the purposes of this forthcoming election. The honourable member for Lilley (Mrs Darling), the previous speaker, talked about the success of the previous Budget last year and about unparalleled growth in the economy. In his replies in this House I believe the Treasurer (Mr Keating ) illustrated his surprise that the economy grew at such a rate last year, greater than he predicted. It provided the Government with opportunities which it has wasted. What has the Government done with this greater than predicted growth? Has it reduced the deficit in any real terms? What has it done? It has taken the fruits of a limited recovery and frittered them away on election promises. At the same time it has ignored the really poor of this community. This is a peculiar Government in that its leader resents criticism. We remember the very pertinent criticism that the Australian Council of Social Service made of the Budget and the Government's neglect of the unemployed and the underprivileged. What did ACOSS get for its criticism of the Government? It got a virulent reply from the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) who hates to be questioned on this or any other matter. One only had to hear his response at a Press conference yesterday morning to some reporters who dared question him about something outside of the limited range of matters that were the subject of the conference he had ordered. This Budget is a document which is quite callously aimed at winning votes for the Government. It is a lead-up to an election which is being held in haste before the Australian people, in the Government's eyes, have the chance to understand what this Government is about. But, above all, it is a document which has been prepared by industrial Labor both in conference and in the Cabinet room . This document is a cover for a union movement which is determined to get out of the economy of Australia a great increase in superannuation and payments for productivity which it believes is another way of increasing wages despite the Government's false claims in relation to the accord. Mr UREN(Reid-Minister for Territories and Local Government) —Mr Deputy Speaker, I claim to have been misrepresented. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Rocher) —Does the Minister wish to make a personal explanation? Mr UREN —Yes, I do. The honourable member for Boothby (Mr Steele Hall) referred in the speech he just made to a fear about what the Left would do if ever it gained control of the Australian Labor Party. In doing that he referred to me specifically as a Left Minister. Might I say that it is sad that a person with his experience and, in some respect, liberal attitudes-- Mr Steele Hall —That is not a personal explanation. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! Will the Minister show where he has been misrepresented? Mr UREN —I was trying to be a little charitable to the honourable member. The honourable member raised the question of fear. I might say that fear is the last thing in the world that I would refer to. In fact, during my whole time as a Minister-- Mr Steele Hall —Mr Deputy Speaker, I take a point of order. I would like to know where the Minister has been misrepresented. I do not want to hear an argument which is simply put up in-- Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! I ask the Minister to come to the point of his personal explanation. Mr UREN —The honourable member said that there were fears about the role the Left would play. As a Left Minister-and I have been a member of the Left all my life-I have always acted to achieve a more equitable, a more just and a freer society. I have tried to do this in my role as Minister responsible for the administration of the Australian Capital Territory. Mr Steele Hall —I take a point of order. The Minister should not be able to argue by way of a personal explanation to combat my speech. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! I think the Minister has finished. Mrs KELLY(Canberra)(12.14) —The honourable member for Boothby (Mr Steele Hall) began his speech by saying that the Budget is a document which sets out to confuse. I would submit to this House that the only people confused about this document are in fact members of the Opposition. That is quite clear from the speech we have just listened to from the honourable member for Boothby. The honourable member hardly considered the Budget at all during his 20-minute address. He spent his whole time discussing his own personal paranoia with the unions and with the Left of the Australian Labor Party. One would get a very positive response if one asked the people in the public gallery or the people out in the streets what they thought about this Budget. The people out there are not confused because they can see the benefits of not only this Budget but also the 17 months of this Government. This Budget is not a short term, pork barrelling election Budget, as it has been referred to by the Opposition. It is, in fact, just the opposite. It is a Budget with a long term strategy in view to keep on the path of non-inflationary growth in this economy. If members of the Opposition had bothered to look at the entire Budget package, instead of getting bogged down with their own paranoia, they would have discerned that what we have here is a Budget which contributes to the long term strategy of the Hawke Labor Government. That strategy is to promote economic recovery and maintain the standard of living for all Australians. That is why in this Budget we have tax cuts which will ensure the continued success of the accord. That is why this Budget provides major structural adjustments to the corporate tax regime and concentrates on the poorest members of our community. There has been a tradition in past years, and I think that this tradition was reinforced by the seven years of the previous Government, for any recovery to be put quickly at risk by wage and price outbreaks. That will not happen as a result of this Budget. In fact, just the opposite will be the case. Wage and price pressures will be reduced because of the combined effect of the accord and tax cuts. It appears that the only people in Australia who are opposed to the principles and the results of the accord are members of the Opposition. That is why many of them will not be re-elected in any election, whenever it is held. They have no alternative policies. We have not heard any of those alternative policies put to us by any Opposition speaker, particularly the honourable member for Boothby. This Budget aims to create a climate for profits and investment as well as a rise in the number of jobs created. I would like to take up the debate on tax cuts and the relative cost of living. Rather than just talk in vague terms, I want to look specifically at the position of a person on average weekly earnings who is supporting a dependent spouse and two children. Although these are the sorts of average Australians about whom we all talk, I do not think that members of the Opposition have actually even met anyone in this category. Mr Robert Brown —There is one member of the National Party here. There is not one member of the Liberal Party in the chamber. Mrs KELLY —Members of the Liberal Party-in fact, all members of the Opposition- are not interested. They have no idea of what ordinary Australians want or what their goals are. For the purpose of comparison I wish to refer to the December quarters in 1983 and 1984. The gross wage in 1982 was $324.80; in 1984 it was $ 370. If one deducts the tax on both of those amounts, adds the family allowance, deducts the Medicare allowances and the net housing interest rates, one finds that the nominal disposable wage for 1982 is $205.91 and for 1984 $255.65. Looking at it then in terms of real disposable wage, and taking into account consumer price index adjustments, we find that in 1984 there is an increase in the amount of money in the pocket of the ordinary Australian family of $21.12 per week. These are specific facts. I am not talking in generalities. I have made an analysis so that the House can see in concrete terms that the Australian people get a benefit from the tax cuts. These tax cuts were promised during the last election campaign and we have delivered on that promise. We have not just given the people more money. We have also given them security. We have set the economy on the road to recovery. Jobs are now more secure. There is a regular six-monthly wage indexation adjustment linked to the consumer price index. There are lower interest rates and the first home owner scheme, and the list goes on. Members of the Opposition have called this Budget an election Budget. Yet, the Government made a tough decision in the Budget-a decision to impose a wine tax. The Opposition was always too scared to introduce it. It was in government for seven years and yet it was not prepared to introduce a wine tax. Yesterday there was considerable debate in this House about the wine tax. There is no doubt that that tax was introduced on equity grounds. Every member of this House must acknowledge that on equity grounds we needed a wine tax. There was a 20 per cent tax on soft drinks, between 80 and 100 per cent tax on beer and even higher rates on spirits. What was happening as a result of that inequity was that there was a drop in beer consumption which was leading to a very significant undermining of the revenue base for government excise on beer. Things were getting distorted principally because of the inequity of not having a wine tax. Is that the sort of decision one makes if this Budget is purely pork-barrelling and purely an election Budget? Over the last few days I have listened to the Opposition's attack on the Budget and I have tried to work out what alternatives it will present to the people. Mrs Darling —Any? Mrs KELLY —All I have been able to discern is that Opposition members attack the union movement, which we have heard here today. Their other prong of attack is to return to the old whipping horse, the Public Service. The honourable member for Bennelong (Mr Howard), in his address last week at the National Press Club, devoted considerable time in his speech to discussing staff growth in the Public Service. Yesterday he put out another four-page statement taking issue with the size of the Public Service. This is how desperate the Opposition is. The people in my electorate of Canberra, where 68 per cent of the work force are public servants, should be warned that, if the Opposition ever happens to gain government again, the first group to be attacked will be the public servants, once again. The old whipping horse would come out and the Opposition would blame the government sector all over again. It has started to do that. The people in my electorate should be warned what to expect if the Opposition ever happens to gain government in this country. One very constructive area of the Budget that I wish now to discuss is the home and community care package. This three-year cost-shared program will contain a contribution of more than $300m over the first three years. This program focuses on services which will enable aged and disabled persons to stay in their own homes. This is a definite step in the right direction in caring for the aged. One of the glaring needs that I have identified in care for the aged is the need for crisis care-short term care, for example, for recuperation purposes after people come out of hospital or their carers need a rest or a holiday. This new home and community care package addresses this very problem. It also provides a respite care bed subsidy to approved hostels and nursing homes which may have empty beds because of temporarily absent patients. While this initiative does not absolutely solve the feeling of insecurity experienced by many elderly people, it is a definite positive beginning. There is a myth about the aged, that they are all sick. That is just not true. What we need to do is to look constructively at our policy for the aged. If we look at the statistics from the last census on the problems of the aged, we find that the great proportion of them are healthy and want to live independent lives . We need to change the whole way of thinking about how we care for the aged. Sure, some of them have to go to hostels and some will have to go to nursing homes. But the great majority do not want to do that. That should be a last resort. What we are doing by this initiative in the Budget is starting to set new directions in care for the aged. As a government we have a responsibility to look into the future. As we, the products of the post-war baby boom, age we will find that there will be an enormous increase in the number of aged people in our community. It would be very remiss of us as a government if we did not start to prepare for that. Many people will say that we have only just started. That is true; we acknowledge that. But it is a start in the right direction. It is a start to provide an environment for care for the aged which is appropriately based on their needs, rather than biases about the image of aged people in our community. This Budget is a beginning. It is a constructive beginning because for the first time it starts to take care for the aged seriously and to plan for the care of the aged in our community. This Budget is to be recommended to the people in the Australian electorate. It has been extremely well received by almost everyone, except members of the Opposition, and I am quite sure that in the next few months the Australian public will receive the full benefits of this, Labor's second Budget. Mr O'KEEFE(Paterson)(12.26) —Prior to the last election, the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) stated that a Labor government would fulfil its three-year term. This promise, with others, will be broken when we go to the polls later this year. This Government has 16 months to run. What is it frightened of? No doubt it is frightened of the deteriorating economic conditions that lie waiting in the future from the policies brought down by Labor. The cost of this forthcoming election will be millions of dollars which the public will have to pay. The country should not be saddled with this expense at this time. Why does the Government not run the full period, as announced by the Prime Minister prior to the last election? This Budget has created a massive problem for the future. It has set the scene for further increases in taxes and in the public debt for next year and the years to follow. It builds up long term commitments which taxpayers of this country will be called on to pay for, not only this year but also in the future. The Budget provides for a high 31 per cent of gross domestic product which clearly indicates the direction that it is taking. It is the highest taxing and spending government of all time. What a record to have! It is the highest living and spending government of all time. It represents a spending increase of 14 per cent in two Budgets and the raising of the tax burden to an all time high, adding nearly as much to the national debt in two years as was added in the previous six years. The Government claims that the Budget provides tax cuts. This is a complete fabrication because total Budget receipts have increased by 27.9 per cent-the highest level in Australian history. The Government is having a punt on a large increase of pay as you earn receipts of about 10.7 per cent, which is not much more than the expected increase in average weekly earnings. This means storing up bigger problems for the future. Receipts through income tax come to over 53 per cent. No effort whatsoever has been made to decrease the payment of income tax or to assist the people of this country, the average Australians. This Budget has failed to come to grips with the general community and the need that exists for the restructuring and a full investigation of the taxation system to reduce reliance on personal income tax. Income tax collections represent a high proportion of Budget receipts. This means storing up once again bigger problems for the future. The Government argues that Medicare should be excluded from calculations of Government spending increases. In this matter the Government's spending has been deceptive. This Government came to power at a time when the economy of Australia was improving as a result of our huge wheat crop, our wool and meat, an improvement in the economy of the United States of America and the results of the wage pause being felt. No government could have had it better. The United States economy has an effect on Australia. Many of our overseas contracts are written in American dollars. So we are very much affected by the economy of the United States. An improvement in the United States economy helps Australia. That happened when this Government came to power. It could not have had it better. Seeing that Australia depends on the success of its wheat, wool and meat exports, one would have thought that assistance to primary producers would have been prominent and forthcoming in this Budget. However, there was no mention whatsoever of encouragement. The rural sector is vital to the economy because it contributes to Australia's overseas trade. The only mention of those industries in the Budget was the funding of wool promotion and the developments in financing by the Australian Wheat Board whereby the Wheat Finance Fund is to be wound up and returned to growers in July 1985. Another small item in the Budget referred to the funding of the brucellosis campaign. What about our sheep and cattle industries which, over past years, have brought in millions of dollars of export income? We have just seen the disastrous situation whereby meat export inspection charges have risen by over 200 per cent. This increase has had a serious effect on Australia's being able to compete in world markets. Australia is not the only nation which exports meat. We are up against our neighbour-New Zealand-America, Brazil and many other countries. We should be price competitive with those countries, but we are not because of the 200 per cent increase in meat inspection charges. Australia is the only nation in the world that adopts this attitude. Other nations fund the charges from the general revenue of the country. These industries should receive a top priority in terms of investigation and financial assistance. Australia is the driest continent in the world. The Budget made no mention of creating or establishing more water resources. This problem should have been brought home to the Government during the last drought which lasted for over three years. That drought created problems not only for the rural industry but also for the Australian economy. The stock supply situation which occurred as a result of the water shortage should have registered with the Government; but, the Government being dominated by city members, no assistance has been forthcoming. What about the Labor members who have country electorates? They did nothing at all to promote with their Government the idea of water resources. One of the most important employers of labour is the small business sector. This Government has completely ignored assistance to this important area. Ninety -nine per cent of Australian firms employ fewer than 100 people. Small business was not mentioned in the Budget, yet a short while ago our Prime Minister said that his Government was determined to do all it could to help small business realise its immense potential. Mr McGauran —He is a hypocrite. Mr O'KEEFE —Absolutely. Not a thing was mentioned about that in the Budget. It was a hollow promise which was made by the Prime Minister but which has never materialised. This Budget has failed to honour any of the Australian Labor Party pre-election taxation promises to small business. We have seen two Budgets and one mini-Budget in which Labor has ignored small business. Labor promised the full retention of profits to small companies where the funds were to be used for genuine purposes; the option of provisional tax being paid in quarterly instalments; the extension of the time for payment of sales tax from 21 to 30 days; to exempt industrial research grants from tax. Small business has been locked out of this Budget. Small business is a big labour employer in this country. It is a job generator. The Budget does nothing to stimulate growth and create jobs in the small business sector. Small business is giving a lot but is getting nothing back. The Labor Government's decision on the assets test completely ignores the farmers and the small business people of Australia. The cost of administering the assets test will far outweigh any financial gains. It is an intrusion into the private lives of Australians. There will probably be 1,500 bureaucrats travelling around the country, knocking on doors and checking up on the farmers and the small business people of this country. The Australian people should refute and in no way support this measure. No farmer in Australia will be eligible for the pension. He will not be able to make himself eligible because of the re-investment of gift restrictions. The exclusion of the farm home will mean little, as separate from the rest of the farm it has little value. Gifting will be impossible because the restriction of $4,000 per annum is pitiful, particularly as this was the level which applied when it was abolished by the coalition Government in 1976. The farmer or the small businessman will be able to borrow the pension, but it must be repaid, with interest, after death. It becomes a sectional pay as you die death duty. Whoever thought that up. It amazes me and my colleagues. Country people have been completely forgotten. The major contribution made by Australia's farmers and small businesses to the growth of the Australian economy in the last 12 months has been ignored by the Federal Government in the Budget. Personal income tax will increase by a record 23 per cent. Government expenditure will increase by at least 13 per cent. The Budget deficit will still be too high, with the pressure this creates on interest rates. Government expenditure will reach a higher proportion of national expenditure than occurred in even the worst years when Mr Whitlam was in control. The international competitiveness of our export industries, such as agriculture, will be further affected by the 22 per cent reduction in government assistance for export market development. This is a very serious matter indeed. Livestock farmers will pay more tax with the dramatic 250 per cent lift in the minimum tax value for natural increase to $1 a head for sheep, $5 for cattle and $4 for pigs, at a time when the rural cost price squeeze is intensifying again. The 42 per cent drop in rural adjustment funds to only $18.7m is particularly inappropriate. The further increase in the excise on aviation fuel, the third since Labor came to power, will also disadvantage country people, particularly in the far western regions of the country. Increases in fuel and excises are not shown in the Budget but are real, as they are indexed automatically. Protection from dumped European wine will be reduced by a 10 per cent drop in the tariff as well as the new 10 per cent sales tax. Mr McGauran —Including people in your electorate. Mr O'KEEFE —It will affect very considerably wine growers in the Hunter Valley. The Government continues to ignore the special education needs of country people by increasing the general tertiary education assistance scheme allowance and, more significantly, the living away from home allowance, by only 10 per cent. The secondary student's allowance has been increased by a more realistic 15 per cent. Let us look at the economic outlook. A comprehensive survey of the economic outlook forecasts that the Government's policies will fail by next year and that both employment and inflation will again be on the increase. That is why the Government is going to the polls this year. It is frightened of the economic situation that will exist in the future by reason of its policies. It is apparent that for this reason the Government is contemplating an early election, either late this year or even early next year. The problem is that as long as it expects to go to the polls early it will not even contemplate the wage moderation needed immediately to breathe life into the recovery in the long term . It is expected that the annual rate of inflation will rise from 5.4 per cent to 9.2 per cent compared with the average of the Organisation for Economic Co- operation and Development of 5.7 per cent. Growth in the real gross domestic product will fall from around 5.1 per cent to 1.2 per cent. The unemployment rate will increase from 9.2 per cent to 9.9 per cent, compared with an OECD average of 1.8 per cent. These figures have not been conjured up. They were produced by responsible people who are examining the future economy of this country. The figures suggest that Labor is not fighting inflation and unemployment simultaneously. It is increasing them simultaneously. Clearly, Labor wants an election before its fundamental failure in economic management is revealed. What is more, the faltering economic recovery is also expected to lead to a massive increase in the 1985-86 Budget deficit in the absence of massive tax increases or significant spending cuts in the August 1985 Budget. Since this is the Budget which will precede the next general election, Labor's desperation to bring forward that election is not hard to understand. Labor's indexation deal with the unions has placed a stranglehold on the economy which is squeezing the life out of our recovery. This stranglehold must be removed if grim forecasts are to be wrong. This is the awful tragedy of Labor's early election speculation . This election is not in the national interest. Labor must put an immediate end to this speculation and get on with making the hard decisions that people expected of it when they went to the polls just over a year ago. The high taxing policy of the Hawke Government is costing the average family $19 a week. Mr McGauran —How much? Mr O'KEEFE —It is costing $19 a week. Let us look at some of its policies. It abolished the home loan rebate and the health insurance rebate; increased excise duties and sales taxes, and in this field there are automatic increases every six months; introduced a new tax on superannuation payments; made changes to income equalisation deposits which seriously affected rural industries; abolished the 10-year write-off on capital expenditure for land clearing and swamp drainage; introduced an excise on grape spirit used in fortifying wine; abolished the rebate of up to $1,000 on dividends; introduced severe withholding tax on small businesses; made ordinary Australians on average weekly earnings pay 46c on every extra dollar they earn; introduced the one per cent special levy on taxable income for Medicare; and introduced an assets test on pensions. Of course, we hear so much about what the Hawke Government is examining for the future. It is examining the possible introduction of a capital gains tax, a wealth tax, death duties, taxes on job related fringe benefits, resource rent tax, and gift tax. One can name any area and the Government has it in its sights . Let us look at the Medicare levy. The special one per cent levy on taxable income under the Medicare scheme means that most Australians will have more taken out of their wages this year than last. The Medicare levy will mean that the average wage earner will pay 47c in the dollar for every extra dollar earned . Labor's socialised Medicare will prove to be very expensive for most of the community. Those paying more will include many single people, two-income families and most of those who want to retain the same level of health insurance as they previously enjoyed. But when this scheme was first announced in 1982 the levy was to be 0.75 per cent. By the 1983 Federal election it had been increased by 33 per cent to the one per cent levy now being charged on taxable income. Yet it is widely recognised that the present Government will be unable to finance Medicare at this rate for any longer than one year. The Minister for Health (Dr Blewett) has already foreshadowed an increase in the levy after the coming election. It has been announced by consultants that the levy might be 2.48 per cent within three years if the Government is to cover the full cost of Medicare. Under Medicare the average family will be about $1 a week poorer if it wants to maintain its previous level of health insurance, and families where the wife works are being hit hardest of all. Previously they could take out cover with the health fund as a family. Now both partners will have to pay the levy. My experience in the Paterson electorate has been that I did not receive a letter about the previous Government's health scheme, but since the introduction of Medicare I have received correspondence which indicates to me that people were happy under our health scheme and they are very unhappy under the present Medicare scheme. The present Government shows clearly how the health portfolio has suffered because of the prices and incomes accord. Those worst hit are the elderly and the chronically ill. Under the accord Medicare is required to provide free services to many who could afford to take out private insurance, leaving the poor and the elderly waiting in the queues. The Budget is notable for the absence of measures to deal with problems caused by Medicare. No special provision is made for reducing queues of uninsured patients in public hospitals. I understand that in one Victorian hospital there are over 8,000 people in the queue, waiting to receive attention. The hospital reinsurance subsidy was cut from $100m to $20m last year and it remains at $20m for 1984-85. What a considerable reduction. It is a cut in real terms of about 6 per cent. It is the cut in reinsurance that has forced the health funds to limit the hospital cover of contributors to a set number of days each year. People who have insured privately for years have lost their security. There is no provision for additional nursing home care to cater for those thrown out of hospitals under Medicare's 35-day rule, thus leaving the chronically ill, most of them elderly, with nowhere to go. The long-promised scheme for medicine to the chronically ill has failed to materialise despite continuing promises by the Minister for Health. The $300m home and community care program for the aged and disabled allocates only $10m in new programs. It will not go anywhere near fulfilling any need in this field. (Extension of time granted) Within 17 months of taking office-the Hawke Government has nothing to show against election promises of care for the aged and will still have nothing to show by July 1985. Medicare means massive tax increases. The first full year cost of Medicare can now be assessed against the cost of the former health scheme. Medicare benefits and hospital payments have risen from $1,224m in 1982- 83, pre-Medicare, to $3,245 in 1984-85, an increase of $2,021m. Taxes have risen by $2 billion to cover Medicare, a measure of the degree of socialisation involved. It is a socialist piece of legislation and we want to do all we possibly can to meet it. The extent of the tax increase has been disguised by calling $1.2 billion of it a Medicare levy which clearly bears no relation to the cost of the scheme. The accord and Medicare have therefore caused a massive increase in the size of government, a massive increase in taxes and grave inconvenience for the acutely and chronically ill. This Budget dramatises the money costs of Medicare but does nothing to reduce the human cost. Mr FREE(Macquarie)(12.48) —I join with the colleagues of the honourable member for Paterson (Mr O'Keefe) in wishing him well and I was certainly happy to support the extension of time. But the great paradox contained in the remarks of the honourable member, of course, was that if as he asserts the Government is doing so badly one would think that the Opposition would welcome the opportunity of an early election. Of course it would welcome anything but. I rise this afternoon to support the Budget. It is, as the Treasurer (Mr Keating) said a fortnight ago, a Budget which will consolidate and strengthen the economic recovery. The recovery with its strength and diversity is one of the truly great achievements of this Government in the 18 months since it gained office. Under Labor, all the economic indicators have moved in the right direction. All the indicators which ought to have fallen have fallen. The country has enjoyed falling inflation, falling interest rates and falling unemployment. All the indicators which ought to have risen have risen. The country is beginning to prosper after seven dark years with rising confidence, rising investment, rising employment and increasing growth. It is a record of which this Government is proud, of which the Australian Labor Party is proud and of which the Australian community is proud. It is a record which stands in stark contrast to the Fraser-Howard years. The Liberal record of rising inflation, rising interest rates, rising unemployment, falling business confidence, falling investment, falls in employment and declining growth is a record that will not easily be forgotten by Australians. But great as the achievements of this Government have been much remains to be done. This Budget is another important step back on the road to prosperity and security for all Australians. The major features of the Budget have, of course, been well publicised and well received. From 1 November all taxpayers will receive a reduction in tax with the largest reductions going to those on lower incomes. Pensions and benefits will rise. Additional help will be provided for pensioners who rent and for pensioners with children. Assistance for children will also go up. Before the next Budget a full scale review of assistance for young people will be undertaken and completed. but in the meantime, the tertiary education assistance allowance will be increased by 10 per cent and allowances under the secondary allowances scheme will be increased by 15 per cent. Under both those schemes the family income limit will be increased by 10 per cent. These measures, together with those announced in the Government's guidelines to the education commissions this year and last, will contribute greatly towards the achievement of the Government's objective to increase participation at all levels of education. The Budget also contains a number of very important measures to assist business and hence, to improve investment and provide new employment opportunities in the private sector. I also support the very sensible changes which have been made to the taxation of alcoholic beverages. In particular, the reduction in tax on light beer should help to change drinking habits and contribute towards a reduced road toll. Across a range of important areas of expenditure assistance will be provided to those most in need and to generate jobs. The Budget provides $430m to new social welfare programs or improvements in existing ones. In a full year these measures will cost $683m. Expenditure on housing is up 21 per cent on last year's figure and by almost 70 per cent on the last Liberal Budget. Expenditure on the first home owners scheme, another important success in this Government's 18 months in office, will rise by 85 per cent. Fifty-five thousand first home buyers were assisted last year under this scheme and a further 80,000 will be assisted in this financial year. The Budget fulfils many of the promises made at the 1983 election. It provides a substantial and lasting cut in income tax, increased social welfare spending and a reduction in the Budget deficit. Above all, it is a budget that will get on with the important job of getting Australians back in jobs. By next June 400,000 new jobs will have been created. It is against this background of achievement and positive hope for the future that this Government must be judged. I suspect that judgment day may not be too far off. But when that time comes not only the Government but also the Opposition will be judged. One might fairly ask, and indeed the Australian people might fairly ask, just exactly what policies the Opposition has for the last half of the 1980s. One would find few clues in the releases of Opposition policies to date, and even fewer clues in the Budget reply speech of the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Peacock). But there are enough clues for the Australian people to realise that this is an opposition in crisis, an opposition suffering both a crisis of policy and a crisis of leadership. Its economic policy, when measured against the Government's policy, is a miserable failure. The architects of the $9.6 billion deficit did not have the answers then and they do not have them now. The Opposition's wages policy insofar as it has one, will take us back to high levels of industrial disputation, breakouts in wage increases and massive sackings in industry. Its taxation policy insofar as it has one, will mean massive indirect taxes on ordinary consumers. The aim of this Opposition is the destruction of consensus and the destruction of the accord. This Budget will improve the lives of people in my electorate and in the western Sydney region, of which it is part. The needs of western Sydney have received proper attention only with Labor in government. Under Liberal governments in the 1960s and 1970s the region might well have never existed. But all this actually changed recently. The Leader of the Opposition actually visited western Sydney. Let me share with the House briefly the report of his visit on page 35 of the Blue Mountains Gazette of Wednesday, 29 August. It is headed 'Federal Opposition Discovers West'. The article describes a meeting between the Leader of the Opposition and the Chairman of the Western Sydney Regional Organisation of Councils, WSROC. What follows in a fairly long article is really a series of questions without answers. The Chairman of WSROC, Alderman Kluin, asked the Leader of the Opposition for a number of assurances. He sought an assurance that the Leader of the Opposition would support, for example, the inquiry into local government finances currently being undertaken within the area of responsibility of my honourable friend the Minister for Territories and Local Government (Mr Uren). There was no answer from the Leader of the Opposition. The Chairman ask the Leader of the Opposition whether he would continue to support initiatives such as the community employment program which is so important in the west. There was no response, according to the article, from the Leader of the Opposition. The Chairman stressed to the Leader of the Opposition that access to post-secondary education is very important to the region. He sought an assurance that the Leader of the Opposition would support this as well-no answer. He was questioned on child care and asked whether he would support the initiatives of this Government on child care in the region. There was no response from the Leader of the Opposition. The only response that the article contains from the Leader of the Opposition was a brief statement at the end when Mr Peacock said it was his desire to acquaint himself with the needs of the residents in western Sydney and described it as a unique part of Australia. After that effort, the Leader of the Opposition can be assured that the region will not be unique in returning the majority of Labor members after the next election. It will certainly return Labor members in the three new seats created in that region. His visit, clearly designed to convey an appropriate measure of concern combined with maximum personal publicity, failed dismally on both counts . But I would not want honourable members to think that the Leader of the Opposition has been totally inactive over the recess. He has been busy in fact with a direct mail campaign. One of my constituents passed it on to me recently. It is a three-page letter accompanied by a rather crude, nevertheless interesting, leaflet. The letter begins with the customary litany of half truths about the achievements of this Government and then it quickly gets around to its main point. I quote: I'll not beat around the bush says the Leader of the Opposition- Right now what I need urgently is the most generous donation you can afford . . . You and I both know we can't leave the election to chance . . . I'm not going to pretend it's going to be easy-far from it. It's going to take all our resolve, but I know from your record you're not a quitter and that you'll be with us all the way. That's why I've gone ahead planning a pre-election campaign in the belief that you'll once again give your support. That, of course, is the advertising campaign launched on the weekend. The Sydney Morning Herald called it beating the election rush, but I think it is more a case for the Opposition of getting the pain over quickly. According to the Liberals' Federal director, they are foreswearing what he calls the blitzkreig campaigns of the past. Blitzkreig campaigns they were indeed, but no one ever accused the Liberals of not moving with the times. But where is the money coming from for this campaign, to finance this feast of television that we have had since the weekend? The answer is in the Leader's letter. Let me return to it. There is a bit more news from the bunker. The Leader says: Right now I have to get the funds to begin our campaign. My Strategy Committee is convinced a programme of DIRECT COMMUNICATION is essential if we're to get our message straight to the voters in the electorates-and that's Phase 1 of our strategy . . . In short, we're going direct and that's the programme I'm asking you to fund. At the bottom of the letter he says: P.S. While I wish you could all visit Parliament House at Budget time that's obviously impossible so I have asked my Committee to consider ways of three couples to be present on Budget night as our special guests. On page 3 of the leaflet, here is the offer. The heading is: 'A Truly Unique Experience'. It says: Feel the heartbeat of Parliament House on Budget night as the special guests of Andrew Peacock and the Liberal Party. Three lucky couples will win an all expenses paid trip to one of the world's exciting cities at its most exciting time. 2 days and one night in Canberra staying at the Lakeside all expenses paid V.I.P. tour of Canberra and its historic sites special gallery passes for the Budget debate dinner in Parliament House on Budget night special Budget briefing luncheon cruise on Lake Burley Griffin with Margaret Peacock visit the Federal Secretariat for campaign run-down. You and a companion could win this exciting trip simply by supporting Andrew Peacock's campaign. Complete the coupon and post it together with your donation of $30 or more in the envelope provided by Friday, 17th August. We have heard it all now. It is obviously going to be a raffle led recovery as far as the Liberals are concerned. Mr Hand —Who won? Mr FREE —I do not know. But this device raises some serious questions. Along with other members, from time to time I have arranged seats in the gallery for visiting constituents, friends and groups but I have never been under the impression that seats in the galleries in these places were up for sale or could be raffled. I am concerned that a privilege of this nature, which is extended by the House and by the Speaker, should actually be put up for raffle by the Opposition. Imagine the spectacle if honourable members with tickets to the gallery for Budget night were able to go out into King's Hall and scalp them- sell them off to the highest bidder. I regard it as a highly improper practice and it is a matter which I will be pursuing. In closing, let me leave this increasingly bereft and crisis-ridden Opposition with its crises of policy and its crisis of leadership. Like its forebears, the Liberal Party in 1984 has turned a deaf ear to the demands of ordinary people. This Budget meets those needs; it builds on the Government's fine record and it is another step on the road towards national recovery and reconciliation. Mr HOWARD(Bennelong)(1.01) —I welcome the opportunity of participating in this budget debate. Far from sharing in the eulogies which have been delivered about the budget, most recently by the honourable member for Macquarie (Mr Free), I do not believe it is an exaggeration to say that this Budget could well mark the turning point in the political and economic fortunes of this Government. It is no exaggeration to say that over the last 18 months on the propaganda front, this Government has got away with murder so far as the economy is concerned. It has received credit for doing things that it opposed when it was in opposition; it has received credit for improvements in the economy that would have occurred irrespective of which party had been in power; and, most importantly of all, it has lived off a lie about an inherited Budget deficit which the passage of time and analysis of facts has demonstrated to have been one of the most dishonest pieces of propaganda that has been perpetrated on the Australian public in economic debate in recent years. This Budget represents the high water mark in taxation collections and expenditure of any Budget brought down by any government since the end of World War II. It is the largest spending Budget since World War II, accounting for 31. 1 per cent of gross domestic product on government spending. It provides for the largest taxation collections of 27.9 per cent since the end of World War II, and that is recorded on page 364 of Budget Paper No. 1. It provides for a deficit of $6.7 billion which follows the deficit of almost $8 billion delivered in Mr Keating's first Budget. That compares with the largest deficit under the Fraser Government of $4.3 billion and demonstrates beyond any doubt that the nonsense, the lies and the dishonest statements that have been peddled around this country about the fiscal inheritance of this Government represent nothing other than a smokescreen and a disgraceful excuse for the repudiation of so many of the Government's election promises. This Budget demonstrates again that Labor governments have no stomach for expenditure restraint. It provides for an increase in spending in real terms of 6.1 per cent. That is over and above inflation. Spending this year will go up by 6.1 per cent and that follows last year when the increase was some 7.7 per cent. The rate of increase in government spending under this Government is running at treble the rate of increase in government spending under the Fraser Government. In seven years the average rate of increase in spending under the last government was just over 2 per cent in real terms. Under this Government it is running at more than treble that rate. So on both the budgetary counts, that is big spending and big taxation, this is a Budget that beats all its predecessors and indisputably stamps the Treasurer (Mr Keating) in the long tradition of Labor Treasurers, that is one who believes in big government and big spending. So much for his credentials as somebody who represents a break with the long Labor tradition in government of high spending and high taxation. The most important thing about this Budget, and why it does, in my opinion, mark the turning point in the political and economic fortunes of the Government, is that it is built upon an occurrence that cannot possibly be repeated next year. This Budget is built upon a temporary, once only, increase in revenue collections due to unusual fortuitous circumstances which everybody and most of all the Treasurer, knows cannot be repeated next year. It provides for an increase of no less than 10.5 per cent in total taxation collections in real terms. In other words, after inflation taxation collections this year will go up by 10.5 per cent, and that is not only after inflation, it is also after that tax cut that Mr Keating and the Prime Minister keep telling us about. The figure of 10.5 per cent is the largest increase in real terms in revenue collections of any Budget in Australia since the end of World War II. It contrasts most sharply with an increase last year of 1.9 per cent, a decline in revenue collections in the previous year of 1.9 per cent, and increase of 4.5 per cent, 7.2 per cent, 2 .2 per cent, 1.2 per cent and so on over the last 10 years. This Budget stands out like the proverbial sore thumb so far as revenue collections are concerned, and that is due to one special, unique factor. Due to the breaking of the drought there has been a massive surge in collections of provisional taxation from farmers and other provisional tax payers. This year provisional tax collections will go up by no less than 44.7 per cent, which is staggering, astronomical increase which cannot conceivably be repeated next year , the more so because the Bureau of Agricultural Economics has forecast a fall of 30 per cent in farm incomes next year. This Government, in plain, simple language, after giving a tax cut of $1.3 billion, has still enjoyed, as a result of this temporary surge in revenue collections, an additional revenue take of $9 billion. With that $9 billion it has provided a nominal reduction in the deficit of $1.2 billion and in plain, direct language it has spent the rest. It has done the worst possible thing economically, from a long term point of view, that it could possibly have done with this temporary revenue surge. Instead of recognising that the revenue surge was once-only, freakish and not to be repeated next year, instead of doing the prudent, provident, sensible thing by putting it aside against a change in circumstances next year it has gone ahead in the traditional, profligate Labor manner and spent it. It has created an enormous budget problem for next year. As I said in my remarks on the sales tax Bills the other night, with a $9 billion surge in revenue collection, a Treasurer would have had to be a mug not to have been able to bring about some reduction in the deficit. For the Treasurer to run around the country saying what a great economic manager he is because he has achieved a reduction of $1.2 billion in the deficit when he had $ 9 billion to play with is really to stretch the credulity of the business community and the Australian public. He does not tell them that he has spent the other $7.8 billion. He does not tell the Australian public that he has locked this country into expenditure patterns next year that will present us with an enormous budgetary problem. Next year only three options will be available to the Government of the day. The first option will be to cut expenditure and we all know darn well, on the basis of this Government's track record, every time it has occupied the treasury benches, that it has no stomach for cutting expenditure. Is the Government really telling us that next year, if it is re-elected, it will take the axe out to all those expenditure programs it has committed itself to in this Budget? Will it tell us over the next two or three months that it will cut education expenditure for example? It is boasting about how it is going to increase it. Government members are running around the country saying what great people they are, because they have committed themselves to an irrevocable education program. Are they going to tell the local government associations of Australia that they will cut general revenue grants to local government? Are they going to tell the people who want more money spent on roads that they will cut that? No, they are saying quite the opposite. The Minister for Transport (Mr Peter Morris) was in here earlier today saying how much they had increased it and boasting about his Government's record. Are they going to tell us that they will cut expenditure on health when it has gone up 80 per cent in the two Budgets that the Treasurer has brought down? Any suggestion that this Government will have a stomach for expenditure restraint if it is re-elected goes right out the window. This idea that in some way if the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) and the Treasurer are re-elected at the end of the year, once they have an election behind them, we will really see some action on the spending front is not true. The honourable member for Melbourne ( Mr Hand) knows that that is not true and he is grinning approval at the comment that I am making about the Prime Minister and the Treasurer. He knows darn well that if the Labor Party wins the next election the left wing of the Labor Party will demand an even more expansionary-- Mr Hand —Like the Illawarra paper said about you, you are a liar. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Rocher) —Order! I ask the honourable member for Melbourne to withdraw. Mr Hand —I withdraw the statement that he is a liar but I will repeat that the Illawarra paper said that he tells lies, lies, lies. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member will withdraw unqualifiedly. Mr Hand —I withdraw unqualifiedly. Mr HOWARD —Any suggestion that, in some way, if the Government wins the election , it will be brave about expenditure restraint is a whole lot of nonsense. If anybody imagines that I am gilding the lily in saying that, let me just remind the honourable member of what one of his colleagues said. He was not part of his faction either. Mr White —Which faction? Mr HOWARD —He was not one of the alleged big spenders. He was not part of the Left faction. This was none other than that friendly, avuncular, kindly Minister for Science and Technology (Mr Barry Jones). He had some real gems to tell us on the World Today program, three days after the Budget. I can promise the member for Melbourne, the Prime Minister and the Minister that this quotation of his will really do the rounds over the next three months. If ever a quotation gave this Government away, it was the remarks of Mr Barry Jones on the World Today program, a bare three days after the Budget Speech. I ask honourable members to listen because he said it better than I could ever possibly say it. Out of the mouth of a centre-lefter or whatever he is came this absolute gem. He said: What I say; if you are talking about a 3 year Parliament- and if the Government gets re-elected, that is what it would have- without any possibility of an early election- surely the Prime Minister, if re-elected, would not twice break his promise about parliaments running their full term; surely he would not do it twice, having done it once- it means that in 3 year parliaments, you can spend money . . . Whacko, we can hear him licking his chops. He said: . . . you can spend money; you can raise money, perhaps by increasing taxation, or finding new sources of taxation to do things that are expensive that you would not be game to do, you would not be keen to do 3 or 4 months before an election. Well, if Barry Jones is prepared to say that, we can imagine what the honourable member for Burke (Dr Theophanous) and the other really big spenders in the Labor Party would want the Government to do if the Government were re-elected. It is beyond argument, that, if this Government is re-elected next year, the first of the options that are available-and that is cutting expenditure-simply will not be on. The next option that is available would be to live with an unbelievably large deficit. Surely one would hope that in the unfortunate event that the Government were re-elected it would not go to that. We would be facing a deficit far larger than this year. The effect on the expectations of financial markets, interest rates and business confidence generally would be very bad indeed if a re-elected government were to do that. Next year the full year effect of the discretionary spending promises of the Government in this Budget and the taxation cut will amount to an addition to the deficit potentially of $4 billion. Presumably, even in its wider moments, it would not want to do that. That really brings us back to the reality that people face if this Government is re-elected this year-the reality that Barry Jones, the Minister for Science and Technology, was quite honest and candid about. He said that the Government will not be game to put up taxation three or four months before an election, but with an election behind it it will put up taxation so it can spend more. That is exactly what will happen next year. That is the only way. If this Government is re-elected, there is no way on earth that it will be able to manage the economy other than by massive increases in taxation because next year it will not have a 44.7 per cent increase in provisional taxation collections. Next year it will not have the largest increase in taxation collections that this country has had since the end of World War II. We only break a drought once. We do not break it twice and next year the Government will not have the benefit of that temporary surge in collections of provisional taxation and, of course, this Government will resort to even higher taxation. Barry Jones has told us and whatever one thinks about his politics one can never doubt his integrity. No wonder he was dragged into that corner office. No wonder the Prime Ministerial finger was wagged at him. No wonder he was told to keep quiet and to leave economic statements to the Prime Minister, the Treasurer and the Minister for Finance (Mr Dawkins). But I can tell the Prime Minister that we will not let the memory of Barry Jones's Budget litany be forgotten. We are going to hear a lot about Jones on the economy between now and the end of the year. Jones on the economy will become almost as famous as Friedman on the economy between now and the end of the year. What he really did in that candid honest way was to bring home to the Australian people just what will happen if the Hawke Government is re-elected. Not only do I regard this Budget as representing something of a turning point in the economic and political fortunes of this Government but also I draw the House's attention once again to a very, erudite article by Maximilian Walsh in the Sydney Morning Herald of 1 September. Mr Walsh has certainly not been some kind of uncritical supporter of the economic policies of the Opposition-far from it. So he comes to this subject with some objectivity and some real credentials. It is an article that is headed 'The beginning of the end for the Hawke Government'. The most telling paragraph in this article states: It is not too melodramatic to say that the second Keating Budget could well mark the beginning of the end of the Hawke Government. It can certainly be said that Hawke and Keating blew an opportunity in the Budget-an opportunity which may not come their way again. Overnight they moved from being invincible to being opportunistic, expedient politicians. That in many ways says it all. What he was drawing attention to was the thing that I have drawn attention to and the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Peacock) has drawn attention to from the very moment the Budget was brought down. It is a vote now pay later Budget. It is a Budget that is built upon an opportunistic approach to a temporary change in revenue fortunes. It is a Budget that next year the Australian community will pay very dearly for. Next year the average Australian will have to pay the cost of this year's political expediency. Next year the Australian public will bear the burden of the choice that will have to be made between those three options. Anybody who has studied the long history of the Australian Labor Party, both in government and in opposition, will know that it will not exercise expenditure restraint. We can guarantee that all of the expenditures that have gone up this year will go up again next year-for example, the 82 per cent increase in expenditure for the Human Rights Commission; the 40 per cent increase in expenditure on Medicare; the $300m increase, 15 per cent in real terms, in the Department of Administrative Services vote. That is a 15 per cent increase in real terms for public servants. Does anybody imagine that next year this Government, if it is re-elected, will screw up the courage to do the things that it has been unwilling to do this year and last year? Of course it will not. The only option, the only alternative that the Government will have is, of course, the high tax, wealth tax, capital gains tax and perhaps death duty option. It will be left with absolutely no alternative but that. If one wants any evidence of that one has to go back to the remarks of the Minister for Science and Technology. He has nailed his colours to the mast. He said that what the Government ought to do if it gets back and while it has three years in front of it for people's memories to be dulled and fade, so that they can forget, is to jack up the taxes. It is as simple as that. It will jack them up so that it can spend a lot more. He has been saying that to his scientific lobby. No doubt he has been saying: 'Look fellows, science is not very sexy three months before a budget. There are a lot of other things that are far more important but if we win the election and we get that election behind us we will jack up everybody's taxes so we can spend a lot more'. That is the message that comes to the Australian people from this Budget. It is not a budget of economic responsibility. Any mug Treasurer could have achieved a reduction in the deficit of $1.2 billion when he was collecting $9 billion extra in tax. He would have to be a terribly incompetent Treasurer not to achieve some kind of reduction in the Budget deficit. It is in every sense of the word an expedient, politically motivated, vote now pay later Budget but the payment will certainly come later and it will be borne by the broad shoulders of the Australian people and they will not like it in any sense, shape or form next year and they will wreak political vengeance on this Government whether it sits in the Treasury benches or where it belongs on the opposition benches. Mr HAND(Melbourne)(1.21) —We have just heard from the Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard). He has said that any Treasurer could have reduced the deficit but he had seven years and he blew it as no one else has ever done. In fact, just before the last election he was a couple of billion dollars out in his arithmetic. So I think he ought to learn a few basic areas of arithmetic and maths before he starts lecturing us. The second Budget of the Government, the one which I am certain will be followed by many more, provides a continuing framework for improving the economic conditions and living standards of the vast majority of Australians. It is a Budget which has been framed within the wider economic policy of the Government, a policy built around providing for economic recovery and the development of a strong, stable, economic infrastructure after what can only be considered as the worse recession in this country since the 1930s. That was led by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition. When Labor came into power in March 1983 186,000 people had lost their jobs in the preceding year. In Labor's first year 194,000 jobs were, in fact, created. In our first 15 months of office we have created in excess of a quarter of a million jobs and forecasts indicate that we will keep our election promise of creating 500,000 jobs within a three-year period. As a consequence, Australia's unemployment rate has turned the tide. In July 1984 unemployment was down to 8.8 per cent of the labour force compared with the frightful rate of 10.3 per cent at the end of the 1983 financial year. The Labor Government has been able to lift the shroud hanging over an ever-increasing number of Australians who have had to suffer the consequences of the pathetic excuse for economic policy which the Fraser-Howard duo handed out. I would be the last person to suggest that our current unemployment rate is what it ought to be or that it is acceptable to the community. It should be zero . I am sure honourable members opposite would agree with that, even though they do not show much sympathy for the workers of the Borthwick company. Providing jobs for all Australians who are unemployed is and must continue to be the first priority for the Government and I believe we are off to a strong start. In terms of other economic indicators there is ample evidence that our economic policy is working as the Treasurer (Mr Keating) informed the House and the Australian people on Budget night last week. He said: In the year between the June quarters 1983 and 1984, economic growth was over 10 per cent-the best performance in the 25 years for which quarterly accounts have been compiled. Inflation fell to 6.5 per cent and is continuing to decline. This compares with the 11.2 per cent inflation rate of the last year of the Fraser Government, an inflation rate which was spiralling upwards, not downwards, when we became the Government. Let us remember the devastating effects of the previous Government's attempts to control inflation. Its policy not only failed but also in its implementation it caused massive hardship and despair for so many Australians. By contrast, Labor's successful assault on inflation has been made primarily through the highly successful prices and incomes accord, an instrument which far from bludgeoning the working classes has provided a framework for maintaining living standards via a number of interrelating mechanisms. In addition, interest rates have fallen, housing remains buoyant and private sector investment has picked up. The Budget is based on the continuation of those economic trends. It is structured around maintaining expenditures initiated in our first Budget, which provided a much needed physical stimulus to the economy. This will be the first full year of the creation of many of those initiatives. Programs such as the community employment program, Medicare, the first home owners scheme and social welfare increases are all areas of government outlays which have had a direct beneficial impact on the community at large. In addition, the Government has introduced a number of new measures in the Budget and, at the same time, has honoured its commitment under the accord to provide income tax relief while also lowering the deficit. Having addressed myself to the general economic environment created by this Government, via the Budget and other tools of economic policy, I now turn to the question of particular interest to me and that is the redistributive effect of the Budget. This must surely be one of the most important aspects of budgetary policy, although it was never high on the agenda of the Opposition when it sat on this side of the House. Redistribution of income and wealth for it meant only one thing-the rich in this country were handed an ever increasing share of the cake and the gap between the haves and the have nots grew wider and wider. The Government has made a start in reversing that trend. Via the Budget process a number of mechanisms have been employed. These include increased expenditures in the areas which will directly affect those people most in need, the targeting of assistance to specific groups in the community, a reordering of the Budget priorities and, lastly, the abandonment of a number of programs established by the Opposition and changes to the taxation system. Let me mention some of the redistributive measures of the Budget in more specific terms. Social security and welfare benefit payments will increase by a projected $1.3 billion in the year 1984-85. While most of the increase is cyclical in nature an additional $400m available for new measures will benefit recipients in most areas of need such as the aged, the unemployed, single parent families, disabled people and the homeless. I am sure that everyone on this side of the House would join with me in saying that we would have liked to have seen those benefits increased even more substantially and to have come closer to our commitment to raise pensions to 25 per cent of average weekly earnings. However, the constraints placed on us by the previous Government's mishandling of the economy have not allowed us to do that this year. It is interesting to look at the taxation system via the bottom of the harbour schemes. The people on the other side of the House and the Australian Democrats in the other place four times prevented that legislation passing. It would have brought to the Treasury coffers approximately $500m in revenue. That would have been of great assistance to the people in need in this country. Opposition members stand condemned for their support of people who have exploited the tax system over the years. Even with the limited resources available, this Government has been able to do more for the needy in the 18 months it has been in office than the previous Government did in its entire term of office, seven years. Not only has the Government increased pensions since coming to office, but also it has made structural changes to the basis of those payments. The gap between people on this single unemployment benefit and those receiving other forms of benefits and pensions, has, in fact, been narrowed, thus providing more favourable and more equitable allocation of benefits. Significant measures introduced in the Budget to help those most in need include removal of the discriminatory practices against 16 and 17-year-olds with dependants; a 50 per cent increase in the supplementary pension assistance paid to pensioners and long term sickness beneficiaries who are caught in the private rental market trap; a 16.6 per cent increase to families receiving the family income supplement and raising of income limits under FIS so that more people can benefit; a 55 per cent increase in expenditure over 1983-84 for children's services and child care centres; the expansion of community-based care programs for the aged and disabled via a $10m home and community care program provided jointly by the Departments of Social Security and Health; a 15 per cent increase to improve and expand supported accommodation services for young people, women and the chronically homeless. The other aspect of the Budget I want to emphasise, from the perspective of having a redistributional effect, is taxation. In our first year we have introduced a number of changes to the taxation system to make it more equitable and fair. Measures in the last Budget in respect of tax avoidance, sales tax, excise and superannuation lump sums all had this effect. This year we have introduced a number of new measures which will also serve to make the taxation system more equitable by easing the burden on the pay as you earn wage and salary earners. The most significant taxation measure in this Budget is the personal income tax cuts to take effect from 1 November 1984. In conjunction with the tax cuts the Government has extended the personal income tax rate scale to five steps. Other changes to rebates effectively raise the tax threshold to $ 4,783 for single beneficiaries and $7,898 for married beneficiaries on unemployment, sickness and special benefits and also substantially raise the tax threshold for pensioners. The income threshold below which the Medicare levy is not payable has also been raised from $7,100 for single persons and $11,803 for couples. At the other end of the income scale the maximum levy payable has been increased to $750. Thus, while the greatest taxation cuts in monetary terms may not be going to the lowest income earners, the effect of these and other measures is that in percentage terms the lowest income earners in our community have had the greatest reduction in taxation. The combined effects of tax and social security arrangements in the 1984-85 Budget have redistributed income from those in the top bracket of income earners, those earning in excess of $35,000, and those on salaries below $20,000 have benefited most from the Budget. Let us be quite clear about this. The net effect of tax cuts is to provide substantially more benefits for income earners on salaries between $7,000 and $20,000 than tax indexation would have. Equally, the measure provides substantially less benefits for income earners on $35,000 and upwards than tax indexation would have. Far from being phoney, as the Opposition Leader so weakly tried to suggest, the taxation measures introduced in this Budget will be of direct benefit to the majority of Australians on low incomes and that is where we have to start. Moreover, these measures should be seen in their proper context as interim measures introduced prior to the review of the total tax system which will take place next year. They should also be seen in the context of the Government's honouring of the accord which called on the Government to restructure substantially the income tax scale to ease the burden on low and middle income earners. The measures introduced in the Budget have set the process in train. Likewise, this Budget has gone a considerable way towards meeting the social wage aspects of the accord. I turn my attention now to Medicare which in this Budget comprises the largest single item of government expenditure. Since its introduction on 1 February 1984 , Medicare has proved to be an extremely efficient and highly successful scheme of universal medical and hospital insurance which has benefited all Australians, particularly those two million or so who were previously in no person's land, unable to afford private insurance, just praying that they did not become ill. I believe it is a great credit to the Government that Medicare was introduced as swiftly and as smoothly as it was and that under this Government all Australians are now entitled to basic hospital and medical care without fear or favour. In concluding, I would like to say that while I welcome the initiatives taken in this Budget which have begun the process of income redistribution, it is imperative that we not lose sight of the fact that there is still a long way to go. In this place it is all too easy to obliterate the real world from our minds , to become cut off from the people we are here to represent. But I remind all honourable members that is exactly what we are supposed to do here, represent all people within the community. In my electorate of Melbourne one does not have to look very hard to see poverty, not just isolated pockets, but widespread areas of great hardship and need. Much of that poverty can be attributed, I believe, to the heartless, economic, fiscal policies of those men and women on the other side of the political arena. When in Government they were blind to the needs of those least able to defend themselves in our society. Since coming to office we have been able to offer some hope and concrete assistance to those people. I look forward to that continuing in future Labor Budgets which I am sure will be brought down for many years. Mr GOODLUCK(Franklin)(1.34) —I am pleased to enter the debate. Of course, one listens with interest to the remarks of the honourable member for Melbourne (Mr Hand), who has his ideology and philosophy. He adheres to it and follows it strictly, and of course, he throws bricks at people who may think differently. Mr Hand —I never mentioned you. Mr GOODLUCK —No, the honourable member did not mention me specifically; but he says that we do not care for the sick and aged, and so on. One could refute that and debate it with him. However, as regards Budgets, we were in government seven years, and I remember speeches from honourable members from the other side against the Fraser Budgets, and they were pretty hard and hard hitting, and condemning most of the time. I have been listening to most of the speeches and analysing what has been occurring out in the open arena about the handing down of this Labor Budget. Most people are really worried only about what concerns them. They analyse what is going to happen to their pay packet and what will happen to the amount of money that they have to spend. I suppose that that, in essence, is what a Budget is all about-budgeting and trying to determine how much one has to spend after one pays one's accounts and bills, et cetera. I have spoken to many people recently, and some think that the Budget has been good for them, but others have been very strong in their condemnation because it does not do anything for them. But that is what we are about. As politicians, we have to tune in to what our people think about certain things and then air their grievances, and, if one can, the praise that is necessary. I suppose that I thought to myself, 'Bruce, you can join in and start hammering and bashing away and doing this and that, and a few people outside might listen to it', but most of the people that I represent are just ordinary average people who have money with which to pay their accounts and who have all the other problems associated with most electorates in Australia. The honourable member for Melbourne says that we do not care for the poor and the needy. Mr Hand —You don't. Mr GOODLUCK —I just do not think that is correct. We do care, and we deal with them from day to day. Mr Hand —Why did you let their conditions deteriorate in such a manner? Mr GOODLUCK —We did not allow them to deteriorate. It was difficult. Incidentally, the ones that I deal with at the moment that are poor and needy have not seen any real improvement after the Labor Party has been in government for two years; they have not seen anything at all. I heard the speeches earlier today about the aged and the sick, et cetera, and the big deal for them. It has all just happened now, as if to say no one in the past has ever thought about the elderly, the aged and the sick and their problems. I can assure the honourable member than many have, and many have been very concerned about them, and many also have not tried to politicise that section. But it can be easily politicised; there are people that want to politicise it, and that is what happens. Honourable members talk about the increase in the age pension. It is not very real and it is not very great, and it will not assist most of the pensioners that I know. So let us not get carried away with what Labor members have done in their Budget for the aged, the sick and the elderly, and goodness knows what else, and for the people who are poor and needy. They have not done very much at all. They make some glib remarks about it, but we will leave it to the people to judge for themselves. I have an opportunity today to talk about the capital works program. First, in respect of that matter, I would like to pay great tribute to what occurred when the Fraser Government handed down its Budget. There were three Ministers concerned from Tasmania-the honourable member for Denison (Mr Hodgman), the honourable member for Braddon (Mr Groom) and the honourable member for Bass (Mr Newman). When I have made comparisons with what the Hawke Government has allocated to Tasmania, I have seen just exactly how much influence those three had and what work they did for Tasmania. It saddens me to think that we are losing two of them, the honourable member for Bass and the honourable member for Braddon. The honourable member for Bass has not been well for quite a few months , but, in his normal tenacious way, he has fought on and represented the people of Bass in a most diligent way, dealing with all their day to day problems. One has only to talk to the people of Launceston to realise that he is very well respected in every regard. He fights hard, and he will be a sad loss to the House of Representatives and to the people of Tasmania. The people of Tasmania should remember what he did and the influence that he had on the Fraser Government during those seven years. A lot of people have said that there has been a fair bit of pork barrelling in Tasmania to keep seats, et cetera, but that is just not true. Mr Holding —That would not be true. You would not approve of that. Mr GOODLUCK —No, I would not agree with that. But they fought very hard to get an allocation of the Budget, and they got it. The people of Tasmania should be indebted, first, to the honourable member for Bass. Now I turn to my good friend the honourable member for Braddon, who, again, was another good Minister. I think that he got raw treatment from the Fraser Government. When he lost his ministry, I could not believe it. I do not think that many people realised the work that he did. He worked in a very hard electorate. Braddon electorate is a difficult one to work. He did it diligently and conscientiously, and he was respected by everybody. That is why his vote went up each time. Also he is an extremely capable person. I am very, very sorry to think that he is not standing again, for extreme personal reasons. His wife has just had another child-number six in the family-and Ray Groom, only a young man, has decided to give away all the flowery and nice things about parliament, et cetera, to lead a normal life of being a father. I applaud him. He has made a very courageous decision. Many would not make it, because we think that this is a great life. But anyway, Ray has done that. I wish him all the very best. He should be very proud of what he did for Tasmania in the allocation of funds to Tasmania in the previous Fraser Budgets. The people of Tasmania just have to look at what was allocated. For example, in the year 1982-83, $35.7m was allocated to Tasmania, providing work opportunities for people that have found it very difficult to get jobs there and, of course, building materials and all the other things that flow from that. But these were the gentlemen-the honourable member for Braddon, the honourable member for Bass, and the honourable member for Denison, too, with his portfolio as a Minister-who all did a good job in making certain that funds were allocated to Tasmania. I believe that that is the function of a politician-to work for his electorate, to work for the people that vote for him, and to try and get the best deal that he possibly can. That is what we tried to do. I am sorry that they are not standing again. They would both retain their seats very easily, because they are so greatly respected in Tasmania. But they can feel very proud of what they did for their State. They can also feel very proud of the job that they did on the floor of this House, because they have gained the respect of all honourable members. I come to a good thing in the Budget-the $25m that has been allocated for the new vessel that will ply between the north of Tasmania and Melbourne. That will be a great asset to the people of Tasmania, and most people, of course, are pleased about it. And I am trying to be fair about the Budget. They are very pleased with that, because that is another way that Tasmania can be opened up and people from the mainland can come across and see what a beautiful island it is. The tourist industry will boom. We desperately need jobs in Tasmania at the moment. Unemployment is running at about 10 per cent to 11 per cent. We have all tried desperately to provide jobs for people that cannot get a job, and this allocation of funds is a positive step. I am not going to argue about where the vessel started from, but it will be a good vessel for Tasmania. It will be of great help to the people of Tasmania, and I applaud that item in the Budget. Mr Simmons —Tourism. For jobs, better than dams. Mr GOODLUCK —Tourism is terribly important to Tasmania. The honourable member raised the point about the dam. Just let me tell him that at the next election, although he may think that the dam issue has been forgotten, it will not have been forgotten. It will be resurrected. It is fermenting in Tasmania. People are not saying very much about it, but they still feel very strongly about, first, the dam, and, secondly, the fact that the present Labor Government trod very hard on the people of Tasmania, and made a decision that we believe was an incorrect decision. The honourable member brought up the subject of the dam, and he is a pretty fair fellow. It will be an issue at the next election. We shall certainly resurrect it, so do not let anyone say that we will not do so. Mr Simmons —There are more jobs in tourism, Bruce. Mr Holding —You will resurrect it. Mr GOODLUCK —Of course; I will resurrect it. I will do it on every street corner , so do not worry about that. But that $25m will be a great asset to the people of Tasmania. It should bring more people from this big mainland to the little isle of Tassie to see what it is all about, to see what the people are like, and , for once in their lifetime, to see a gem, which is what they will see. So that will be great, and we appreciate that in the Budget. But honestly, what about the $3.5m that this Government has allocated for capital works in Tasmania in this Budget? It is trying to tell the people of Tasmania that it can win seats down there. The Labor Party definitely will not win seats in Tasmania with an allocation like that, because I assure the House that people are making comparisons in Tasmania now. They are saying: 'What did we get from the Fraser Government, and what are we getting from this Hawke Government?' They are making those comparisons, and let me repeat that, at the next election, the Labor Party will find out the reasons why it will not win a seat in Tasmania. With its re-distribution it thinks that it will get rid of one or two members, but it will not. We will be back again, and we will be telling the people of Tassie that just because Mr Hawke hates us and gives us only $3.7m -- Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! 'The Prime Minister', thank you. Mr GOODLUCK —I am sorry. Just because the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) hates us, took away certain rights that we believed in-- Mr Simmons —What? Mr GOODLUCK —On the dams issue, the State rights issue. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member for Calare is going to speak next. I think he had better save his powder. Mr GOODLUCK —I do not mind a few interruptions. It is good. Mr Holding —The High Court had something to say about that. Are you a lawbreaker now? Mr GOODLUCK —One could say something about the High Court, but I will not-- Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! I invite the honourable member for Franklin to ignore the interjections. Mr GOODLUCK —Certainly, Madam Deputy Speaker; they are very distracting. The people of Tasmania will not forget this miserable allocation of $3.5m, which includes $300,000 for a start on the new Australian Broadcasting Corporation building. It is just not good enough. It is not enough. It is the lowest percentage allocation of any State in Australia. We desperately need an injection into Tasmania of Federal funds. That is the only way that we can provide jobs in the building industry, the construction industry and the other associated industries. So for that this Labor Government will be remembered. That is one part of the Budget. I have praised one good part; now I am condemning the other side. However, the ordinary, average worker is saying to me: 'Bruce, I am no better off. There is a lot of facade going on. There is a lot of talk about less tax on my pay packet, et cetera, but it is just not there.' That is what this Budget is all about. It has been a bit of a con. It is an election Budget. It seems to be a smooth sort of a document that will not upset very many on this side or the other side, but it has not done what the Government said that it would do, and that is to make a better way of life for the average person in Australia, and, of course, the Government has not done it for the people of Tasmania. Mr SIMMONS(Calare)(1.48) —Having the interesting distinction of following the honourable member for Franklin (Mr Goodluck) today, I can only assume that the creators of Laurie Jackson Jackson, a show that is currently featured on radio stations throughout Australia, must have used him as the series inspiration in view of some of his exaggerated comments this afternoon. I do not want to dwell on some of the comments of the honourable member for Franklin. He is certainly entitled to make those remarks in respect of his particular electorate of Franklin. My remarks this afternoon are directed towards rural Australia. It is little wonder that farmers and farmers' organisations as well as the rural media have reacted favourably to the 1984-85 Budget, for, despite some claims that there is a level of dissatisfaction in rural Australia with the macroeconomic approach of the Budget, reality is not always honestly measured against such an allegation. As the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Kerin) said on 21 August: An objective assessment of the 1984-85 Budget will show that the Government has acted with equity, has supported primary industry in a substantial and appropriate way and has laid the groundwork for a more stable and viable primary industry sector. Of course, one can never be completely satisfied with any Federal Budget. However, I believe that this Budget continues this Government's constructive approach to our primary industries. Despite the rhetoric of the National Party of Australia-after all, it is more interested in pursuing 'agrarian socialism' and 'gross pork barrelling' in a manner similar to the way in which its New Zealand counterparts carried on that practice in the past-that approach is not one which the Hawke Government wants to follow. Rather, we want to ensure that our primary industries continue to provide almost half of our total export income, and, as a result, contribute significantly to our relatively high standard of living. To achieve this objective, the Government will continue to fund rural infrastructure, such as soil conservation, to make sure that our rural sector can enjoy long term stability and profitability. As there has been some ill-informed comment about the macroeconomics of the Budget, I think it is worthwhile canvassing some of these aspects of this year's Budget. The Government wants to make sure that the fiscal year 1984-85 will build upon the successes of 1983-84. Opposition members are still embarrassed with the economic success of the policies of the Hawke Government over the last 18 months. Despite their bleating, it is an undeniable fact that our Government inherited the worst set of economic circumstances in more than 50 years when it won office last year. These circumstances involved a potential deficit, as we have so often reminded them, of $9.6 billion, sky-rocketting levels of unemployment, double digit inflation, soaring interest rates and negative growth , to name just a few. Let us examine the current economic circumstances. Over the last fiscal year there was strong growth in output-6 per cent year on year growth in total gross domestic product. A responsible projected deficit of nearly $8.4 billion came in more than $400m below that projection. The largest ever annual increase in employment, of 232,000 people, occurred, reversing a directly opposite trend of the past few years. Even when the Medicare effect is taken into account, the underlying rate of inflation was reduced by more than four percentage points, and all indications suggest it will fall to about 5 per cent this financial year . Interest rates have fallen and this downward trend seems set to continue. In other words, 1983-84 was a year of strong growth in output and employment, coupled with declining inflation, and despite the protestations of the policy- less knockers of good government on the Opposition benches-a geographic fact of life they appear to be confronting for many years to come-this year's Federal Budget will consolidate this welcome economic position. The Leader of the Opposition (Mr Peacock) criticised the Government in his speech to the House two weeks ago by noting that at the recent national conference of our Party only six minutes was spent discussing the primary industry platform. What he failed to note was that the proposed platform was so acceptable to conference delegates that little change was necessary-yet another glowing tribute to the work of a dedicated Minister for Primary Industry. But what did the Leader of the Opposition promise the rural sector in his five or six lines of rhetoric? He made a vague promise on the income equalisation deposits scheme. He issued a throw-away line about the Primary Industry Bank. He promised 'massive' assistance to the fishing industry, and, not yet fully comprehending the fact that the drought is now over, he made an offer to improve drought relief assistance. There was not one acknowledgement of the broader macroeconomic perspectives in which our primary industries operate, but yet another indication of the lack of direction in overall as well as specific economic reality for Australia's primary industries. I now turn to some of the microeconomic aspects of the Budget, because these are also important. In the National Farmer of 23 August, this comment was very aptly made: At the microeconomic level, agriculture did well from the Budget, gaining a surprising number of small concessions, providing evidence that the sector's importance to the economy is at long last achieving better recognition and adding to the laurels of Primary Industry Minister Kerin in the Cabinet struggle for resources. Wool promotion is now funded on a longer term basis and, therefore, a more predictable basis. From this financial year and for the next five years, the Federal Government's contribution will be equivalent to 1.2 per cent of the gross value of the wool clip, resulting in $26m in 1984-85 and an average payment over the five year period in excess of $28m. This means that there will be a 30 per cent increase on the $20m spent annually over the last four years. Since the value of the wool clip is reasonably predictable, the decision provides a useful basis to determine the Government's contribution to promotion funding. Nearly half a million dollars has also been provided on a contingency basis related to exotic livestock diseases. I know that my colleague the honourable member for Eden-Monaro (Mr Snow) is particularly delighted with this component of the allocation, which will see joint State-Commonwealth programs aimed at developing and testing strategies for the eradication of feral animals, particularly feral pigs. His efforts over the past few months, including his highly successful 'search conference' on the subject of feral pig control, obviously assisted the Minister during pre-Budget discussions. One should also not forget the value of tax cuts to primary producers. Opposition members have sought to suggest some sinister plot between the Government and the Australian Council of Trade Unions over this initiative. Whilst it is certainly true that many unionists will benefit enormously from this tax relief, it is also true that many farmers will benefit from that decision as well. Taking into account average farm incomes in Australia, many farmers are likely to see their taxation liability reduced by nearly 17 per cent in 1984-85. But there are other tax initiatives that will positively impact upon the rural sector. Provisional taxpayers will now have a reduction from 11 per cent to 10 per cent in the automatic increase in the assessment of the current year's income over the previous year's income. The effect of this decision is to reduce the proportion by which provisional taxpayers' income is assumed to be increasing and so reduce their provisional tax liability. The estimated cost to revenue of this decision will be about $70m in 1984-85, and a significant proportion of this cost will accrue as savings to the rural sector because most, if not all, primary producers are provisional taxpayers. Another welcome measure in this Budget is the decision to increase the depreciation rates on income-producing buildings from 2 1/2 per cent to 4 per cent. As far as the rural sector is concerned, this now means that primary producers will be able to increase the rate of depreciation of such income- producing buildings as shearing sheds and grain storage facilities. Primary producers will also benefit from the decision to extend the period of qualification for the 18 per cent investment allowance. While structural improvements are not within the scope of this concession, primary producers will be aware that fences for excluding stock from soil erosion areas, improvements for the purposes of conservation, and conveyancing of water and storage facilities are defined as 'eligible property'. The Government is now well and truly back in the business of soil conservation after the scandalous decision by the Fraser razor gang in 1981 to scrap Commonwealth initiatives in this activity-a decision obviously supported by the National Party. There can be no doubt that soil degradation should be viewed as a national problem. Soil erosion does not recognise State boundaries, and it is clearly just as much a responsibility of a national government as it is a responsibility of respective State governments. Last year's Budget provided a small amount to begin the process of long term planning incorporating sound land use management principles. In co-operation with the States, landowners and other interest groups, a framework has been established to satisfactorily plan an expansion of the program. This decision will result in a substantial strengthening in the efforts directed at overcoming land degradation, which represents the most serious long term threat to Australian agriculture. There are numerous other decisions that impact upon the rural sector. Indexation of diesel fuel excise, additional funds for rural research, market development research, and so on. No matter how one approaches any analysis of the 1984-85 Federal Budget, from either the microeconomic or, indeed, the macroeconomic approach, one can only come to the conclusion that this Budget is good news for rural Australia. Mr SPEAKER —Order! It being 2 p.m., the debate is interrupted in accordance with standing order 104, as amended for this session. The debate may be resumed at a later hour. Mr HAWKE(Wills-Prime Minister) —I inform the House that the Minister for Aviation (Mr Beazley) left Australia early today-- Mr Sinclair —They are all leaving. Mr HAWKE —The only difference is that we will all be coming back. I inform the House that the Minister for Aviation left Australia early today to travel on the inaugural CAAC direct flight between Sydney and Beijing and to undertake the formal signing of the bilateral treaty with China. The Minister for Transport ( Mr Peter Morris) is Acting Minister for Aviation until the Minister for Aviation returns. Mr STEELE HALL —Is the Special Minister of State satisfied with the capacity of the Australian Federal Police to cope with organised crime? Can he satisfy the House that there is no concern at the deterioration in the last 12 months in the capacity of the Federal Police to cope with organised crime? Mr YOUNG —I can give the House that assurance. In fact, the resources that have been put at the disposal of the Australian Federal Police in the two Budgets of the Hawke Labor Government go far and beyond the facilities and resources made available by the previous Government. They come as a result of very detailed submissions from the AFP and after very lengthy discussions between the Government and the AFP. Of course, it is true to say-this would be true not only in the Commonwealth but also in the States-that there would be no end to the resources the police forces may need. There is always the argument that we saw displayed last year when we discussed at a seminar in the Senate chamber the validity of the establishment of a National Crime Authority. There were those people who argued that the resources being put into the National Crime Authority should be put into the police forces of Australia so that normal police methods of investigation could be enhanced. I can assure the honourable member for Boothby that not only are we satisfied with the resources being put at the disposal of the Australian Federal Police but also the Australian Federal Police has had a great deal of success in its fight against crime in this country under this Government as it had under the previous Government. Of course, there are problems with housing the Force, including problems as to location. The Force had before the former Minister a submission on the siting of the Australian Federal Police headquarters in this Territory. We have had also to deal with the placement of a number of the operations of the Australian Federal Police in new establishments since we came to government, but overall there has been a very large increase in the financial resources made available to the Australian Federal Police. Just a few months ago I attended the largest graduation ceremony ever held by the Australian Federal Police, or the Commonwealth Police as it was then called. The honourable member for Boothby, as the shadow Minister, has access to briefings from the Commissioner if he requires them. He would find from the Commissioner and the AFP that they have been well satisfied with the resources that have been placed at their disposal by this Government. Mr CHARLES —My question which is directed to the Prime Minister is appropriate considering the preceding question. I refer the Prime Minister to the National Crime Authority. Is the Prime Minister confident that the handover from the Costigan Royal Commission on the Activities of the Federated Ship Painters and Dockers Union to the National Crime Authority is and will continue to proceed satisfactorily? Mr HAWKE —I am indebted to the honourable member for his question. It is the wish of the Government to see an effective transition from the proceedings and processes of the Costigan Royal Commission to the National Crime Authority. It is clear that Mr Costigan and the National Crime Authority have a different view on the adequacy of the transition arrangements. While Mr Costigan appears to believe that there will be problems with the transition, the National Crime Authority has advised that its members 'disagree' unanimously with Mr Costigan's assessment of the situation. Clearly this is a matter between Mr Costigan and the National Crime Authority. I am pleased to say that to assist the House I will table later this day the full correspondence from Mr Costigan and the National Crime Authority on this matter. Having made that announcement, Mr Speaker, if you will allow me, I want to put a question through you to the Opposition. As we are tabling the correspondence between Mr Costigan and this Government, it would of course be a matter for the Opposition and for Mr Costigan whether they would agree to the tabling of the correspondence between Mr Costigan and the former Government. I take it that by his silence the Leader of the Opposition agrees that the Opposition will accept that course of action. Mr Steedman —He doesn't look happy. Mr HAWKE —The honourable member said that the Leader of the Opposition does not look happy. Would you? As to the final report of the Costigan Commission, decisions on the tabling of the report will be made as soon as possible after the Royal Commissioner submits his report. Mr Howard —Ha! Mr HAWKE —I advise the honourable member not to laugh, because he has nothing to laugh about, I can assure him. We will make every effort to maximise the extent to which the contents of the final report can be made public. In accordance with normal practice, we will need to have regard to the security classification accorded to the contents of the report by the Royal Commissioner and, of course, also to such factors as the potential to prejudice ongoing investigations. The Opposition's approach to the release of the report is completely hypocritical. I would like to remind the House of the history of this matter. To date, Commissioner Costigan has submitted five interim reports. The first four interim reports were received by the previous Government. Of those four, only one, interim report No. 3, was tabled in full. Mr Tuckey —But you've seen that. Mr HAWKE —Yes, it is one of the privileges one has as Prime Minister. One does have access to this material. It is a privilege, I can assure the honourable member, that neither he nor anyone else on that side of the House will enjoy for a long time to come. Interim reports No. 1 and No. 2 were not tabled at all. Interim report No. 4 was tabled in part. Interim report No. 5 was received by this Government. Volume 1 of that report was tabled, but volumes 2 and 3 were not tabled because of the risk to the fair trial of certain persons who had been charged with criminal offences and because of the risk to certain future investigations. It is very strange-no one on this side of the House can follow it-but the Opposition seems to be suggesting or attempting to suggest that there will be some mileage for it in the next Costigan report. I warn it to be very careful, because history is not on its side in this matter. We on this side of the House look forward to the next and final Costigan report. But on the basis of history, the people on that side of the House should not look forward to it at all. I remind the House that in a major contribution to the affairs of this country Commissioner Costigan exposed the sellout of the previous Government to the tax avoidance industry of Australia. I remind the House of the devastating findings of report No. 4 of Commissioner Costigan. That report showed that the previous Government and its Attorney-General over a period of many years had failed to institute prosecutions against tax avoiders promoting illegal bottom of the harbour schemes, schemes which cost the taxpayers of this country hundreds of millions of dollars each year. Now, and at least we can give them full marks for consistency, under this Leader of the Opposition those opposite have caved in completely to the tax cheats of this country. I remind the House of the Opposition's disgraceful blocking of our bottom of the harbour legislation on four separate occasions and that blocking on the Opposition's part will cost the honest, legitimate taxpayers of this country, the overwhelming majority of our citizens, some half a billion dollars. I conclude by saying that the Leader of the Opposition and the others opposite are apparently seeking to make an issue of the relationship between the citizens and the Government on the subject of tax. I welcome their attempt to make it an issue because we will take it up and they will choke on it. Mr PEACOCK —My question, which is directed to the Special Minister of State, relates to the question asked of him at the commencement of Question Time today by the honourable member for Boothby. He asked the Minister whether he was satisfied with the capacity of the Federal Police and whether he was concerned at any deterioration in the last 12 months. The Minister, in a full reply, said he could assure the House that there were no problems at all. In view of this, I ask the Minister how the Government answers the charge of the Office of the Special Prosecutor, Mr Redlich, in his annual report for 1983-84-Labor's year in Government-when he says: An immediate cause for the gravest concern is the gross incapacity of the Federal Police to respond to and cope with the multifarious facets of identified Federal crime, whether 'organised' or not. Mr Redlich concludes that section of the report by saying: From my perspective, the capacity of the AFP to deal with Commonwealth crime has deteriorated since my last Annual Report. I ask the Minister to request the Attorney-General, in view of the thwarting of Commissioner Costigan, in view of the ending of the Costigan Royal Commission on the Activities of the Federated Ship Painters and Dockers Union, in view of the failure of this Government adequately to provide for the transition to the National Crime Authority and now in the most damning way, in the words of the Special Prosecutor, in view of its failure to provide for the Federal Police-- Government members interjecting- Mr PEACOCK —These are not my words that I have quoted; they are the words of the Office of the Special Prosecutor. Mr SPEAKER —Order! The Leader of the Opposition having quoted those words should go to his question. Mr PEACOCK —I ask the Minister to have his ministerial colleague the Attorney table the Redlich report and answer the charges today. Mr YOUNG —I do not think anyone could ever say that in this portfolio all the problems have been overcome. When a response is given to some of the things that have been said about the responsibilities that have been placed on the Australian Federal Police, one should understand the dramatic changes that have taken place in regard to its responsibilities. Mr Peacock —But Redlich says there has been a deterioration. Mr YOUNG —That is right; but because there may have been a massive increase in medifraud or in social security fraud, areas in which the resources of the Australian Federal Police are required. One has to understand the additional responsibilities which have been placed on the shoulders of the Australian Federal Police in a very short period, starting under the last Government. The establishment of the Costigan Royal Commission placed new and very exhaustive responsibilities on the Australian Federal Police. All the other commissions such as the Stewart Royal Commission of Inquiry into Drug Trafficking and the Stewart Royal Commission of Inquiry into the Activities of the Nugan Hand Group and the setting up of the Commonwealth-New South Wales task force on drugs, all of these additional responsibilities take resources away from the Australian Federal Police. Mr Howard —You are contradicting yourself. Mr YOUNG —I am not contradicting myself at all because if the honourable member were to look at the results of the work of the Australian Federal Police he would find that we all have to be grateful to the members of the Australian Federal Police for the way in which they have carried out their duties. But it has meant that a lot of senior people have been taken from the Australian Federal Police to carry out these responsibilities and it has meant that the demand on the Government for an increase in the intake has had to be met over the last two years in the Budgets, and it has been met. The additional manpower has been met in reply to the request and the submission made to us by the Australian Federal Police, and those responsibilities are being carried out. The establishment of the National Crime Authority will have to be looked at by the Australian Federal Police in terms of what it means for its resources and what it will have to do to assist the National Crime Authority to carry out its duties. Yesterday the Deputy Leader of the Opposition asked me about the material that has been handed over by the Costigan Commission to the National Crime Authority. A great deal of that material may require quite lengthy investigation. A great deal will be handed over to the Australian Federal Police to continue that investigation so one cannot say on any given day, 'Here are the duties of the Australian Federal Police and here is the number of people we have to carry them out at these levels', because its duties and responsibilities may change from week to week. The previous Government understood that. We have had to learn of the difficulties the AFP has in dealing with all these matters, and that is exactly what we have done. No Minister responsible for the Australian Federal Police can ever say that all the problems have been overcome. Some of the names that have been bandied around Australia as being those of some of the top Australian criminal activists go back to the Menzies Government, and they are still being chased. I do not think this Government can be held to blame for the fact that those things have not been pursued to their logical conclusion, but they will be, irrespective of what may have been the attitude of the previous Government. As I said in answer to the honourable member for Boothby, we have made the necessary additional resources available to the AFP in the last two Budgets and the AFP is carrying out its duties to the best of its ability. Mr GEAR —Is the Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism aware of recent media speculation that a number of new sports are to be introduced at the Australian Institute of Sport? Can the Minister inform the House as to the validity or otherwise of this speculation? Mr Coleman —It is in the annual report. Mr JOHN BROWN —It is not in the annual report. I think most Australians, and I presume that includes everybody on the other side of the House, are pretty proud of our Institute of Sport, which is fast developing, I might say, into the best of its kind in the world. Certainly its achievements in Los Angeles speak very highly of it. There has been a deal of speculation about new sports. Perhaps I can cast some light on that speculation by telling honourable members exactly what the situation is. Honourable members may have noticed that in the recent Budget an amount of $600,000 was set aside to introduce new sports to the Institute. I can tell honourable members exactly what is happening. As from January 1985 rowing will be introduced into the Institute of Sport here in Canberra, at a half- yearly cost of $273,000. That will fund 12 men and 12 women rowers. It is worth noting that our rowers performed extremely well in Los Angeles, winning two bronze medals and one silver medal. Water polo will be coming to Canberra in March 1985, at a cost of $80,000 for the half year. Our water polo team is now ranked fifth in the world, which is a considerable improvement on its standing in previous years. In line with our attempts to decentralise the Institute of Sport to let all Australians wherever they live see sport and the working of the Institute in all its proper manifestations and, with the co-operation of the Queensland Government, we will be decentralising squash to Queensland in January 1985 at a cost of $140,000 for the half year. I think it is reasonable to suggest that squash has one of the highest participation rates in Australia. We do have the current world women's squash champion, Vicki Cardwell, who, by the way, will be a member of the Australian Sports Commission when it is announced next week-there is another leak for honourable members-and we have Ken Hiscoe and Geoff Hunt who have been world champions in recent years. Diving, where Australia has reached extraordinary heights in the last couple of years, will also be decentralised to Brisbane in November 1984, at a half-yearly cost of $ 121,000. Those with mathematical minds who have been adding up will see that adds up to $614,000 for the half year. I think it is reasonable to add a cynical note. I have announced these sports, the money is there and it will happen. That contrasts rather sharply with the rather flamboyant announcement made by the previous Minister responsible for sport, who is deeply in conversation with his mate over there, on 3 March 1983, about two days before the election. That was when he announced that rowing and cycling would be coming to the Australian Institute of Sport. The only people who did not know about it were the sporting organisations. In this case, after very deep consultation between the board of the Institute of Sport and the sporting organisations, these plans have now come to fruition and these sports will be in the Institute at the times I have announced. Mr PEACOCK —I refer the Minister representing the Attorney-General to the report of the Office of the Special Prosecutor which this Government knows to be damning of the Government and which it is not tabling in this Parliament. I refer to some of the words used by Mr Redlich when he says in relation to the establishment of the Director of Public Prosecutions by this Government: . . . the Director's faculty to exercise civil remedies has been grossly and unjustifiably circumscribed. He then goes on to talk about his pleadings. Those are his words-the pleadings. Mr SPEAKER —Order! The Leader of the Opposition is allowed some latitude in his question, but I hope that he rounds it off soon. Mr PEACOCK —Mr Speaker, I hope that you will use those remarks when dealing with Ministers when they answer questions. Mr SPEAKER —Order! I suggest that the Leader of the Opposition look at the Standing Orders in regard to questions and answers. He might appreciate the tolerance that is allowed him in presenting a question. Mr PEACOCK —I accept that, Mr Speaker, as I have accepted it before, but what I am not accepting is that you are allowing this man to run untrammelled, without calling him to order. Mr SPEAKER —Order! I suggest that the Leader of the Opposition not challenge the Chair. He is aware of the rules with regard to answers. I suggest that he carry on with his question, not with his speech. Mr PEACOCK —I am making a simple suggestion to you. I remind the Minister that the words that were used were that, despite Mr Redlich's pleadings in the 1982- 83 annual report, the Bill for a Director of Public Prosecutions Act was drafted , and he described how inadequate it is. Will the Minister make the annual report available? Will he indicate to the House what action will be taken to accept the viewpoints of the Office of the Special Prosecutor to give the Director of Public Prosecutions the powers that he quite clearly needs, and not allow crime to go on virtually unabated, as it is under this Government? Mr LIONEL BOWEN —I must say that I am not aware of the detail of the report of the Office of the Special Prosecutor but I undertake to get in touch with the Attorney immediately as to the contents of it, why it could not be tabled and also the other aspects to which the honourable gentleman has addressed his mind. Let me make it very clear: In the concept of dealing with crime, this Government has left no stone unturned. The Opposition might look at the fact that the reason it is where it is is its failure to prosecute crime. We are very mindful of the fact that in respect of some of the reports that have recently come to our notice there was a fair amount of telephone tapping, which was all illegal, going on under the previous Attorney-General. The Opposition might address its mind to that and to the fact that matters which it is now anxious to exploit in the Senate came from telephone tapping in 1981 and 1982. Mr Peacock —The Prime Minister is writing a response for you. Mr SPEAKER —Order! The Leader of the Opposition has already asked his question. Mr LIONEL BOWEN —The Prime Minister is making the point that you were in government for too long and that is why we have to clean up the mess that we have inherited. Mr Peacock —Has he told you why he was at the Nugan Hand Bank? Mr SPEAKER —Order! The Leader of the Opposition will cease defying the Chair. Mr LIONEL BOWEN —The Leader of the Opposition has a tendency to try to overcome his own shortcomings by making continual interjections. Let me make it very clear. We are talking about crime in this country. We have set up a National Crime Authority and the Leader of the Opposition's questions this week have done nothing but try to denigrate that Authority. That is his contribution and he knows that that is the position. Let me make it very clear. The Attorney-General has left no stone unturned in dealing with legislation and all other matters relating to the pursuit of crime. The Opposition's record is abysmal. I make the point that it is about time the public of Australia looked at the Opposition's behaviour when in government, when it engaged in illegal activity to intercept telephone conversations and, worse still, put an informer in the New South Wales police and paid Commonwealth money to that informer. That is all a matter of record. And the members of the Opposition are the people who talk about being worried about crime. Mr Moore —So the tapes are authentic? Mr LIONEL BOWEN —Yes, you are very worried about it. Have a look at the Greek conspiracy case, and what the present Opposition did in that case. It really approved of criminal action being used by allowing telephone interception. It prosecuted a large number of innocent Greeks, none of whom were convicted-not one. This is the sort of ability honourable members opposite have in government and that is why they are in opposition. I make it very clear that the Attorney- General has nothing to hide. In answering the detail, I will get a written reply for the honourable member. Mr MILTON —Is the Minister for Home Affairs and Environment aware of a proposal put forward by the Opposition spokesman on the environment that members of the conservation movement should each contribute $10 to ensure that Australia's environment is preserved? Could the Minister provide this House with the Government's views on this proposal? Mr COHEN —We have recently heard of this proposal by the shadow Minister for the Environment that the 500,000 conservationists should all dob in $10 to save the Daintree. It is a novel method of government that whenever we have a problem to solve we will have what is called the whip-round system of government. It is called government by collection. The only person I know who has been absolutely enthralled by the idea is the Treasurer. He thinks that now if we want a new plane we will just take the can around in a pub and we will solve the problem. He is very attracted to the idea, but I am afraid the rest of the Government is not. I suppose the next thing the Opposition will be suggesting is that we have chook raffles in pubs to buy ourselves a new-- Mr SPEAKER —Order! I doubt whether chook raffles in pubs are relevant to the question. I suggest that the Minister proceed with his answer. Mr COHEN —The honourable member for Bradfield has absolutely stunned the environment movement, not only with his lack of understanding of the proper role of government, but also with his economics. The Daintree covers 350,000 hectares and that part of it which is selling is selling at $26,000 per hectare. So we would need slightly more than $5m to buy it. We calculate it out at $9 billion. We can be thankful that the honourable member was not a Minister when the problems of the Great Barrier Reef came up or those of Kakadu National Park or South West Tasmania. He would need an awfully big hat to solve those environmental problems. He has been running around the country trying to cultivate the environment movement over its concern about the Daintree. He has attacked me for not consulting, but that is what I have been doing non-stop for the last 12 months with the Queensland Minister. He knows that the only powers we have in this area are those under the World Heritage Properties Protection Act and he knows that his Party will not touch it under any circumstances. Honourable members will recall that the Opposition attacked this Government for introducing the Act and for using it in the South West Tasmania case. It is quite clear that under no circumstances would a Liberal-National Party government contemplate using the Act. The honourable member for Bradfield has totally abdicated his responsibility to come up with a policy. Mr HOWARD —My question is addressed to the Minister representing the Minister for Industry and Commerce. I refer to the voluminous documents tabled yesterday by the Prime Minister relating to the Young Customs affair. Why did Customs officers on 6 July, that is five days before the items were valued, provide the Special Minister of State not only with a list of goods for valuation purposes, but also with the tariff items and the applicable duty rates in handwriting alongside each item, while at the same time explaining that if the duty exceeded $500 the goods would be seized and the Minister prosecuted for a breach of Commonwealth law? Is it normal Customs Service practice to provide such a guide on how to avoid prosecution? Is this consistent with the statement to the House on 21 August by the Minister representing the Minister for Industry and Commerce that the Special Minister of State was treated in exactly the same fashion as any other person making a false Customs declaration? Mr JOHN BROWN —I would have thought that this case was well and truly buried. I am sure everybody bar the poor little Deputy Leader of the Opposition, who carries the conspiracy charge way beyond the realms of fantasy, considers this matter to be buried. But in order to satisfy his curiosity about this alleged conspiracy and some special treatment for the Special Minister of State-which of course was not accorded-I will check the matter out with the Minister today and furnish the honourable member with a full response from the Bureau of Customs. I think it is high time members of the Opposition got on to something more constructive. I believe the rest of Australia will be of the view that they are pursuing something which is absolutely ridiculous. Ms McHUGH —My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Social Security. Is it true, as the Leader of the Opposition said in his response to the Budget on 23 August, that under the assets test government bureaucrats will have the right of entry into every pensioner's home simply to check the valuation of their personal possessions? Also, can the Minister give an assurance that 70 per cent of pensioners will not even have to fill in a form and that the assets test will be self-assessing for the remaining 30 per cent of pensioners-- Mr SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member has actually worded her question in a way which provides an answer for the Minister. I will allow the Minister to answer the first part of the question. Dr BLEWETT —Given the position of the Leader of the Opposition, the claim he makes must be one of the worst examples of the rather irresponsible and exaggerated statements on the operation of the assets test being peddled around the country by members of the Opposition. No, it is not true that government bureaucrats will have the right of entry into pensioners' homes to check the valuations of their personal effects. Mr Tuckey —They have to knock on the door first. Mr SPEAKER —Order! I suggest that the Minister not go on with his reply until the House comes to order. It amazes me that members ask questions and then do not listen to what is being said. I call the Minister. Dr BLEWETT —If honourable members knew anything about the Social Security Act-I will come back to that point in a moment-they would know that at the moment it gives no authority at all to officers of the Department of Social Security to enter pensioners' premises, and that will not be changed in any way following introduction of the assets test. I can assure honourable members and the public that in no circumstances will officers of the Department be authorised to enter a home to check or value assets. The assets test has been deliberately designed so that pensioners will basically be able to self-assess whether or not they will be affected by the test. The only case where valuers will be used is to value property such as vacant land, holiday homes, farms and businesses. Mr Lusher —Why do you hate the farmers? Mr Sinclair —What about antiques? Mr SPEAKER —Order! I suggest that the Minister take a seat until the House comes to order. When the House comes to order, the Minister will be allowed to answer the question. Question Time cannot go on while members continue to behave in a disorderly manner. Mr Ian Cameron —But what about the farmers? Mr SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member for Maranoa will remain silent. Mr Ian Cameron —Well, it is true, Mr Speaker. Mr SPEAKER —I warn the honourable member for Maranoa. I call the Minister. Dr BLEWETT —As I was saying, in no circumstances will valuers be used to value personal possessions or household contents. As we have constantly pointed out, in these cases the self-assessed values will generally be accepted by the Department unless there is strong evidence of over-valuation or under-valuation. In those situations, if the issue is significant it will be resolved in discussions between officers and the pensioner concerned. Mr Lusher —The stand-over! Mr SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member for Hume might have shifted from the front bench to the back bench but I can still hear him. I warn him. Dr BLEWETT —The test will be administered in such a way that some 70 per cent of pensioners will not even receive an assets test form to fill in. In early November they will simply be sent an assets test guide explaining the way in which the test works. If, having studied that guide, they believe they fall above those very generous levels provided in the test, they come back to get an assets form. We expect that most of those 70 per cent of pensioners will need to take no further action, and in fact if they make no application for a form they will continue to be paid their pension entitlement. A further 15 per cent of pensioners will be sent both a form and an assets test guide but again, if having read the guide they find they do not fall above those levels, they do not need to apply or send the form back. Again, they will continue to be paid their pension entitlement. Only some 15 per cent of the pensioner population will be required to return the form and most will still be unaffected by the assets test . It is estimated that only some 40,000 pensioners will be affected by the assets test and most of those are well able to meet the demand. Despite all the noise, these are the facts about the way the assets test will be administered. There will be no entry by departmental officers into pensioners' homes. The test is largely self-assessed. Mr Peacock —They will come around for a chat and say they have come to help. Mr SPEAKER —Order! Mr Ruddock —They will come to the senior citizens hall. Mr SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member for Dundas will cease interjecting. I offer a general warning. I have reached the limit of tolerance with regard to warnings for interjections. On the next occasion I have to act, I will name the honourable member concerned. Dr BLEWETT —As I have stated, most pensioners will not have to fill out an assets test form. Given the sort of noise that we have had-- Mr Sinclair —Mr Speaker, in view of the length and the detail of this answer, could I suggest as a point of order that the Minister make a statement after Question Time instead of using Question Time in this way? Dr BLEWETT —The only reason for the time taken is the noise from the other side. Mr SPEAKER —Order! There is no point of order. I suggest that the Minister might have been able to finish his reply much more quickly but for the interruptions. Dr BLEWETT —Thank you, Mr Speaker. It is possible for the House and the general public to judge clearly the genuine concern of this Opposition for social welfare issues because yesterday we had clear and total proof that the Opposition has no real interest in social welfare measures. At 10.40 a.m. yesterday, it introduced a series of amendments to the Social Security and Repatriation (Budget Measures and Assets Test) Bill but at 6.35 p.m. it withdrew all of those amendments on the ground-it apologised to the House for this-that it had misread the Bill. Mr Carlton —One amendment. Dr BLEWETT —All parts of the amendment. Members of the Opposition did not understand the social security legislation. Never as a government or as an opposition have they had any genuine interest in social welfare; they simply seek to exploit particular issues for their own political gain. Mr HUNT —My question is directed to the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Trade. As 17 months have elapsed since the expiry of the Anthony-Okawara beef agreement, will the Minister indicate when a new four-year Australia-Japan beef agreement is likely to be signed? What is the reason for the delay in settling the new beef agreement with Japan? Will Australia's new agreement honour the assurances that the Japanese Prime Minister gave our Prime Minister, that is, that Australia will maintain its share of the Japanese quota beef market? Mr LIONEL BOWEN —It is a matter of record that what was said was that Australia's share would not decline, and that is the position. But let me make it very clear that the honourable gentleman has gone through the length and breadth of this land saying that the present arrangements, which we were endeavouring to improve on, are no good to the meat industry and that I have not gone to Japan frequently enough to try to negotiate. Mr McVeigh —That is true. Mr LIONEL BOWEN —Well, that is a matter of judgment as to what we are about in terms of the negotiations. The honourable gentleman has been hoist with his own petard because the meat industry feels that there should have been, according to him, an arrangement better than his Minister was able to achieve in 1979. Mr Hunt —They were happy with the agreement then, but you have not got an agreement. Mr LIONEL BOWEN —It is about time the honourable gentleman faced up to the facts . He has been attending meetings all over Australia and suggesting that the arrangements are not good enough and that they will have to be improved. Let me look at the former Government's arrangements. Firstly, in 1979, when that Government entered into the arrangement, it was for a particular quantity of beef which, of course, excluded Australia in respect of high quality beef. As a result of the woeful negotiations entered into in 1979, what happened? In the process the then Government started off with 106,000 tonnes and by 1983 that amount had dropped by 10,000 tonnes. Mr Hunt —That was your year when the drop occurred. Mr LIONEL BOWEN —No, it was before our year. The tonnage dropped every year and the honourable member has to understand why it dropped. It dropped because of the negotiations the then Minister entered into. He said to the Japanese that Australia would bind tariff entry of $30m worth of manufactured goods to Australia, and we are bound by that. But what did we get in return? He automatically excluded Australia from the high quality beef market. The records show that in 1978 the Japanese told the then Minister that they proposed to increase the United States entry of high quality beef to 30,000 tonnes, and they did that. By the Japanese doing that, Australia's market share continually fell. When the honourable member addresses the people he knows who are interested in the cattle market and its future, he should address his mind to the fact that every year from 1979 Australia's share of the market has dropped. In 1979 Australia had 79 per cent of the market and when we took office Australia's share had dropped to 67 per cent. That is the position. The Opposition can shout and argue as much as it likes, but it is a matter of record. When Mr Anthony realised that he had been outmanoeuvred on the issue of high quality beef he made a late effort and asked the Japanese to try to increase Australia's market share of what is called frozen aged beef, and they declined. Mr Sinclair —Why haven't you got an agreement now? Mr LIONEL BOWEN —The reason we have not got an agreement is that we have been asking why we cannot get the same chance as the Americans. That is the position. Mr Peacock —You left it too late; you have not done anything about it. Mr LIONEL BOWEN —It requires negotiation. We have not lost any of the opportunities that were given to us to negotiate on a basis that would improve the present position. But I make it very clear that from 1979 the United States export of high quality beef has improved substantially and the new agreement for the United States will improve it even more substantially. The Opposition knows that. On the question of whether we can compete in that market, the answer is no . The Opposition knows that. So why does the honourable member go around the country making these outrageous allegations that he feels he could have done better? Let me make it clear that never once did Mr Anthony go to Japan. Mr McVeigh —What? Mr LIONEL BOWEN —Never once did he go to Japan on beef negotiations. Mr McVeigh —The Japanese came here because he was a good operator. Mr LIONEL BOWEN —They did not come here. Never once did Mr Anthony go to Japan on beef negotiations. It is a matter of record that Mr Anthony-to give him his due-was anxious to try to improve the position put to him by the Japanese. I shall read from the notes. It was indicated to Mr Anthony that the Japanese had reached a tentative agreement on beef arrangements with the United States 'which involved the following elements: Increased imports of high quality beef-up to 30 ,000 tonnes by 1983 . . .'. That is why the honourable member ought to go back and do his mathematics. We are anxious that we should not be discriminated against. We have a legitimate cause of concern with the Japanese. They discriminate on the basis that we have no right of entry to the high quality beef market. We are not likely to win that position. When the Opposition has a chance to listen it will find out, in technical terms, that the Japanese take only four of the 12 cuts of the high quality beef. Because of the large domestic market in the United States there is a capacity to absorb the other eight cuts. That does not apply to our high quality beef producers. They cannot see that they can possibly enter the Japanese market, where they can sell only four of the 12 cuts. The Opposition has to understand a little bit about beef to understand what I am saying on this matter. It is about time the Opposition faced up to the fact that we would very much like to have the same opportunities as were given to the United States, but we start from a very low base. In 1979, when Australia's arrangements were one year behind those of the United States, the then Government accepted a position in which it said: 'Look, this seems to be reasonable from the point of view of what we are about in Australia'. When we have to renegotiate the position we face the fact that this is deemed to be an honourable solution. I make this point: When the United States was able to negotiate its arrangements, what do honourable members think Mr Anthony said in a media release? The media release stated: (Mr Anthony) today welcomed indications of a settlement of a number of outstanding trade issues between the United States and Japan . . . He said that it was understandable that, since the Strauss visit was concerned with ways of easing Japan's considerable balance of trade surplus particularly with the U.S.A ., the communique should emphasise high quality beef mainly provided by the U.S. A. Mr Cadman —Mr Speaker, I raise a point of order. This is a terribly long response. Cannot the Minister make a statement instead? Mr SPEAKER —Order! There is no point of order. Mr LIONEL BOWEN —I have just read a report. The result is this: The mismanagement of the National Party of Australia resulted in Australia's exports of quota beef to Japan falling from 106,656 tonnes in 1979 to 95,244 tonnes when we took office. Mr Hunt —We reopened that market after the Whitlam debacle, and you know it. Mr LIONEL BOWEN —The Opposition had no success. I do not want to delay the House for too long. When the agreement expired in 1982 the then Government did not renegotiate it. It took it on a 12 months basis because it could not renegotiate it. That is the position. So what do we have? We have a bankrupt arrangement where the then Government negotiated all the rights away and the Opposition now expects us to improve on its abysmal performance. Let me make it clear that I think we can improve on it on the basis that for the first time the Japanese will give us a fixed quota in the chilled beef area-I hope honourable members can hear this-and also a fixed base in what is called frozen aged beef. I would welcome the Opposition's support for that because I am not going to go into negotiations with Japan with the suggestion that the Opposition does not think they will be adequate unless there will be an improvement to what it thinks is the market share. I will put it on a better basis: What we need is an improvement each year in our quota. That would be much more satisfactory. Mr DAWKINS —Mr Speaker, I crave your indulgence to add to an answer I gave yesterday. Mr SPEAKER —Yes, if it is relevant to the answer made yesterday I grant the Minister that indulgence. Mr DAWKINS —Yesterday the honourable member for Bradfield (Mr Connolly) asked me a question about the involvement of the Superannuation Fund Investment Trust in the Portland aluminium smelter project. I undertook to provide any further information I could. I can now inform the House that the Superannuation Fund Investment Trust signed a Heads of Agreement with the Victorian Government, Alcoa of Australia Ltd and the Hyundai Corporation on 23 August 1984, enabling it to negotiate up to a 15 per cent interest in the project. That agreement does not commit the Trust to participate in the project and allows the Trust to withdraw for any reason. A considerable amount of further investigatory work and analysis will be required before the Trust will be in a position to decide whether to enter into the binding legal commitment should the investigation support that judgment on commercial grounds. The Trust has engaged a technical adviser and a financial consultant to assist in the further investigatory work. Before reaching its 'in principle' decision to participate in the project, the Trust took advice from its technical adviser and financial consultant. Although there is always uncertainty about the expected yield on projects of this nature, given the commercial factors involved, the Trust considers the likely returns will be attractive. Importantly, the project affords an opportunity for greater portfolio diversification. The honourable member for Bradfield suggests that the Trust's-- Mr Moore —Who is the financial consultant? Mr DAWKINS —The honourable member seems to have been sidelined on this issue. What does he have to say about it? Mr Moore —I am just trying to find out some facts. Mr DAWKINS —The honourable member should make up his mind; I do not mind which one I have to deal with. All honourable members opposite can be the shadow Minister if they like. The honourable member for Bradfield suggests that the Trust's 'in principle' decision in relation to the Portland project was politically motivated. Such a suggestion is unwarranted and clearly without foundation. The Trust would be in breach of its trustee responsibilities if it were to enter into such a project other than on sound commercial grounds. It is for this reason that the Trust has yet to commit itself to the project and why it is obtaining the best and most professional commercial advice available to it before reaching a firm decision. The honourable member for Bradfield refers to an estimated 9.9 per cent return on investment in the project. I am informed that the Premier of Victoria has foreshadowed real rates of return-that is, after allowing for expected rates of inflation-for the State of Victoria in the range of 9 per cent to 15 per cent. I emphasise that these are the Victorian Government's estimates of the rate of return to that State-they are not necessarily the rates of return for the Superannuation Fund Investment Trust or, for that matter, the other participants in the project. As I have already explained, the Trust expects that the rates of return will be attractive. Nevertheless, while it is recognised that the expected rates are highly sensitive to several factors, including the world price of aluminium, these are matters that the Trust will weigh carefully in deciding whether to proceed. Finally, the Trust has assured me that it will not participate in this or any other venture unless the expected returns to contributors are satisfactory. Mr HAWKE(Wills-Prime Minister) —For the information of honourable members, I table copies of correspondence relating to the handover from the Royal Commission into the Activities of the Federated Ship Painters and Dockers Union to the National Crime Authority. Motion (by Mr Young) proposed: That the House take note of the papers. Debate (on motion by Mr Sinclair) adjourned. Mr HAWKE(Wills-Prime Minister) —For the information of honourable members, I present the annual report of the Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet for 1983-84. Mr DAWKINS(Fremantle-Minister for Finance) —For the information of the House and further to my statement of 24 August, I table a report by the Secretary to the Department of Finance entitled 'Superannuation Fund Investment Trust-State of the Fund'. Mr COHEN(Robertson-Minister for Home Affairs and Environment) —For the information of honourable members, I present a paper entitled 'Conditions for the Export of Koalas'. Mr HODGMAN(Denison) —Mr Speaker, I wish to make a personal explanation. Mr SPEAKER —Does the honourable member claim to have been misrepresented? Mr HODGMAN —Yes, indeed. Mr SPEAKER —The honourable member may proceed. Mr HODGMAN —Mr Speaker, in the Senate on 4 September I was disgracefully misrepresented by the Minister for Social Security (Senator Grimes) who said that I had made the outrageous claim that the Hawke socialist Government would assess the gold in people's teeth. The truth is that in a statement on 8 June this year I pointed out that gold was a precious metal; that one of Australia's leading dental surgeons had informed me that elderly patients who have had extensive dental reconstruction performed may easily have at least $500 worth of recoverable gold at today's prices; that under the legislation as drawn gold fillings were clearly assessable assets and that, as a matter of law, this was so whether the elderly person was alive or dead. Mr Charles —Senator Grimes was correct. Mr SPEAKER —Order! Mr Charles —Oh, but-- Mr SPEAKER —I can do without the honourable member's assistance. Mr HODGMAN —Mr Speaker, my statement was not outrageous and I point out to the House that, in the legislation going through the Parliament right now, military medals-- Mr SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member is now going beyond showing where he has been misrepresented. Mr HODGMAN —Sir, will you hear me please? Mr SPEAKER —Well, the honourable member had better get quickly to the point. Mr HODGMAN —I will get to the point. The Government has amended the Act to exclude military medals but it has not amended it to exclude gold fillings! Mr SPEAKER —Order! That is not a personal explanation. The honourable member will resume his seat. Mr CONNOLLY(Bradfield) —Mr Speaker, I wish to make a personal explanation. Mr SPEAKER —Does the honourable member claim to have been misrepresented? Mr CONNOLLY —I claim to have been misrepresented. Mr SPEAKER —The honourable member has the indulgence of the Chair to proceed. Mr CONNOLLY —In response to a question from the honourable member for La Trobe ( Mr Milton), the Minister for Home Affairs and Environment (Mr Cohen) tried to cast some doubt on the proposition which I put forward the other day to try to solve some of the long term environment problems in Australia. Mr SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member should indicate where he has been personally misrepresented. Indulgence is not given to allow debate; it is given to allow an honourable member to correct a personal misrepresentation. Mr CONNOLLY —The Minister claimed that I was suggesting that the private sector, through companies established by the environmental movement, should be able to buy back the entire Daintree. That is a grotesque misrepresentation of what I said. If people want to read the Press release or the speech I made last Sunday in Melbourne they will see that I referred specifically to those rare parts of the south Daintree which are currently alienated and on the market. It is estimated that there is some 3,000 hectares in that general area of development. Obviously it cannot all be bought. The proposal that I put forward, namely, that -- Mr Scholes —This is another debate. Mr SPEAKER —Order! I can do without the assistance of the Minister for Defence. Mr CONNOLLY —If the entire 500,000 people who claim to be members of environmental organisations were each prepared to put in $10 we would get $5m. That would be sufficient, on the basis of the price on the market-- Mr SPEAKER —Order! I think the honourable member has pretty well corrected any personal misrepresentation. He is now going into a rather detailed explanation of his proposition. Mr CONNOLLY —I do not wish to be detailed, Mr Speaker. Mr SPEAKER —Well, it is not a matter of not wishing to be-he is. Mr CONNOLLY —The Government has done nothing in the Daintree area. To say that it has is nothing more than hypocritical humbug. Mr SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member will resume his seat. Mr SPEAKER —I have received a letter from the honourable member for Mackellar ( Mr Carlton) proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion, namely: The progressive destruction of Australia's excellent health care system caused by the introduction of Medicare. 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 CARLTON(Mackellar)(2.58) —Today I shall demonstrate to the House that Medicare, the scheme that is billed as the simplest, the fairest and the cheapest health scheme Australia has ever had, is neither simple nor fair, nor is it cheap, but more seriously than any of these characteristics, it is bringing about the progressive destruction of what has been the best health system in the world. The Prime Minister (Mr Hawke), in his 1983 policy speech, made the following commitment: 9 out of 10 Australians will pay less for the health needs of themselves and their families. Let us take a look at the weekly effect of Medicare on the finances of a family which has maintained its private hospital cover after the advent of Medicare. I give as an example a family consisting of a man earning the average weekly male earnings for Sydney of $384 a week with a dependent spouse. I could take as an example a double income family or any combination of incomes adding up to $384 a week. The average weekly cost of health insurance on the most commonly used private table of three major funds in New South Wales, after deduction of the 30c in the dollar tax rebate applying before Medicare and allowing for the consumer price index adjustments to insurance rates to bring them up to an assumed May 1984 level, was $11.56 a week for that family. That is pre-Medicare. After Medicare the average weekly cost of the three funds for the same level of private cover, excluding medical cover which is now covered by the levy, is $8. 77. Of course, there is no tax rebate. Add to this the one per cent Medicare levy of $3.84 a week, plus the secret levy of 0.7 per cent, which I shall explain shortly, of $2.69 and we get a weekly outlay in total of $15.30 against the original $11.56. Thus, the additional cost to that family on average weekly earnings is $3.74 a week. I have not taken into account the likely additional cost of meeting the uninsurable gap between the schedule fee and the Medicare rebate for medical services, which could add quite substantially to the extra costs if there were chronic illness in such a family. The claim that nine out of 10 Australians would pay less for the same cover was always a fraudulent claim. The Government had no capacity to deliver on this promise and I take no pleasure in pointing out that millions of Australian families have been cheated by the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke), the Minister for Health (Dr Blewett) and the Australian Labor Party. Let us examine another Medicare claim. The Medicare leaflet states: Medicare will be paid for by a 1% levy on your taxable income. Again, this claim is simply untrue. The Budget Papers tell us that medical and hospital benefits have risen by $2,021m compared with the old scheme. The levy brings in $1,191m, leaving a shortfall of $830m. Thus a secret additional levy of $830m, equivalent to 0.7 per cent of taxable personal income, is being taken from taxpayers to pay for Medicare. It is clear that the one per cent levy relates to no particular expenditure. It is a meaningless figure in all but one sense, that is, its role in creating an illusion of low cost for our national health. The Minister's commitment to maintain the levy at one per cent is therefore quite meaningless. While he takes our money openly at the counter, at the same time he is secretly milking our bank accounts of the funds he needs to keep the shop open. People did not realise that the plastic Medicare card was not a guarantee of health care; rather it is the Hawke Government's version of instant money transfer, secretly transmitting money from the taxpayer to the Treasury. Some might ask why we should continue with private hospital insurance when the Medicare leaflet told us: If you go to a public hospital, Medicare will provide free accommodation and treatment by doctors appointed by the hospital One obvious reason people would want to maintain private cover is that they would wish to choose their own doctor or to change their doctor if they were dissatisfied. Anyone who has gone through a period of serious illness and has not been totally satisfied with the attention received will understand why so many people consider being able to choose their doctor worth the extra insurance cost. However, those who have met the extra cost rightly become infuriated when they find that a person on equal or greater income who has not insured privately is charged nothing for a public hospital bed, while the insured person, through his or her insurance fund, is charged $80 a day by the same public hospital for the same kind of bed. They become even more infuriated when they learn that there is one rule for ordinary people, and another rule for Canberra residents and Ministers. In Canberra, where the Federal Minister for Health bears ministerial responsibility for the hospital system, it seems that people can have their cake and eat it too . Under the Minister's direction Canberra residents can dodge the Medicare rules provided they can persuade an unrostered doctor to perform the operation. The Minister himself has made use of this loophole to exercise choice of doctor without having to pay, as other Australians do, the cost of private insurance. When a member of his family required an emergency operation at a Canberra public hospital recently, the Minister arranged for an unrostered doctor to come out in the middle of the night to perform the operation. I fully understand why the Minister would want to choose his own doctor. Many Australians, myself included, would want to do so, and this is why under Medicare rules they take out private insurance cover at additional expense. In an interview with Ita Buttrose on the Sydney radio station 2UE on 5 January this year the Minister gave his views on this question of choice. I quote his words: We think something like half the population will be content with the cover provided by the levy. I certainly will be, it will certainly be cheaper. Ita Buttrose then raised the question of choice of doctor in hospital. The Minister replied, and again I quote his direct words: . . . Under Medicare everyone can choose to be treated in that way- that is, using the hospital doctor- but if they wish they can take out that extra private insurance to have the choice you talked about. Now the Minister has made it clear by his directions to the Capital Territory Health Commission, and by his own actions when the good health of a member of his own family was at stake, that what is good enough for the vast majority of Medicare patients in the capital cities of Australia is not good enough for Canberra residents or for the Minister. The Minister was quite happy to pay only the levy, provided he could in reality have a choice of doctor not available to most levy payers. Medicare, like the British national health scheme before it, is open to manipulation by the well-off, the articulate and those capable of manipulating the system. It leaves the poor and the inarticulate at the end of the queue. The Minister should set an example. He should follow the same rules that he set down for the vast majority of Australians. Yet he has adopted double standards. He has attacked me for raising this matter affecting his family, and certainly I have done so with the utmost reluctance. I spoke to the Minister directly about it before I raised it in the House on Tuesday. But this kind of manipulation of the system is what is so rotten about nationalised health schemes. They claim to look after the weak and poor, yet they are always manipulated by the wealthy, the powerful and the cunning, leaving the weak and the poor out in the cold. I am sick and tired of Labor Ministers and members accusing the Liberal and National Parties of heartlessness and lack of concern for the weak and the poor. We have been in charge of the Government of this country for 30 of the last 35 years, and we and our predecessor parties have set up most of the social welfare systems in this country. It has been a land of opportunity and also one of compassion. We will not allow these fraudulent Volvo and champagne socialists to turn it into a country of sordid manipulators. Mr Howard —Penthouse Left. Mr CARLTON —Penthouse Left, as my friend the Deputy Leader of the Opposition so correctly says. So, will a bed be provided if one is uninsured, as promised by Medicare? The bed may be free, but it is available only at the end of the queue. In Victoria at the moment there are 8,000 patients on waiting lists for public hospitals. The two-year waiting list for orthopaedic work in public hospitals in Victoria is reminiscent of what happened in the British national health scheme. It provides free health at the end of the queue for the poor and the inarticulate. The organised and the articulate will manipulate the system to get ahead of the queue. Influence is used. That same influence is being used every day already in Australia to get around the Medicare rules. It has been used here in Canberra. Those who can afford private insurance are occupying the beds that the poor and the inarticulate cannot obtain. Those who are most in need are left out in the cold. The Health Minister, in his letter to those compulsorily enrolled, congratulated them on becoming members of this compulsory scheme earlier this year and said: You are now enrolled with Medicare, the simplest and fairest health insurance scheme Australia has ever had. Is Medicare simple? Whereas previously Australians could get all their health insurance in the one place at the one shop, if they now wish to continue with private health cover they have two-stop shopping. They have to go to the private health insurance office and also to a Medicare office. Mr Porter —That is, if you have a shop. Mr CARLTON —Medicare offices, as the honourable member so rightly points out, are few and far between, especially in the country. Is Medicare fair? The chronically ill cannot insure for the gap. They find it difficult to pay for the gap. There is a $150 limit, but it applies only to individual patients. If there are a number of children in a family it is necessary for each one to get to the limit before claiming the 100 per cent rebate. Also, the system is very complicated. Is it fair when the elderly and the chronically ill, after years of membership of funds, find that because of the reduction in the government reinsurance subsidy of $80m they are denied the private cover they expected? When they are most in need they find that there are limits to the number of days that they are privately covered, even though they have paid into funds for years. Is it fair that the long term sick, many of them elderly, are forced out of public or private hospitals under the 35-day rule or have to pay a great deal out of their own pocket? Is it fair that doctors are threatened with a $5,000 fine or five years in gaol if they incorrectly sign the section 3B form under the 35-day rule to say whether or not a person is in need of acute care? This 35-day rule was brought in for economic reasons without working out what would happen to the people involved. At the same time, there has been a freeze for 15 months on nursing home bed approvals. There has been a new set of rules for nursing home bed approvals, but in effect the freeze is still on. The extra domiciliary support that was promised is non-existent. Chronic psychiatric patients are being forced into bewildering expense because of the reduction in subsidies for beds in private hospitals. Medicare is not cheap; it is not simple, nor is it fair. It has been fraudulently advertised and incompetently and cruelly administered. Medicare is a giant step towards the nationalisation of health. Medicare is damaging the whole system of health care delivery, built up to a very high standard over the last century. It is destroying the motivation of those working in the system to provide good service and to achieve excellence. Public hospital budgets have been squeezed to the point of inefficiency, poor patient service, and loss of staff morale. Private medical practitioners, whose contribution to health care is a vital ingredient of the quality of the Australian system, have been attacked professionally and financially and subjected to unwarranted abuse by the Prime Minister, who compared them with the Builders Labourers Federation, by the Federal Health Minister and Labor State Health Ministers. Medicare has provoked the first doctors' strike in Australia's history and State legislation to complement Medicare has led to mass resignations by doctors . Bulk billing by doctors has been extended beyond necessity, turning doctors into employees of the Government rather than professional consultants to the patients, reducing doctors' incomes quite unfairly and tempting patients and doctors into excessive use of medical services. The campaign against fraud and overservicing has been turned into a crusade, with the vast majority of doctors going about their work ethically and professionally, feeling threatened and unjustly tarnished in popular esteem. By discouraging self-provision, increasing the proportion of health funding provided by the taxpayer and removing disincentives to overuse of services at the doctor-patient level, Federal and State Labor governments have created a system that has become obsessed with cost at the expense of quality, security and comfort. With fewer private dollars going into the system and with more calls on the Budget to meet health costs, Labor governments have centralised control and have tightened the screw on expenses without regard for real patient needs. It is a system run by bureaucrats and bookkeepers without feeling for the patients, the doctors, the nurses and the other professionals and workers who make up the system. What has taken 100 years of effort, skill and talent to build up into the best care system in the world is being eaten away by the cancer of socialist mediocrity. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mrs Child) —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Dr BLEWETT(Bonython-Minister for Health)(3.13) —I will ask the House to judge this matter of public importance by the record of the Liberal Party on health issues and by the scare tactics which have now become a common feature of the honourable member for Mackellar (Mr Carlton). He devoted most of last year to making a series of sanctimonious smears about Medicare, nearly all of which have been proved incorrect. His speech today was simply a second version of the efforts of last year. I want to deal with that so that the House can judge the shadow Minister and, of course, the Opposition in relation to health matters. The terms of the matter of public importance state: The progressive destruction of Australia's excellent health care system caused by the introduction of Medicare. I suppose the first question we should ask is: Which of the various systems is the Opposition referring to? Which of its five health schemes was this great system from which there has been a progressive deterioration? The former Government could never decide for more than 18 months which health scheme to place in this country. I have some difficulty in making a judgment as to which particular health scheme the Opposition is talking about. I noticed that the honourable member for Mackellar tried to pick the best bits out of each of the five muddled schemes in order to produce a comprehensive answer, which I will come to in a moment. Members of the Opposition, when in government, priced health insurance out of the reach of nearly two million Australians. I quote from the Australian Bureau of Statistics' health insurance survey in March 1982: . . . 1,953,000 persons were without health insurance cover and were identified in the survey as not having access to special Commonwealth health benefits provided to pensioners, the unemployed and low income earners. Mr Donald Cameron —Many of them opted out, you intellectual liar. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mrs Child) —The honourable member for Moreton will withdraw that remark. Mr Donald Cameron —He is not intellectual. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER —The honourable member for Moreton will not flout the Chair . He will withdraw the word 'liar'. Mr Donald Cameron —I withdraw. Dr BLEWETT —The reason two million Australians were without health cover was that the former Government's policies led to the most savage increases in the cost of health cover for ordinary Australians which we have ever seen. The change in 1981, the fifth of the former Government's health schemes in seven years, led to increases in basic health insurance costs of from 50 per cent in Victoria and New South Wales up to 80 per cent in Western Australia and Queensland. Now members of the Opposition weep crocodile tears for the imagined pressures which they say Medicare is placing on the health system. Yet they are the ones who, by their cuts to the State hospital systems in 1981, are the source of most of the problems which the public hospital systems now face. Let me remind the House of what the former Government did in 1981. In the financial year 1980-81, the States received $1,230.1m for their public hospitals and other health initiatives from the Commonwealth Government. Two years later, in 1982-83, they received only $1,010.9m from the Commonwealth Government for those purposes. That was a flat money cut of $219.2m in two years, representing a one-third cut in the real level of funding from the Commonwealth for public hospitals. If one asks any State Health Minister in this country-it does not matter which party he belongs to-the source of the problems in the State hospital systems he will say that it began with those cuts in 1981. We have not been able to redress those problems to any great extent, except in Queensland, where we have begun to make some additional moneys available to make up for the cuts that took place in 1981. The Opposition is complaining about these problems in Medicare, particularly in relation to the public hospital system, when the source of the public hospital system problems in this country dates from those savage cuts made in 1981. Mr MacKellar —I raise a point of order. The Minister is misleading the House and the country by suggesting that the cuts-- Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER —There is no point of order. The Minister is answering a matter of public importance which has been brought up by the Opposition. Mr MacKellar —The Minister is putting to the House that the hospital crisis came about because of cuts in the hospital budget. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER —There is no point of order. Dr BLEWETT —I simply suggest to the honourable member for Warringah that he ask the various State Health Ministers as to the decisions made by the Commonwealth Government at that stage regarding the source of the problems that have flowed into the State health systems. The second matter I want to consider concerns the kinds of tactics employed by the honourable member for Mackellar over the last 12 months. As soon as we get the facts his exaggerated fears and scares are proved to be wrong. I will quote his statements of last year so that people can think about the statements he has made today which are equally irresponsible and reckless. Firstly, on 10 May 1983 he claimed that as a result of Medicare there would be net unemployment in the private funds of 3,250 persons. In his more exuberant moments he even reached 5, 000 as the figure for unemployment. There have been minimal redundancies in the private funds as a result of Medicare. In my own State the private funds have indicated to me that there has not been a single case of a redundancy produced by Medicare. I would like to thank most of the private funds for the co- operation which they gave to the Health Insurance Commission in dealing with this very real problem so that we have been able to avoid any serious redundancies. The scare tactics which were used last year were simply gross exaggerations of what would occur. Scare No. 2 from the honourable member for Mackellar was contained in what one would have thought was a reasoned and thoughtful speech. It was not simply a matter of public importance; it was his major speech on the Medicare legislation . On 14 September 1983, he said that Medicare would rob the pensioners. He stated: They will miss out on pension increases in 1984 of about $2.30 a week for a single pensioner and $3.90 for a married couple. In fact, we have paid $2.50 for a single pensioner and $4.20 for a married couple. We have responded and provided a full cover for those pensioners. They have in no way been affected by the impact on the consumer price index of the Medicare effect; that is, they have been fully compensated, despite the allegation made that we would rob them. The pensioners have also gained, in addition, the advantage of lower inflation owing to wage restraint, which is the result of our policy in relation to the prices and incomes accord and the CPI reductions. Scare No. 3 was again contained in the same speech of the honourable member, when he said that there would be 'a fresh rush of patients in public hospitals'. The utilisation of public hospitals appears to be slightly down since Medicare. Instead of any great rush of patients into the public hospital system, as the honourable member alleged, in order to whip up fears and scares, there has been a slight downturn in public hospital utilisation since Medicare. Scare No. 4 referred to the difficulties of 'two-stop shopping'. He went on about all of the problems of people having to go to a Medicare office and then to a private health fund office. There has scarcely been a single complaint about this issue since Medicare started to operate. Indeed, our honest critics admit that Medicare is the simplest and most efficient payment system seen in this country. People have no contributions to pay in. They can get 'pay doctor' cheques which means that a patient need never go to a Medicare office. Again, many private hospital payments are dealt with directly between the hospital and the private insurance fund. So we have had these tales, but when we look at the facts we see that the problems that the honourable member alleges have not been produced. He alleged further that there would be queues in doctors' surgeries as people would have to queue up because they would be getting all of these services free under Medicare. Again, that has not occurred. There have been no problems of pressure in private doctors' surgeries. The kind of scare tactic used has been totally unjustified when the system has been seen in practice. The honourable member promised in that speech 12 months ago that he would tell us what his alternative policy would be. It is tremendously important to try to get out of this Opposition what its alternative health policy would be, because we all remember the kinds of promises it has made in the past. In 1975 it made the great promise to maintain Medibank, which it then proceeded to tear apart. I am not surprised that it is very coy about these issues. However, the honourable member for Mackellar has told us some of the things that he would do. Twelve months ago-he has been very quiet ever since, but these are his words and they are very powerful ones-he told us: We cannot live with bulk billing for general patients as opposed to the disadvantaged. This means, therefore, that some 20 per cent of the population will lose their access to bulk billing. I hope he goes out on the streets of this country and says to those 20 per cent of the people who are now being bulk billed that ' under us that bulk billing right will be denied you'. He stated: We cannot live with so-called free hospital beds regardless of patient means. That means that the Opposition would reintroduce into our public hospital system means tests for patients and the cost of a bed today would be $140 a day. That cost is subsidised under the Medicare system, but under his system there are to be means tests and people will go back to paying $140 a day. One can begin to imagine the kind of health insurance rates that would result from those proposals. Interestingly enough, of course, the Opposition does not say hard things like that today. Of course, the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Peacock) has made television commercials which are soft soap commercials. He makes three vague promises but says nothing about denying all of those people their bulk billing rights and nothing about introducing means tests back into public hospitals. That would be too difficult in a pre-election period. The Opposition will do so, of course, and the honourable member for Mackellar has said clearly today that his policies are to get rid of bulk billing for all except the disadvantaged and to reintroduce means tests into public hospitals. He has made that clear, but his leader has not. His leader says: 'We will have full cover, a simplified claims system and a choice of doctor'. I will deal with two of those claims. In regard to the simplified claims system he says that the Liberals will somehow introduce a claims system which will be better and more simplified than Medicare. I do not even know what that means. It is extremely difficult to conceive of a more simplified claims system than the one we have, unless there is some old-mate arrangement with the private health funds somehow having a direct relationship with doctors' claims. One of the great successes of Medicare has been the high quality service provided by the Health Insurance Commission in the fast and efficient settlement of claims. Claims are being paid in well under five days. We said that we would turn them around in five days. We have managed to get well under that time. What about the cost of handing back medical insurance to 60 private health funds so that they could do what one fund is doing in an efficient way? In 1982- 83 private medical funds' administration expenses were $163m. In 1984-85 the HIC will provide a superior service for $114m. That is nearly a $50m administrative saving by doing it through one fund rather than 60 funds. Who would pay for this waste and duplication that would result from the honourable member's daydreams? Of course, the taxpayer would pay increased private insurance rates. The last promise is this promise of doctor of choice. This, of course, is where the costs really start to pile up. Apart from a few committed, responsible doctors, most members of the medical profession will only provide their services in hospitals on a doctor of choice basis if they are fully remunerated on a fee for service basis. That is a much more expensive proposition than the sessional contracts or modified fee for service arrangements currently negotiated for treatment of public hospital patients. Once we begin to analyse and look at the facts behind the soft, hollow promises of the Leader of the Opposition, they disappear. But behind them lies the honourable member for Mackellar with his hard line policy of means tests in public hospitals, payment of bed day costs of $140 a day in public hospitals and the denial of bulk billing rights, even when the doctor chooses to bulk bill a patient, unless the person is arbitrarily classified as disadvantaged. The only good thing about the soft and the hard proposals is that this Opposition will get no chance to practise them. Mr DONALD CAMERON(Moreton)(3.28) —For the sake of the previous speaker, the Minister for Health (Dr Blewett), and the next speaker, I will read the subject of today's matter of public importance: The progressive destruction of Australia's excellent health care system caused by the introduction of Medicare. I believe it is appropriate to refer to an article which appeared in an appropriately named newspaper called the Guardian in July, an article provided by the Minister for Health. The article states: I have always said that this Labor Government will need a second term to ensure that Medicare is working properly and is here to stay. I repeat that he stated: 'I have always said that this Labor Government will need a second term'. That suggests beyond doubt that what we have seen to date is only half of what the previous speaker, the Minister for Health, has in mind in terms of nationalisation of health in this country. His is a doctrinal approach, born in the University of Adelaide. I notice that the next speaker from the Government side is also an intellectual giant from the University of Queensland. The bedside fairy people, the doctrinal people, who see things in terms of textbook procedures instead of the realities of this world, prescribe a system of health care for this country that intends to round up people like cattle and to round up the medical profession like cattle. Their approach is to use computers, and press a button here and there. There is a number for every illness. Then a cheque will spurt out and perhaps in the long term it will find its way back to the doctor's surgery. This is the way the Government is approaching the situation. I am absolutely convinced that the Minister at the table, if he is given the opportunity, will allow the private health funds, which are providing additional cover in hospital care for the private sector, to get the chop. I am also absolutely convinced that the Minister at the table, in the name of mediocrity, has in his mind the ambition to wipe out the non-government hospitals, the entire private sector group of hospitals. I am also convinced that the Minister at the table, if given his way, will ensure that every doctor in Australia will end up receiving a salary and that the relationship which currently exists between doctors and patients will be destroyed. This Labor Government will ensure that the doctors are salaried. The service will be similar to people lining up in a public hospital. I am absolutely committed to the acceptance of the fact that that is the Labor Party's long term health care plan. The recent difficulty in New South Wales when, for the first time in this nation's history, the medical profession went on strike was an indication that the medical profession is aware of what the Labor Party has in mind for it. It is rather interesting that the newspaper in which the quotation from the Minister appeared and to which I referred before also has an article describing that newspaper's survey of between 460 and 470 doctors. It was established that in the Sydney area of the survey only 16 per cent of doctors were actually bulk billing. Yet earlier this year this Minister, day after day, tried to give the impression in this House that over half the doctors were bulk billing. The Minister for Health can shake his head, but we all know that that was not true. That was the impression that he tried to create in order to stampede the medical profession into accepting bulk billing, in order to make people put pressure on their doctors to introduce bulk billing. That is one of the reasons he will not open Medicare offices across this country. He is trying to break down that doctor-patient relationship and to encourage and force the doctors to bulk bill for all their services. The Minister is a pathetic little man. He is reported in this article in the Guardian as having suggested to doctors that they may be better off bulk billing and forgetting about the discount because they will get their money in three days instead of maybe three weeks or five weeks. Does the Minister think the medical profession will sell out its very future on the temptation that he offers of a few measly extra cents per service? Does he really believe what he said in this article? The thing that grieves me is that he really believes in what he is trying to do. The previous system which existed in this country certainly had some shortcomings. The Minister said that two million people were uninsured under that system. The fact is that many of those people were well people, young people, strong people. They made a deliberate decision not to be covered. The Minister plucked that figure out and used it to try to bolster his claim that the previous system did not provide cover for almost two million people. I willingly concede that some of these people probably should have had a better system of cover, but probably three-quarters of them had opted out of health insurance. They felt they did not need health care or health care cover. The Minister's dishonesty in his attempts to justify what he is trying to do knows no bounds. The next speaker on this issue is also a Queenslander, so I guess this afternoon we will have the honourable member for Petrie (Mr Wells) repeating his question about what happened to that $20m that was given to Queensland. Mr Wells —Good question. What has happened to it? Mr DONALD CAMERON —The honourable member has indicated that it will be on. I tell the honourable member for Petrie that he would have to be a mug to accept the brief to speak as a Queenslander for the Government in this debate; only he would have been crazy enough to accept the opportunity. We have only to turn the hands of time back a few months to recollect the Minister at the table with so much egg on his face as a result of the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) stepping in and offering Queensland extra millions upon millions of dollars. Because the Minister was trying to reduce the amount of money to be given to Queensland he almost had to go on oxygen for a week to recover from the Prime Minister's facesaver. He nearly suffocated. I see we have another Queenslander in the chamber, the honourable member for Herbert (Mr Lindsay), so I will buy into this particular argument; I am forced to. We all remember that the Minister was offering Queensland $15 a head as the amount it would receive from Medicare. The Queensland Government, to its everlasting credit, stood its ground and fought. But we still have an anomalous situation. The next speaker, the honourable member for Petrie, may like to answer this question. Why is it that for every person in New South Wales this Government pays out $60, in Victoria $57, in Western Australia $60, in Tasmania $68 and in South Australia $79, an average of $65, yet for every person in Queensland the amount that this Government pays is $46 a head. Mr Wells —Rubbish! Mr DONALD CAMERON —What kind of intellectual contribution from the honourable member will we have after that response at this early stage? Finally, I say to the Minister: The one per cent levy in itself is a farce. Not only has the Minister imposed that levy, but also he has imposed it on people who retired last year before Medicare even came in. The Minister is ripping into their pockets by making it apply to them. He has also wiped out the health rebate. That has gained the Government an extra $700m to $800m. People were previously given the incentive voluntarily to provide for their health care. The Minister has not only collected $1,100m or so from the pockets of people by this one per cent levy but also added another $700m to $800m that he has taken from people's pockets by not returning it to them as rebates on tax returns. So, in reality, people in the work force are already paying a 1.7 per cent levy, not a one per cent levy. It will not stop here. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mrs Child) —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr WELLS(Petrie)(3.38) —The Minister at the table, the Minister for Health (Dr Blewett), asked a question a little while ago. He asked: Which of the five health schemes of the previous Liberal-National Party Government does this Opposition want to go back to? We did not get an answer from the honourable member for Moreton (Mr Donald Cameron), but we did get a certain amount of illumination. The honourable member referred to the remark made by the Minister that 1,953,000 Australians were uninsured prior to Medicare. The Minister said that as a result of Medicare there are l,953,000 Australians for whom personal tragedy will no longer be compounded by financial disaster. In response to that, the honourable member for Moreton said that he conceded that perhaps some of those people should have had better care. In other words, the honourable member for Moreton does not want to go back to any of the schemes that the Opposition had in place previously. He wants to go back to something else, but he is not prepared to tell us what. There are pamphlets from the Opposition saying what is wrong with Medicare and what the Opposition would do. One such pamphlet says: Details of the Opposition policy are being worked out as part of our complete review of all policies and will be announced at the appropriate time. When is the appropriate time? The appropriate time is presumably when the Opposition gathers the wit to work out what it is going to say, but that will not be for some time. Fortunately, the country does not need the Opposition to tell it. Some 1,953,000 Australians who previously did not have coverage are now insured and have coverage under Medicare. If honourable members opposite are unmoved by statistics as they often are, perhaps they would be moved by the sight of a single family. If the honourable member for Moreton would like to come across the river to my electoral office in Petrie to meet a particular Australian family, I will show him a family which was unable to insure against medical disaster before Medicare came in. I refer to a family which, if the Opposition came into power again, would once more be unable to insure itself because of the cost. If the plight of that family does not move honourable members opposite their hearts are very hard indeed. Honourable members opposite are prepared to tamper with the very lives of Australians. They are prepared to say that they will wreck and pull down a scheme which has been operating very well for 12 months. They will pull it down but they cannot tell us what they will put in its place. The honourable member for Moreton went on to give us a string of statistics. He said that people in New South Wales were getting a certain amount back from Medicare and people in Victoria were getting a similar amount-$60.57-and he pulled some arbitrary figure out of the air as to what Queensland was getting back. The honourable member for Moreton cannot count and he cannot figure things out either because the figure he referred to is not what Queensland is getting back. What he did was choose, at the direction of the Premier of Queensland, a man whom he admires so much, a figure which does not represent what Queensland is getting under Medicare. That figure represents a particular column of a particular set of statistics. The honourable member has pulled out figures from one column when he should have added together a number of columns. The situation in Queensland is slightly different by virtue of the fact that it had an existing publicly funded hospital system, and the Commonwealth funding went in part into that system rather than into the column of figures that the honourable member for Moreton was talking exclusively about. I will tell honourable members what we have in that column of figures. I will tell honourable members not just in terms of the ordinary citizen walking in off the street and getting treatment which he would previously have had to pay for, showing his Medicare card, walking out and forgetting it. That is not the only advantage that people get under Medicare. The other advantage is that the funds to the public hospitals in the States of Australia have been much improved as a result of Medicare funding. I will take one State which is as close to the heart of the honourable member for Moreton as it is to mine, the State of Queensland. In the last year of the Fraser health scheme-one of the schemes that the Opposition might like to go back to if it can work out which of the five it would go back to and with what amendments; that confused health scheme which that gaggle of silvertails sitting opposite on those plush green benches wants to go back to in order to put two million Australians back out of the health insurance system-Queensland was getting $93m. In the first year of Medicare Queensland was getting $184m, a virtual doubling of the funds to public hospitals. Queensland has been getting so much money-this is a matter that the honourable member wanted me to refer to, and I will-that it does not even know how to spend it. Of the $50m Medicare special grant which was paid specifically to Queensland, $23m has already been paid, and the Opposition cannot tell us what has happened to it. The Queensland National Party Government will not tell us what has happened to it. It is not prepared to submit the matter to an audit to demonstrate what has happened to the money. Queensland has received enough money to enable it to wipe out unemployment in the nursing profession. Yet, frequently, I go to nursing graduation ceremonies in my electorate and I speak to young women who have just graduated and who have not yet received placements. Meanwhile there are long queues in public hospitals in the area in Brisbane that I represent. There are long queues which could be ameliorated by the employment of more medical staff-more nursing staff in particular but also more doctors. The funds which the States have received so far would generate a great deal of lifesaving therapy. Yet where are those funds being spent by the Queensland Government? We do not know. I refer once more to the fact that the fate of two million Australians depends on the continuation of Medicare because those are the people whose lives, not just the quality of their lives but sometimes their very lives, will depend on having health insurance and being able to go to a hospital. In an emergency, of course, anyone would go to a hospital. But what about elective surgery? Two million Australians, half a million Australian families, prior to the introduction of Medicare had to choose not to have elective surgery because they would not have been able to afford it. We heard a list of figures from the Opposition again telling us that Medicare was costing Australians more than the previous system did. If the Opposition will forgive me for saying so, it is a trifle dishonest because what it omitted in the figures is the fact that the cost of the private health sector was about to increase when Medicare came in. Straight after the introduction of Medicare there was a 12 per cent increase in the schedule fee and a 15 per cent increase in hospital costs. Of course, these increases showed up in the insurance tables. Hospital and medical insurance companies also included a range of services in the top level of cover which had previously not been included. This raised the level and gave the impression that the figures that the Opposition was quoting were comparable. Today, if we make allowance for those factors, the previous system which was in operation, the last Fraser-Carlton health scheme, would cost a family $16 a week to maintain if the system had just gone on as it was going. That is a good deal more than people are now paying under Medicare. We have heard a great deal from the two Opposition speakers about how important it is for people to be able to choose their own doctor. We on the Government side could not agree more. It is very important for people to choose their own doctor, and they have only been able to do that since Medicare came in. I say that because now the people from the State which the honourable member for Moreton, who is trying to interject, and I represent are able to go to the doctor of their choice. They are able to walk into that doctor's office, show their Medicare card and have their treatment. Previously they were unable to go to any doctor they chose because many people had to put off elective visits to doctors. What honourable members opposite are really talking about is that they want to introduce a health scheme that gives people a choice of surgeon. They are talking about the choice of doctor in hospital. Let us get that matter clear, because choice of doctor does exist under Medicare. Honourable members opposite say they want a scheme in which people can go into hospital and have their choice of doctor. That is fine, but that would cost $1,000m if added to the health scheme. I think a fair question to ask the Opposition is: Where will the money come from for all the inflated promises that it is bringing forward? It is better at this stage to allow the private health funds some scope to provide optional insurance for people who want that particular service, and at the same time keep the costs down. I did receive a small amount of coaching before I began this speech. It so happens that my mother is in the House today. She called me over before I spoke and she said to me: 'I do not know whether this will help, but when I went into hospital recently, I did not have to pay a penny'. My mother went into hospital for a quite serious operation and when she came out she did not have to pay a penny; it was all done on Medicare. She looks as bright as the day today. Medicare is a system which has helped ordinary Australians. It is a system which has helped those two million people in particular who were previously unable to get coverage, and I recommend its continuation to the House. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mrs Child) —Order! The discussion is concluded. Mr HURFORD(Adelaide-Minister for Housing and Construction)(3.49) —I 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: Augmentation of Taxiway System, Sydney (Kingsford-Smith) Airport, New South Wales. The proposed work is for construction of new taxiways, reconstruction of an existing taxiway and provision of larger fillets at taxiway and runway intersections to facilitate more efficient handling of aircraft on the ground and to reduce taxi-ing delays and operating costs. The main elements of the proposal are: Firstly, construction of additional entry and exit taxiways to both runways; secondly, enlargement of fillets at taxiway/runway and taxiway/taxiway intersections to allow higher runway entry and exit speeds and increased taxi-ing speeds; thirdly, reconstruction of existing taxiway G; fourthly, construction of partial length of parallel taxiway to the existing 07/25 runway; and lastly, associated reconstruction of sections of the Sydney Metropolitan Water Sewerage and Drainage Board main sewer, additions to the existing stormwater drainage system and various roadwords and re-establishment of disturbed areas. The estimated cost of the proposal at June 1984 prices is $16m. I table plans of the proposed work and commend the motion to the House. Mr SPENDER(North Sydney)(3.52) —The proposal before the House is to increase and improve the taxiway system at the Sydney (Kingsford-Smith) Airport. The estimated cost of this proposal at June 1984 prices, as the Minister for Housing and Construction (Mr Hurford) has just pointed out, is $16m. We are, of course, concerned with what is a fairly major development at Kingsford-Smith Airport, a major existing airport. We have heard a great deal from this Government about its plans for a second airport and I regret that the Minister for Aviation (Mr Beazley) is not here, but is presently enjoying a tour of Peking. I would have thought that out of sheer decency and a sense of commonality of interest he would have invited his opposite number to join him, in which event I would have declined because my duties are here, not in China. The question that obviously arises is this: Here we are proposing to spend quite a large amount of money on Kingsford-Smith Airport. It is perfectly plain that Kingsford-Smith Airport will remain a feature in the Australian aviation industry and, one would think, the major airport. One knows that there are 14, 000 jobs immediately dependent on that airport and the question that obviously arises is: When will we learn about the second airport site; where will it be; what will it do, that is, what functions will it perform; what airlines will have to go there; and what will it cost? There has been a great deal of speculation as to where it might be and the Minister has assured us that he regards this matter as an urgent task. Therefore, it is somewhat astonishing that after 18 months we are no wiser about the Government's proposals. The critical question is: What functions will the new airport perform? We do not know that. Before one chooses an airport site one must understand what functions it is going to perform. I raise this question because the development of the second airport must be viewed together with the improvements made at Kingsford-Smith. While I have not had an opportunity to look at the detail of what is proposed, if the taxiway system is to be improved that would seem to be in principle a good idea because it would speed up the exit and entrance of planes on to the runways and so, one hopes, reduce congestion. I would like to know from the Minister whether there is any proposal to change substantially the functions of Kingsford-Smith. In light of what the Government is proposing it would seem that the answer is that there is no such proposal underfoot and that the 14,000 jobs are safe. This gives rise to another question . If I recall correctly, and I regret to say that I do not have the article with me, the Minister was quoted in one of the newspapers a few weeks ago as saying that the new airport would produce some 7,000 jobs. I do not know whether he was correctly quoted, but that is my recollection. I would like to know whether this means there will be 7,000 additional jobs to the 14,000 which depend on Kingsford-Smith, or whether 7,000 of the Kingsford-Smith jobs are to go and, if so, what implications that spells out for the future of Kingsford-Smith. If we are to have, in fact, 7,000 new jobs, when will we have them and who will pay for them? Presumably the taxpayer will have to pay for them, coupled of course with the poor unfortunate air traveller who will have to contribute his bit under the cost recovery system. Since the Minister for Housing and Construction is very closely connected with any decision about the siting of airports because he will be responsible in large part, at least over the next few months, for supervising any preliminary plans-he would certainly be involved at an early stage in the detail of site selection-I ask him what progress the Government has made and when we can expect an answer on the site of the second airport. Or, is it the case, as I suspect, that this decision will be deferred until after the next election because it is altogether too unpleasant a question to resolve this side of the next election? I would also like to know whether we will see a continuance of Kingsford-Smith, as I understand we will, as the major airport, with 14,000 jobs intact, or whether some of those jobs will be lost? Lastly, are we looking at 7,000 new jobs, making a total of 21,000 jobs directly dependent on airports in the Sydney area? Mr COWAN(Lyne)(3.58) —I wish to speak briefly on this referral because the matter concerns me. I welcome the referral to the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works of these proposed works at Kingsford-Smith Airport. Like the honourable member for North Sydney (Mr Spender), I would very much like to know the Government's intentions for this airport. The matter mainly concerns me because of the air commuters who live in country New South Wales. The numbers of these are increasing particularly at the moment because of the train problems we have experienced. The general travellers of New South Wales have indicated that they do prefer air transport to Sydney. Naturally, as I represent a country electorate, and because $16m is quite a large amount of expenditure on behalf of the taxpayers, I would like to know whether it is the intention of the Government to proceed very soon with the new airport for the Sydney metropolitan area. We should know this, not only because of the number of people who are involved with works-they may be put on or replaced-but because of the position of New South Wales. One only has to look at Queensland. It has four international airports serving the coast, but New South Wales basically has only one, and the Sydney Airport is falling behind those of other capital cities of Australia. It is high time that a general decision was made on this aspect. I make my plea because there are numerous air services in the country being held up or kept back at great expense to the travellers and the companies concerned. I would have loved see the Minister come here today and say that the Public Works Committee was looking at a new runway for Sydney Airport. That is what I feel the people are really seeking. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mrs Child) —May I just remind the House that what we are looking at is the matter of a proposed work being referred to the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works. It does not really refer to a new airport or a new runway. The Chair has given quite a lot of latitude to both speakers and I hope they appreciate it. Mr HURFORD(Adelaide-Minister for Housing and Construction)(3.59) —in reply-Madam Deputy Speaker, I am grateful for your remarks pointing out to the House the terms of this motion. All these questions can be raised at hearings of the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works. In regard to the irrelevant speech of the honourable member for North Sydney (Mr Spender) I say that the Government is giving attention to the needs of a new Sydney airport. We waited for that decision during seven years of the Fraser Government, while it dithered about. But now some action is taking place. Proper negotiations are taking place with the Government of New South Wales on that subject. When those consultations have been properly carried through and proper identification made of the various options that are available to the Government, the proper surveys have been carried out on those particular options and the Government has had time to consider that work, it will make a decision because it is a government of action . One of the manifestations of that action is that we are bringing this particular proposal, costing $16m, to the Public Works Committee as a first stage of undertaking this work. We are dealing with an Opposition whose members at this very time are taking part in the debate on the Budget. One of the arguments in that debate is that the Government has not properly applied itself to cutting government spending. That is the Opposition's message. Here is another example of this Government being prepared to undertake essential government spending. It will be using resources that are plentiful because there are unemployed people and unutilised bricks and mortar in this country. It is a worthwhile operation which would not be carried out if this country was suffering the mismanagement of the Liberal and National parties as it suffered that mismanagement from 1976 to 1983. I repeat that we are happy to be referring this matter to the Public Works Committee for its assessment and I am happy to say that the Minister for Aviation (Mr Beazley) is doing his duty in considering whether a new airport for Sydney should be commissioned. In ending, I draw to the attention of the House the fact that the honourable member for North Sydney made a mean remark about the Minister for Aviation and his absence from the House. Mr Spender —It was not intended as a mean remark; you know that. I do not begrudge him a one-week trip to Peking. Mr Carlton —Especially on a Chinese aircraft. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mrs Child) —Order! Mr HURFORD —I hope the honourable member does not want that remark in Hansard, although it is now in Hansard. He ought to be more responsible than to make a comment like that. Mr Carlton —Do you know the service is bad? Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! Mr Spender —I did not make a mean remark; you know that. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member for Mackellar continues to flout the Chair. The Minister has the floor. The honourable member for North Sydney asked his questions and he can listen to the answers. Mr HURFORD —I am happy to accept the assurance of the honourable member for North Sydney that he did not intend his remark to be a mean one. I would not have expected that of him and I do accept his assurance. But people who read Hansard and those who are listening to this debate might not have noted the tone of voice of the honourable member or seen the twinkle in his eye when he made that remark. So, it is necessary to draw to the attention of the House and those taking an interest in its proceedings that the Minister for Aviation is at this time doing his public duty concerning the commissioning of a new direct service between this country and Beijing. I am sure that he is improving the relationship between China and this country in doing so. Madam Deputy Speaker, thank you for your tolerance in this debate. I am pleased that we are referring this matter to the Public Works Committee. Question resolved in the affirmative. Mr HURFORD(Adelaide-Minister for Housing and Construction)(4.05) —I 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: Construction of new Commonwealth offices at Sydney (Kingsford-Smith) Airport, New South Wales. The proposed work is for the construction of a multi-level office complex on a site within the airport boundary to accommodate on-airport Commonwealth functions associated with the operations of the international terminal building and cargo complexes. The departments and functions to be located in the proposed building are the Australian Customs Service, Australian Federal Police and the Departments of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs, Defence and Administrative Services. The proposal is designed to overcome present unsatisfactory aspects of operations and provide appropriate facilities to meet needs to the year 2000. I should add that these services are being provided in order to facilitate the public's needs. The proposed building will be of five levels and provide some 4,800 square metres nett of air conditioned office space, together with a cafeteria and recreation facilities. It will be of reinforced concrete frame construction with external cladding of material highly resistant to corrosion and staining by industrial fallout and salt laden air. External parking will be provided for visitors and employees. The estimated cost of the proposed work is $6.9m at May 1984 prices, which includes internal fit-out to normal Commonwealth standards. I table plans of the proposed work and commend the motion to the House. Mr RUDDOCK(Dundas)(4.07) —I welcome the reference of the work concerning the construction of new Commonwealth offices at the Sydney (Kingsford-Smith) Airport to the Public Works Committee for examination. I make some brief observations following the discussion that preceded this matter, in relation to the other developments to take place at Sydney's Kingsford-Smith Airport. It needs to be understood that this Government, like the previous Government, is committed to the ongoing development of important facilities at Sydney's Kingsford-Smith Airport in order that it can be properly utilised as an international airport. It needs to be understood that, while there has been on the part of the previous Government and this Government a search for a suitable site for a second airport , Sydney's Kingsford-Smith Airport is still an important part of the total airport arrangement for New South Wales. When the Minister for Housing and Construction (Mr Hurford) spoke on the last matter before the House, he was somewhat unkind to the Fraser Government by his reference to the fact that it was unable to secure a second site for Sydney's airport needs and had not come to a conclusion as to the way in which they ought to be met. It needs to be drawn to the Minister's attention and it needs to be clearly understood by all honourable members that the reason why a decision had not been reached previously on this matter is that the Wran Labor Government in New South Wales refused to continue its participation in the major airport needs of Sydney studies commenced by the former Government. Those studies were designed to bring this question to finality in a co-operative way. When the MANS committee was nearing the completion of its work, the Wran Labor Government, for the most base political reasons, withdrew from the study so that it would not have to be committed to the only logical decision-the one with which this Government is proceeding now because it is faced with the responsibilities of office-that is, to ensure the ongoing utilisation of Sydney's Kingsford-Smith Airport. This important work has been initiated to enable the airport to continue to be used in an effective way. That needs to be understood. We saw a great deal of politicking by honourable members opposite when they were seeking election to this place. That included the honourable member for Barton (Mr Punch ), who thought he might be able to capitalise on the concern expressed by some people in his electorate about having to live near an airport. He now has to recognise the situation, as explained by Liberal governments, that Sydney's Kingsford-Smith Airport is important from the point of view of Sydney and its future. This view is now accepted by his own colleagues. That is reinforced by the fact that we have before us today two important works, one designed to augment the taxiway system and the other to enable the construction of new Commonwealth offices at Sydney's Kingsford-Smith Airport. When that is understood, the political activities that surrounded Sydney's airport can then be clearly seen for what they were. Mr HURFORD(Adelaide-Minister for Housing and Construction)(4.09) —in reply-I reply to that irrelevant contribution to this motion before the House to refer to the Public Works Committee some further work at the Sydney (Kingsford-Smith) Airport at Mascot. The honourable member for Dundas (Mr Ruddock) is making excuses for a lot of indecisive work at the time the Liberal and National parties were in government. The Government is addressing itself to something which has always been needed and was always in prospect, namely upgrading Mascot . We are not putting in a new runway at Mascot, which was what the controversy was about and which the former honourable members for Barton and St George were successfully seeking to resist. We are getting on with the job of looking at the possibilities of a further airport in the Sydney region, but we are also doing something to improve the facilities at the existing Sydney airport. Question resolved in the affirmative. Mr HURFORD(Adelaide-Minister for Housing and Construction)(4.11) —I 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: 132kV Subtransmission development, Tuggeranong, Australian Capital Territory. This proposal is for extension of the existing subtransmission system to cater for continuing urban growth in the Tuggeranong area of Canberra. It involves: Firstly, the establishment of a new zone substation in the suburb of Gilmore; and secondly, the construction of 132 kV overhead supply lines to Gilmore from the existing zone substations at Wanniassa and Causeway. The estimated cost of the proposed work is $6.92m at October 1983 prices. Electricity for the Australian Capital Territory is drawn from the 330 kV New South Wales, Snowy Mountains and Victoria interconnected transmission system. Distribution within the Australian Capital Territory is the responsibility of the Australian Capital Territory Electricity Authority, which is a statutory Commonwealth body. The proposal to be referred to the Public Works Committee is the first to be so developed by the Authority following the amendment of the Public Works Committee Act in 1981 to bring the works of statutory authorities within the Australian Capital Territory. I table plans of the proposed work and commend the motion to the House. Mr RUDDOCK(Dundas)(4.13) —Mr Deputy Speaker, I hope you do not wonder how I can make a speech out of this matter, but the nub of the proposal is that the Government is suggesting that this development should proceed in order to provide for electricity needs resulting from the continued urban growth in the Tuggeranong area of Canberra. I would like, in referring this matter to the Standing Committee on Public Works, that Committee to have in mind in its consideration and deliberations a number of matters. First, I would like it to have in mind that a number of important development projects in the Tuggeranong area, which were to proceed and I believe upon which this project was based, will not be proceeding as a result of cutbacks by the Government in the budget for Canberra in the capital works area. I have in mind particularly the cutbacks in relation to the development of the Tuggeranong town centre. The town centre site, which was to be prepared during this financial year, and upon which a major retail and commercial development was to take place, was abandoned in this Budget and is to be looked at in future Budgets. It is perhaps not generally realised that the reason I believe this particular important development project was abandoned was the reallocation of expenditure within the Australian Capital Territory. That occurred largely because of the increased moneys that had to be found to be spent on expanding the size of the Parliament and the size of the New Parliament House. The expansion of the Parliament, by some 23 members for this chamber and 12 members for the Senate, meant that in the New Parliament House development additional offices have to be provided, and that is at a cost of the order of $40m. When the Minister for Territories and Local Government (Mr Uren) had to go and see his colleagues in Cabinet and ask for that extra $40m to expand the New Parliament House, Cabinet said: 'Where can we save some money in relation to Canberra?' Of course Cabinet hit upon some of these important developments that were taking place in the southern area of the city where there has been extensive residential expansion. The Government said: 'Look, Minister, you will have to cut back on some of these projects'. We know that the honourable member for Canberra (Mrs Kelly) is very keen to have this major retail development in Tuggeranong, but she will not be able to have it now. I do not think there is necessarily a need at this time for the development, having regard to the cutbacks occurring in the south. I hope that the Public Works Committee will look at those questions in its discussions. I certainly hope that it will also look at some other questions relating to urban growth in that area. The plans we have before us demonstrate that these proposals have been put together on the basis of plans to extend the Tuggeranong development beyond Isabella Plains into the Lanyon area. Some members of the Parliament have been concerned for a little while about the extent to which the development in the Tuggeranong area may proceed south near the Lanyon Homestead and may be such as to hamper severely the environment of that homestead, particularly the curtilage to it-that is a favourite word of honourable members these days-which might very well be impacted upon as a result of the residential development in the south Lanyon area. No doubt in time there will be some other committee reports on this question, but it is important for the Public Works Committee, in its consideration of these subtransmission proposals, to look at some of these important questions about how far development ought to proceed in the south Lanyon area, and whether there is a need for this subtransmission development at this time. I think it is also important for the Committee to have in mind the reordering of priorities, to which I have drawn attention before, such as the way in which the expansion of the Parliament has led to the fact that the Government had to put off, in this financial year, the development of the Tuggeranong town centre. Mr HURFORD(Adelaide-Minister for Housing and Construction)(4.16) —in reply-Very briefly, the honourable member for Dundas (Mr Ruddock) has taken the time of this Parliament in saying the obvious. Of course those sorts of considerations, such as the development around south Lanyon, are just the ones that will be taken into consideration by the Standing Committee on Public Works. The purpose of this reference is for that Committee, and indeed the community generally in its submission to that Committee, to have an input into these sorts of decisions . The gall of the honourable member is incredible to behold when he talks about our cutting public spending in this Canberra district in relation to the Tuggeranong development. The fact is that he, probably along with the rest of his colleagues, will take the line in their Budget contributions that there should be a further $2 billion cut in public spending, yet they now come in here and suggest that we have indeed cut public spending more than it should be cut in the Tuggeranong area, in a region where we are very close to the construction industry being overheated. I remind the House that the purpose of this motion is to refer the matter to the Public Works Committee, where a lot of the things he said will properly be canvassed. Question resolved in the affirmative. (Budget Debate) Debate resumed. Mr SINCLAIR(New England-Leader of the National Party of Australia)(4.19) —Mr Deputy Speaker, for those who have looked at the Budget of the Government and for those who are looking to the Government to solve their economic problems, I am afraid that the illusion and the practice stand in marked contrast. In its first 18 months the Hawke Government took great care to endeavour to present itself as a government of economic credibility and responsibility. Because it was able to rise on the back of the Fraser-Anthony wage pause, the breaking of the drought, and of course the recovery in the American economy, people felt that it had a fair degree of success. Two weeks ago that all changed. The Treasurer (Mr Keating) walked into this place on Budget night and stood opposite where I now stand, basking in the smile of the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke). As he spoke, under the glare of the television lights, his economic credibility and integrity evaporated, layer by layer. In the end all that was left was an economic husk-a neat, dapper husk, with just the right coloured tie, but still only a husk. In only about 60 minutes, the Treasurer effectively destroyed a reputation for economic competence that he had tried so hard to establish since March last year . In the presentation of his Budget he exposed the fact that this Government is no different from any other Labor government this country has suffered under. It is a big taxing government; it is a big union government; it is a big spending government; and it is a big deficit government. It is a government which puts its big union mates and its electoral survival far ahead of its responsibility to the ordinary Australian. I would like to examine for a little while-and there is only a little time available-three aspects of what I see as a particularly cynical, irresponsible and dangerous Budget for the long term economic wellbeing of the people of Australia. The first area I would like to look at is its effect on the nation as a whole; secondly, its effect on the people whom the National Party of Australia represents; and thirdly, its effect on the now sadly ailing Australian Defence Force. Of course, I have not time to deal fully with all of these matters. However, what I would like to do first is to nail once and for all this Government's hypocrisy, its attempt to deceive Australians and its irresponsibility. There is no better way of showing the Government's hypocrisy and deception than by examining its so-called tax cuts. Every one of us around the Australian community worries about the amount of our funds, income and earnings which go to the Government. We are worried about the extent to which, through taxation, we are penalised in the things we would like to do in terms of the disposable percentage of the money which we would like to call our own. But what, of course, has happened is that this Government has given with one hand but is poised to take back what it has given and more before the year is out. The so-called tax cuts are worth $1,300m-a maximum of $7.60 for those few select taxpayers in that identified group. But over the course of the year the Government expects to take a staggering $4,753m in extra personal income tax out of the pockets of Australians. That is an increase of 23 per cent, or nearly $23 for every taxpayer in the community. On top of that, it will take an extra $826m through the Medicare levy. That levy is to be applied on top of the new tax on lump sum superannuation payments. As my colleague the honourable member for Mackellar (Mr Carlton) who is sitting with me in the House at the moment identified so effectively this afternoon, through Medicare costs to the community are rising and hospital benefits are deteriorating. Of course, part of the tax rise occurs because of the forecast continued recovery, to which I will return. A major contributor, however, is that great ally of Labor Treasurers, fiscal drag. This occurs, of course, as taxpayers move into progressively higher tax brackets during the course of a year and honourable members might remember how enthusiastically this device was embraced between 1972 and 1975 by Gough Whitlam, the present Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Trade (Mr Lionel Bowen) and even by the aspiring Prime Minister, the present Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr Hayden). According to the Budget statistics, more than one million taxpayers, in fact, will move into higher tax brackets this financial year. To illustrate that, look at the cases of those Australians earning $17,000 a year now. That is hardly an enormous amount and quite a pittance by the standards of the Treasurer and his colleagues. Yet these taxpayers, who are now in the 30 per cent tax bracket, will find themselves paying 46c each in tax on every extra dollar they earn by the end of the financial year, giving only a relatively small rise in incomes. Mr Blunt —Plus Medicare. Mr SINCLAIR —The tax plus Medicare. Of course, as I mentioned, that Medicare bill will amount to about $856m this year. The tax on every extra dollar they earn will rise by more than 50 per cent. At the same time, they will be paying more in indirect taxes because of the decision in the last Budget to index excise duties on items such as tobacco, alcohol and petrol. I thought my colleague the honourable member for Paterson (Mr O'Keefe), who spoke in this debate a little while ago in what sadly might well be his last speech in this chamber, identified that totally unjustified cost very effectively indeed. At the same time, the real cost of the average citizen's home loan has never been higher. The lower to middle income earners are truly the forgotten Australians in this Budget. For them, the so-called tax cuts are a complete and total fraud. That brings me to what I see as the total irresponsibility of the Treasurer's Budget package which is best summed up in the words of the business editor of the Melbourne Age, Mr Terry McCrann, who wrote on 22 August: Despite the overall veneer of fiscal responsibility projected by the substantially reduced deficit, Paul Keating's second Budget is a deeply disturbing document which is tied to a very high risk strategy for sustained economic recovery. The fact is that the real value of the Government's revenue is expected to increase this year by 10.5 per cent-triple the average of the previous 10 years. Total Budget revenues are expected to increase by $8,600m. Clearly, there was room for a massive cut in the deficit. Importantly, there was room for setting the stage for Australia's economic future. Importantly, there was room to create a stimulus to the private sector if spending was to be included and that stimulus, of course, could have been far better attained by reducing expenditure , not by increasing it. Yet, of course, what happened was that the deficit came down by only a paltry $1,200m. The rest went on increased spending. Again, this was an increase of more than three times the average rate under the coalition Government. This massive increase has made necessary an even larger increase in borrowings and, sadly, much of those are to be overseas borrowings at a time when our export earnings are under threat. Public debt interest is to rise by over $1,200m, or marginally less than the entire defence vote. The particular dangers in the Government's approach were spelt out in a speech published in Australia on Budget day by the Managing Director of the International Monetary Fund. Warning of the urgent need for governments to cut fiscal deficits, he said: The more time passes, and the more debt accumulates, the greater must be the tax increases or expenditure cuts needed to contain the size of the deficit. One need not be an alarmist to visualise a situation where it becomes politically very difficult to introduce enough tax increases or enough cuts in non-interest expenditure to neutralise the growth of interest expenditure. When this happens the pressure on governments to inflate their way out of the problem becomes irresistible. This is a warning which the Government has completely ignored. It ignores it not just to its own electoral peril but to the cost of every Australian citizen. The Government has thrown away a vital opportunity to slash the deficit and at the same time to reduce the real tax burden on Australians, so putting the economy on a firm foundation, just for the sake of trying to win some votes in the election which we now seem certain to have in December. If there was ever an election that was not needed it is that which this Government precipitately is rushing the Australian electorate towards. Dr Klugman —Don't be so scared. Mr SINCLAIR —I can assure the honourable member that I am not. As the Australian Financial Review headlined it, this is a Budget to just last an election. Of course, that is what it is about. This Government knows that if anybody is scared it is members of the Government themselves. All one needs to do is look at the faction fighting that is taking place on the Government side. I know how concerned the honourable member for Prospect (Dr Klugman) is about the way in which some of those within his Party take positions which he regards as unacceptable. How reconciled are a few of those in the socialist Left behind him to the views and attitudes of the Prime Minister? Why, the antagonism between the socialist Left and the Prime Minister is as great as it would be between any two individuals in Australia. The situation is quite incredible. This precipitate rush to the election, of course, is taking place merely to try to contain the Labor Party before it finally erupts about us. As I was saying, the Australian Financial Review headlined this document as a Budget to just last an election. Shoddy and jerrybuilt job as it is, this Budget is built on foundations no firmer than the Prime Minister's promises. It is built on growth expectations which even the Budget Papers describe as uncertain. If that growth does not materialise-and there is a very real danger that it will not-we will be faced with a massive deficit blowout and enormous problems for all sections of the economy and all Australians. Growth aside, on-wage costs have snowballed since the prices and incomes accord, ranging as they do from so- called special allowances in a few select industries to superannuation payments of about $11 a week for members of the Builders Labourers Federation. As a result, deficits and unemployment loom large for the future. The impact of this cynical, irresponsible and dangerous Budget hits hard at that most vital sector of the economy-our productive export industries. There were some useful measures for both the rural and mining sectors which, I am sure , we all welcome. But the overall thrust of the Budget seriously undermines the international competitiveness on which the prosperity of all the Australian industry sectors is ultimately based. The rural sector, which provided the major stimulus to economic growth over the last 12 months, received some small handouts, but its major problems were ignored. The growth expectation that the Treasurer has spoken of is predicated on the drought breaking twice and I would have thought that even the Treasurer would realise that, frankly, that just cannot happen. There are two measures in particular which pose real long term problems for the rural sector. The first is natural disaster funding. Currently, the States are responsible for initial funding for drought and other disaster relief. After their spending reaches a predetermined ceiling, the Commonwealth steps in and contributes $3 for every $1 spent by the States. The Commonwealth has drastically increased the ceilings on initial State spending overall by more than double-to $57m. So much for the care and consideration this Government has for federalism! But, in addition, it has changed the cost-sharing arrangements so that from 1 July 1985 the Commonwealth will provide assistance on a dollar for dollar basis up to 75 per cent over the base amount, and on a three for one basis after that. This will increase Federal-State wrangling over drought relief and ultimately put drought-stricken farmers and small businessmen-indeed all those in drought-affected or potentially drought-affected areas-in greater jeopardy. Mr Lloyd —Another broken promise. Mr SINCLAIR —Another broken promise. The second measure of long term concern relates to water resources. There is, in fact, not one word on water conservation in the Budget, which is an extraordinary situation in the world's driest continent one year after the breaking of one of the worst droughts in Australia's history. But there is an appropriation for $64.3m for national water resources; that at least is welcomed. But the clincher is buried in an accompanying statement by the Minister for Resources and Energy (Senator Walsh). He has announced that from next year the Commonwealth will help the States with water projects only by providing loans for revenue producing works. The grants will steadily come to a halt and the cost of water and new projects will, of course, skyrocket. Mr Lloyd —They will tax rain soon. Mr SINCLAIR —At the rate the Government is going I do not doubt that it will, together with capital gains taxes and everything else. I want to say a few words on defence. We have seen further examples of what again can only be described as the Government's cynicism and irresponsibility. In dollar terms the increase in defence spending in this year's Budget was the lowest since 1972-73. Honourable members will remember the first Labor Budget under Whitlam. The real increase, according to the Budget Papers, was only 1.5 per cent-the lowest since 1977-78. Of course, the Minister for Defence (Mr Scholes) has claimed that the real increase was 3.3 per cent. He has made this claim, however, only by resorting to an obvious fiddle. He has brought forward funds already spent and added them to this year's figures. This ignores the fact that the Minister already counted this spending in his response to attacks on the Government's lamentable approach to defence funding last financial year. It is a double whammy. The Government claimed the benefit last year; it puts it in this year and claims the amount it is spending has increased accordingly. This is a clear case of double counting. The Minister cannot have it both ways. The fact is that this Budget marks a slowing of the rate of progress in several significant areas of defence activity, and unfortunately in areas which have been significantly helped over the last few years. The rate of real increase in total outlays has been slowed. On any measure, real growth in the defence vote fails to sustain the rate of increase needed to finance the Government's five- year forward defence program. All members in this place will know that the conflicts within the Budget allocation for defence lie between the funds available for capital procurement, the funds available for manpower and the funds needed to sustain exercising and training capability. What has happened is that the funds for the five-year defence program are being so pared that they will fail to sustain the rate of increase needed. At the same time there will be manpower cuts and pruning in the amount of money needed to sustain the competence and efficiency of the Defence Force. Even if the five-year defence program were fully implemented, it would leave the Government, by its own admission, with little room for initiative and would allow major gaps in Australia's defence capabilities. Of course, this is at a time when the Minister for Foreign Affairs is one moment in Geneva and the next in South East Asia, placing Australia in an increasingly non-aligned position-a position which, of course, the Prime Minister has long since taken on Australia's behalf. But with non-alignment, with the alienation of the United States of America and with a New Zealand Labor government threatening the very survival of ANZUS, Australia's defence capability is to be run down. There are many failures in this year's defence Budget which deserve examination , but I have time to refer in detail to only one. It is one of the most pressing in terms of day to day operations and readiness of the Services. What is clear from this Budget is that the stringent restrictions on training and exercises which have bound all the Services will continue, and could even worsen. Before I go on to detail the results of the Budget itself, we have to go back nearly 12 months to the decisions that were taken to scrap the Fleet Air Arm, the fixed wing capability that sustained the air support of the Royal Australian Navy. Of course, it is said that properly we need to look at the overall capability of the Australian Defence Force. But what happened was not this Government's decision taken against a carrier that so critically hurt the Australian Defence Force: It was the decision to scrap the existing fixed wing capability which provided, in two particular types of aircraft, a unique capability. That unique capability is now lost to the Australian Services. The A4 Skyhawks and the Tracker aircraft were unique in their particular roles in the Australian Defence Force. What has happened now, we learn as a result of the Auditor-General's report, is that by disposing of the A4 Skyhawks the Navy is no longer able properly to test those missiles it uses to develop a capability against low level projectiles fired at a ship of the fleet. In other words, by disposing of the A4 aircraft it is no longer possible to conduct properly naval training and exercises to maintain even a reasonable measure of self-defence. Of course, the sad part of that is that not only is the A4 useful in that role but also it is the only aircraft within the Australian Defence Force which has an intrinsic capability of self-refuelling. In other words, it can be used in a ground defence role, a ground attack role or to help in the naval exercises necessarily undertaken by the ships of the RAN; and there is no replacement for it. At the moment we are told that that, like the anti-submarine warfare capability of the Australian Defence Force's ships, does not matter. Of course, if we look at the Budget, we find the relevant Budget categories show negligible real growth. We know that what the Government is doing is paring existing capability and providing no funds to redevelop it. The total of money in this Budget for supporting equipment and repairs and maintenance is $654.6m, an increase of only 5.1 per cent in money terms. But, of course, that means only 0.1 per cent in real terms. If inflation holds at 5 per cent as is forecast, that will be what is left. Mr Lusher —If. Mr SINCLAIR —'If' is certainly so right. If it is anything more than 5 per cent, and anyone realistically looking at the economy ahead is very foolish to assess inflation at that level, we will finish up with a reduction in the amount of money provided for supporting equipment, repairs and maintenance. Planning for the five-year defence plan required real growth in this area of 2 per cent a year simply to cover the additional costs of the increasingly sophisticated new equipment now entering service. Defence has been done again. Australians will pay the price for that in the years to come as they will pay the price for the whole Budget strategy. This is a vote now, pay later Budget. It marks, as a noted political commentator stated last week, the beginning of the end of the Hawke Government. That judgment is underlined by the resignation of the Secretary to the Treasury in his vilification of the Treasurer and the Budget. The Government has put the nation' s economic future on the line in its determination to go to the polls early. Australians know that and they will give their reply in December. The Budget is a failure and the people deserve to vote against it. Mr BALDWIN(Sydney)(4.40) —The debate that took place in the lead-up to this year's Budget and in its aftermath provides an interesting study of contrasts with the comparable debate that took place last year. Last year, for the first time, the Government had to confront the reality of a massive blowout in the Budget deficit which was a consequence primarily of the recession. The so-called cyclical component of the Budget deficit increased enormously. It flowed from the economic conditions which were generated, in the first instance, by the previous Government. This Government had to contend, for the first time, with this very substantial growth in the Budget deficit. I state the obvious: It reveals the hypocrisy of the Opposition screaming about the burden of the public sector debt and the magnitude of the outstanding government debt as a proportion of gross domestic product. The conditions that led to that substantial blowout arose, in the first instance, from economic conditions which the former Government was responsible for creating. As a result of that substantial blowout, the reality of which was being confronted for the first time, we had a very major debate about the significance of Budget deficits, what ought to be regarded as acceptable ceilings on Budget deficits, what their importance would be, and what consequences would flow from them. A range of viewpoints were expressed. Some people said that the Government was overly concerned about restricting the Budget deficit. Others argued that drastic measures should have been taken, even more than were taken originally, to rein in that Budget deficit. I remind the House that the no policy change projection for the 1983-84 deficit was $9.6 billion. As a result of this Government's actions and decisions the figure was ultimately reduced to $8.5 billion. As has been revealed in the Budget Papers, we ended up with a Budget deficit outcome for 1983-84 marginally under $8 billion. Last year the central issue of the debate on the Budget concerned the broad macro-economic strategy, the importance of Budget deficits, what they would do to interest rates and inflation and how much benefit they would provide in real terms by way of stimulating the economy. This year, by contrast, I think it would be true to say that the debate on broad macro-economic strategy has been far less extensive. In part that is a consequence of the fact that we do not have the same array of information that became available as a result of the National Economic Summit Conference. Last year we had a full set of information on revenue and outlay growth which enabled us to look at the Budget deficit and see what its significance would be. There was the exercise whereby the Budget deficit was split into cyclical and structural components and we were able to have a debate about that. We could not do that this year because the same information base was simply not available to enable us to do so. That is one obvious facet of this contrast. The other consideration is that to some extent we have all become used to large Budget deficits. It has become clear that the calamitous consequences which some people predicted would flow from the large Budget deficits have not, in fact, occurred. A very substantial bond selling program was undertaken by the Government. That program coincided with a fall in interest rates and a significant fall in the rate of inflation. If we are to accept the economic orthodoxy propounded by the soon to resign Secretary to the Treasury, Mr John Stone, who argued in a number of publications that large Budget deficits inevitably result in heightened inflationary expectations which in turn have consequences for interest rates and also consumption and investment expenditures , we would not have expected the economic performance that has occurred over the past 12 months. I remind the House that that economic performance has been extremely favourable . We have seen very substantial real growth, the fastest in member countries of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. This performance has coincided with falling inflation and interest rates and very strong employment growth. Notwithstanding some edging up in the participation rate, it has also coincided with a significant fall in the rate of unemployment. I would suggest to the House that all these improvements are, in large measure, a consequence of the move away from the severe fiscal contractionism of the Fraser Government. These developments created a totally different climate to the one which surrounded the debate on last year's Budget. There is no question that in the lead-up to this year's Budget the major issue that we considered was the magnitude and shape of the tax cuts that were to be offered. We all know about the negotiations which took place in the lead-up to the Budget. The Australian Council of Trade Unions put forward a claim for a $1.3 billion tax cut. That would have been the total aggregate cost to the Government in revenue terms of the ACTU's proposal. That cut has been more or less delivered, at least in terms of its aggregate magnitude. No doubt the Opposition would regard it as a very scandalous development that the trade union movement had been successful in securing agreement from the Government on this matter, but anybody who attaches any weight to the prices and incomes accord realises that significant tax cuts are a necessary precondition to the accord's survival. It was announced yesterday that there would be no national wage case in October of this year. That came about as a direct consequence of the effect both of the falling inflation rate and the introduction of Medicare on the movement in the consumer price index. There was a fractionally negative CPI movement for the first six months of the year. Obviously, in a situation such as that, the trade union movement will insist on some compensating measure to ensure that there will not be a fall in real disposable income. That request has been delivered in the form of income tax cuts. I think that any rational economic observer would have to agree that the preservation of the prices and incomes accord at this stage ought to be, and is, a key Government objective. Those tax cuts are an essential part of that accord. The other aspect of the tax cuts that attracted some debate was the actual form which they would take. The Australian Council of Social Service expressed some concern in the period leading up to the Budget as to the way in which the tax cuts would be structured. ACOSS was concerned that a significant proportion of the tax cuts would go to people who were in a relatively high income bracket. I thought that was a legitimate concern. I believe it is important that the distributive effect of the tax cut be looked at explicitly. I am pleased with the shape of the tax cut, as it has been brought down, with a cut in the marginal rate from 30 to 25 per cent for people in the lowest tax bracket, with a flat rate covering the income band in which most income earners fall, and a falling off thereafter. I think that a tax cut structured in that way is good in terms of equity. I believe a detailed analysis would show that it will have some effect, albeit a marginal effect, in improving the equity of the overall tax system. As I indicated at the outset, there is a contrast in the nature of the debate that took place on budgetary policy prior to last year's Budget in comparison with the debate on this year's Budget. There has been a strong contrast in the nature of the debate that has taken place. One thing that has remained common on both occasions has been the vacuity and arithmetic absurdity of the Opposition's attempted critiques of those Budgets. It is astonishing to sit in this chamber and listen, day after day, to speeches such as the one we have just heard from the Leader of the National Party of Australia (Mr Sinclair). On the one hand, members of the Opposition reject all the measures that the Government has instituted in order to save revenue. They reject out of hand the assets test and the lump sum superannuation changes. They bemoan the alleged inadequacy of the income tax cuts. They bemoan the lack of real growth in defence expenditures. The Leader of the National Party whinged bitterly about the fact that there have not been adequate increases in defence expenditures. Yet, on the other hand, they continue to clamour about the magnitude of the Budget deficit and how the Government is not really serious about reducing it. They say that they would do much more. The fact is that those statements do not gel. They are an absurdity and ought to be regarded as such by the electorate at large. If one looks back in history at the magnitude of our total outstanding public sector debt one will see that as a proportion of gross domestic product it is not all that much out of kilter with what we have had in the past. Since the late 1960s and the early 1970s the ratio has not changed significantly. In fact, it is smaller now. If one goes back further in history one can find plenty of instances in which the public sector debt, as a proportion of gross domestic product, has been substantially higher. I regard this whole argument as an absurdity. If we look at the OECD countries as a whole, our public sector debt as a proportion of gross domestic product is one of the lowest-I think it is the third lowest-of the 23 OECD countries. So this sort of alarmism about the magnitude of that public sector debt, which arose in the first instance out of the recession of which the Opposition was the architect, is sheer dishonesty. Certainly, its proscriptions and critique of the Budget measures put forward by this Government are utterly laughable. I will say no more on that, other than to note with pleasure the fact that John Stone has announced his resignation as Secretary to the Treasury. A great many of the restrictionist policies pursued by the former Government and a great deal of the obsession about the Budget deficit flowed directly from his intellectual dominance of that Department. I think his ideas are bankrupt and untenable, and that is a view shared by a range of economic commentators. I will refer to one- that is, a paper prepared for the Brookings Institute, which is a prestigious United States-based research organisation, by Rudiger Dornbusch and Stanley Fischer. They prepared a paper that was presented to a conference earlier this year, a contribution to a survey of the Australian economy. They criticised the Treasury view in these terms: The Treasury's starting point is the fact that the increase in the deficit increases aggregate demand and thus puts pressure on prices. Consequent fear of inflation may reduce the increase in aggregate demand produced by the deficit. But if aggregate demand were to end up lower than it started, there would be no cause to fear inflation other than pressure from the adverse expectations associated with the deficit itself rather than with the induced inflation. This would be a case of deficit hysteria, rather than a rational calculation based on the actual effects of deficits on demand. If such hysteria were universal, the United States would not in 1983 be enjoying the most rapid recovery of the post- World War II period. In other words, those two observers from the Brookings Institute, in evaluating the Australian economy, Australian economic policy and the Treasury's approach to those things, characterised its position as deficit hysteria, which is an extraordinary condemnation, in my opinion. I had intended to talk a little more about the prospects so far as the reform of the taxation system is concerned. But it is obviously not possible to do so in the time remaining to me. I make one observation: In this Budget we have seen a marginal extension in the indirect tax base; that is, the inclusion of domestically produced grape wines and ciders within the ambit of the wholesale sales tax, the wholesale sales tax being the only broadly based consumption tax operative in Australia at the moment. One thing that has been commented on by a number of observers of Australia's tax system is the fact that the proportion of revenue derived from broadly based consumption taxes is one of the lowest in the OECD area. One of the proposals for tax reform has been substantially to increase that base. What we have seen in this Budget is a marginal increase in that tax base by the inclusion of wines and ciders. There is a substantial controversy about that within the trade union movement. There is what I believe to be a legitimate concern on the part of the trade union movement, and a concern that is embodied in the accord, that the introduction of a very broad- based consumption tax would have the consequence of significantly reducing the equity of the overall tax system. I comment at this point that in referring to remarks made by people like the Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard), who is known to be in support of the introduction of a broad-based consumption tax, even business representatives at meetings of the Economic Planning Advisory Council who have commented on this issue have insisted that, if we are to have a significant extension of the indirect tax base, in order to restore equity into the tax system and ensure that the overall outcome is not to reduce significantly the equity of that system it needs to be coupled with the introduction of taxation of other forms, such as taxes on capital gains, wealth or wealth transfers. I will conclude by quoting a couple of comments which occur in the Treasury paper prepared for EPAC and presented in December last year. On the question of capital gains tax it states: Australia stands almost alone among OECD countries in its treatment of capital gains. This is a further quotation dealing with taxes on wealth and wealth transfer: Australia (along with Canada) is now virtually alone among developed industrialised countries in imposing no general tax on wealth or wealth transfers; and Australia is unique among OECD countries in having no general tax on wealth, wealth transfers or capital gains. I simply make the observation that the Opposition's position on tax reform is utterly untenable because it wants to introduce a broad-based consumption tax which will have the effect of reducing the equity of the overall tax system without introducing other compensatory measures to restore a degree of equity. That, to me, signals its utter bankruptcy on the whole issue of tax reform. Mr MACPHEE(Balaclava)(4.56) —I will deal with the matter of employment. It is very appropriate to begin that way today because of the fact that the August unemployment figures have just been released. I quote from the main features as they are identified by the Australian Bureau of Statistics: In seasonally adjusted terms, total employment fell by 23,300 between July and August 1984 with little change to the level of full-time employment, but a fall of 27,800, mostly males in part-time employment. Seasonally adjusted unemployment (634,300 persons or 8.9 per cent) showed little change. An increase in the number of unemployed males of 23,300 was offset by a fall in female unemployment of 17,400. The seasonally adjusted participation rate fell by 0.3 percentage points to 60.4 per cent. Of course, the labour force comprises all persons who, during the survey week, were employed or unemployed and who are within the category of persons seeking, and who are eligible for, work. The labour force participation rate for any group in the labour force is expressed as a percentage of the civilian population aged 15 and over in the same group. In that regard the Bureau goes into great detail about the nature of the civilian labour force. I draw the House's attention, in particular, to those aged 15 to 19 years. In January this year when the school leavers were beginning to register and look for employment, the unemployment rate was 25.4 per cent. It did rise by almost a percentage point in February but it was only 0.4 per cent lower in August than it was in January. How disturbing that must be for those who plan to leave school at the end of this year and for the parents of those children, when one also takes into account the fact that the length of periods of unemployment is greatly rising. Those who are unemployed are facing being unemployed for longer periods. Yet what is the Government doing? We have just heard from the honourable member for Sydney (Mr Baldwin) that the prices and incomes accord is the focal point. We have heard it time and again. It is the linchpin of this Budget, the previous Budget and the entire economic policy of the Government. The parties to the accord-the Government and the trade union movement-are concerned to improve, apparently willy nilly, the quality of working life and apparently the real disposable income of those in a job and give no attention whatsoever to those who do not have a job. It is a very grave reflection on the Government's sense of priorities that it has been directing its attention to supporting union claims which add to the cost of employing people. Most recently we had the Australian Council of Trade Unions job security case and we have had the Government's blessing on the $11 deal in the building industry which we know, and which I have exposed in debates before, is a wage increase under the guise of being non-contributory superannuation-non-contributory by the employee. It is a wage increase of the order denied by the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission in accordance with the accord. But the Government and the ACTU have bowed to the industrial muscle of the building industry unions and have denied the employers any protection against that muscle. Today's increase in unemployment underlines the fact that the unemployed are failing to benefit from an improving economy. It is a disgrace that, despite the breaking of the drought and the benefits of the wages pause, neither of which had anything to do with this Government, and despite improved international conditions which again were not the result of the work of this Government, unemployment remains so high. The policies of the Government are not targeted to the unemployed, yet for years it ranted and raved about the need to help the unemployed. The Labor Party created the expectation that in government it would do just that. I suggest that it is very alarming to look at both the figures I have quoted, because the rise in male unemployment is a very serious one. In one month that rise was 0.5 per cent. The fact that the overall unemployment figure is not significantly worse is not a matter for the Government to preen itself on. What it means is that females, in particular, and some older workers, both male and female, have given up registering for employment because they have had so much experience of being discouraged by not getting the jobs they were seeking. That is the case with many older workers who have had much the same job year in and year out and who have lost that job because of various economic circumstances. It is certainly the case with a number of married women seeking to re-enter the work force. The percentage of hidden unemployed therefore has risen; the number of discouraged job seekers has also risen. But statistically it appears that they have moved out of the unemployment category. The figures relating to youth unemployment which I have cited are deeply disturbing, yet the Government has done nothing to improve the position of young Australians in the job market. We now have in the middle of this year, despite the ending of our worst drought, the benefits of the wages pause and the beginning of the American-led economic recovery, 25 per cent of our young people out of work. What does the Budget say about that? It forecasts: . . . a further modest decline in the unemployment rate over the course of the year. In more detail, the Budget Papers explain: Allowing for some modest 'encouraged worker' effect on the participation rate, a variable which has been subject to considerable volatility of late, growth in the labour force over the course of 1984-85 would be a little less than that in employment. If so, the measured level of unemployment would decline slightly over the year (implying, in year-average terms, a decline of around one percentage point in the unemployment rate). As always, there is a large margin of uncertainty attaching to these labour market estimates. To talk about a modest decline of one per cent when Australia has had the benefits of the wages pause, the end of the drought and the American recovery is indeed not just disappointing, but quite tragic. It is a disgrace for this Government which created so many expectations when it campaigned at the last election. The one section of the community to which the benefits of the accord between the ACTU and the Government were not passed on, the one section which got no benefit from the economic recovery, was the unemployed. As of today 634, 000 Australians are still suffering the indignity, the hardship and the distress of unemployment; that is, 8.9 per cent of the work force and 25 per cent of our teenagers are unemployed. Furthermore, the Budget Papers state: Despite the fall in total unemployment, the number of persons who have been unemployed for more than a year continues to rise and the mean duration of unemployment has also risen. This pattern is typical of the early stages of recovery. There is therefore a group of the long-term unemployed which is still growing and which has not yet been reduced by the general lift in the economy. Long-term unemployment particularly affects the older unemployed. Of the unemployed aged 15 to 24, around 25 per cent have been unemployed for more than a year; for those aged 35 or more the ratio is over 40 per cent and it is even higher for older age groups. The recovery has encouraged people to re-enter the labour force and re-entrants tend to provide the bulk of the increase in employment in any month. That, of course, is what is happening. That is what the now Government knew when it campaigned at the last election and when it said that it would create 500,000 new jobs over a three-year period. It knew very well that there would be a natural growth in the work force and there would be some growth in the creation of employment. But it was pleased to create the impression that the 500,000 new jobs would be an automatic reduction of 500,000 in the number of unemployed; of course, that is not so. The growth in new jobs is barely keeping pace with the growth in the number of people seeking to enter the work force and find employment. There is another key statement of the Government's advisers at the Treasury on page 12 of Budget Paper No. 1 which is: Beyond that, sustained growth in the Australian economy will depend heavily on a continuing recovery in private business investment, which in turn requires a reduction in the public sector borrowing requirement to take pressure off financial markets and reduce real interest rates. This is the advice the Government received. What did the Government do? The gravity of this statement lies in the fact that the Government is widely acknowledged to have missed an opportunity to reduce not just this year's deficit, which the honourable member for Sydney referred to, but also the structural deficit. It is the fact that the Budget Papers themselves show that over 50 per cent of all net new jobs created, to use the Government's term, in the year to May have been publicly funded jobs. Over 50 per cent of new jobs are publicly funded. That has a massive impact on the structural deficit, the recurrent expenditure, year in, year out. It is one thing to run a deliberate deficit to stimulate the economy with things such as capital works; it is another to build in recurrent expenditure by public sector employment because the consequence of that must be to deter private sector borrowing, investment and job creation. So the prospects for the unemployed are jeopardised by this Budget's strategy. I refer the House to table 6 of Budget Paper No. 1, headed 'Employment by Industry'. If one looks at that table and considers the employment figures in just three areas of public administration one sees that, as of May 1984, 81,200 people were employed in community services in the public sector. That is a rise of 7.8 per cent in this financial year over the May on May comparison for 1983- 84. The rise in employment in the public administration and defence areas is 8.3 per cent and that in the electricity, gas and water industries 5.5 per cent. If one takes just those three categories of public sector employment one can see that over 113,000 of the 217,000 new jobs which the Government claims to have created are non-productive jobs funded by the taxpayer with recurring expenditure Budget after Budget. This increase, by the Government's own admission, cannot be allowed to continue without a catastrophic effect on the deficit and, therefore, on interest rates, investment and employment creation in the private sector. In the end, it is that private sector employment which is the only meaningful and sustainable employment. What do we find was the treatment given to the Budget? In the Australian the day after the Budget was the heading 'Boost to work schemes raises hopes for jobless'. The article went on to recite the Government's own claims that there had been a rise of 44 per cent in expenditure in job creation and training programs. I will show in a moment that that in fact is a fraud upon the public and a most misleading statement. There has in fact been a reduction of 5 per cent in the Government's expenditure in job creation and training programs. I want to examine first of all what the Government believes it is achieving in the job creation programs organised under the community employment program. Are the jobs improving the skill level of any of the participants? Is the program making them more competitive in the labour market? What happens when the wage subsidy expires? Quite apart from the highly doubtful value to the community of some of the projects funded, I suggest that experience shows that the community employment program is not providing either experience in terms of skill which makes people compete better in the labour market or sustainable jobs. Therefore many of the hopes of those who get six months or twelve months employment under subsidy are dashed at the end of that period. The money would be far better spent in increasing real training to lift people's level of skills to make them more competitive. Of course, a different budgetary policy not based on the prices and incomes accord would increase the rate of growth of private sector jobs. So those whose skills had been lifted through training would in fact be able to compete for more jobs with other people in the labour market. When we come next week to a discussion of the estimates of the Department of Employment and Industrial Relations, I will go into much more detail on the community employment program. Suffice it to say now that, looking at the Budget Papers statements on labour and employment and at the figures cited, one can see that the community employment program has received an increase in funding of 43. 7 per cent but the wage pause employment program introduced by the previous Government is now taken off the books. The effect of that, even when one takes into account the commendable increases to the skills training programs, is that funding for the combination of job creation and training programs does not amount to an increase. If we take specifically the allocation to the job creation programs we see there is a reduction. In 1983-84 the wages pause program and the community employment program had expenditure of $434m. In 1984- 85 when the wages pause program will no longer operate, the community employment program allocation is down to $412m, a reduction of $22m or 5 per cent. The rise in funding for trade training, skills training and youth training programs is, as I said, commendable but it is modest. I would rather see expenditure on the community employment program go into the trade training area. I wish to conclude my remarks by dealing with another part of my responsibilities which involves the status of women. The Government presented a very elaborate document-in fact the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) presented it- claiming to have assisted women greatly in this Budget. I put to the Government that that statement was an insult to women and that the benefits in the so- called women's Budget program are largely illusory. The Government claims that women will gain substantial benefit from the revised personal income tax structure, given their relatively poor earnings position; but in fact, because of their substantially lower earnings women will still receive less actual cash in hand than men even when the tax cuts are taken into account. The average weekly earnings figure for females is substantially lower than that for males and on the tax scales far fewer women than men will get the benefit of the $7.80 reduction. The Government's proposals on child care are again most inadequate and far short of the expectations that it created in opposition. These proposals do nothing to increase the availability of part time and occasional child care. So they do not meet the needs of women wishing to re-enter the work force on a part time basis or of those who may need occasional care and temporary relief from full time parenting. Even when the provisions for full time care are taken into account they fall far short of the expectations created by the Labor Party at the last election. In fact they are grossly inadequate for the actual needs of children. For example, in New South Wales there are currently over 70,000 children under five who have working mothers but who are not placed in licensed child care centres. The newly announced centres will provide places for only 1, 800 children. Many of the letters to the editors of newspapers have testified to the inadequacy of these proposals. The restrictions on the first home owners scheme will effectively reduce the eligibility for assistance to those who have no chance of affording the mortgage repayments anyway. One can almost say that the scheme will no longer apply to any single person. Yet we now know that about 20 per cent of people in the community are likely to remain single for all of their lives. They are certainly entitled to the benefits of a home ownership scheme. Likewise, to say that the dependent spouse rebate being extended to de facto relationships is a benefit to women is wrong because in most cases it is a benefit to men. This is a most serious situation. Every women's group from every shade and spectrum of feminist opinion asked for an increase in family allowances. Instead we find no increase but merely the extension of the rebate for dependent spouses to people in de facto relationships. The Government has ignored the opinion of women's groups and has failed to meet expectations which it created. This is another example of pandering only to the influential people in the trade union movement and of not listening to the average person in the community. Ms MAYER(Chisholm)(5.16) —During the years of the previous Government, the Commonwealth policy in schools funding was a supreme example of the Fraser habit of saying one thing and doing another. While preaching the principles of market forces and user pays on the one hand, on the other, government support for the most important of our nation's infrastructure systems, public education, fell drastically relative to the huge support given to private sector schools. The needs principle introduced by the previous Labor Government became cynically distorted and national needs for the future were ignored. The Commonwealth Government took little or no interest in the quality of educational offerings and outcomes in the public system, preferring, in fact, to denigrate the public system by a series of vicious attacks on teachers who, through their organisations, fought and are still fighting for the right of all Australian children to attend schools of the highest quality. Since March of 1983 the previously ignored issues of quality of education, community standards of resources and retention rates have been addressed, and addressed in such a way as to begin the restoration, not only of equity but also of confidence in the public system. There can be no doubt that this Government recognises that non-government schools have become dependent on funding from the Commonwealth Government for their continuing existence and that parents with deep religious and ideological convictions should be able to make the choice of education which combines religion with learning, however, the Government's obligation to the public system which provides the majority of our nation's education foundation is clearly recognised in this Budget. The common per capita grant tied to the community standard will have an additional 10 per cent loading for government schools to recognise the requirement of these schools to provide education for all children, whatever their circumstances, with the extra costs which this entails. General recurrent programs in government schools will be provided with an estimated $335.6m to the States and to the Northern Territory, an increase of 5.7 per cent in real terms. By 1992, there will have been a real increase of 50 per cent in his area over 1984. This contrasts with the reduction of 1.9 per cent in government schools funding during the Fraser Government years. Increases for participation and equity programs and computer education programs of $19m and $5m respectively will improve the coverage of these programs and provide opportunities for schools to improve the quality of educational opportunity. This Budget also includes an allocation for the basic learning in primary schools program. This triennially funded program, starting in 1985, will provide $6.7m each year, $5.3m of which will go to the government schools. I recall that in 1972 when I was teaching in secondary schools in Victoria, I wrote several times to the previous Prime Minister, then the Minister for Education, pointing out the need for funding for libraries in primary schools as a start towards improving the basic levels of reading in those schools. I was told on each occasion that that was the business of the States, that is, until November 1972 when I received a letter from the then Prime Minister promising for that purpose , a sum which would have provided about $25 to each primary school for a library . Mr Simmons —Is that all? Ms MAYER —Yes. The sum of $25 was a pretty startling amount even in 1972, was it not? Changes in funding during the previous Labor Government enabled the States to make provision in this area and the basic learning program will provide the extra resources to enable schools to tackle the situation of children in need of assistance with basic learning before that problem becomes a life determining one for the child. That seems often to be forgotten. Unless the schools have the resources to tackle those problems as they arise, the child is forever handicapped by a failure to meet his or her learning needs early enough. Seventy-five per cent of the capital program of $159.1m will go to government schools, assisting the States in the building of new facilities and the refurbishment of the deplorable old buildings which still exist. My own personal experience of teaching at Brunswick Technical School in Victoria was very interesting. That technical school was built in 1916. When I was teaching in it it had two-inch cracks in the brick walls through which you could see the street . It also had a very dodgy roof indeed, with leaks in every room, and for 13 years the previous Liberal State Government had promised to do something about Brunswick Technical School. Six months after John Cain came to power in Victoria the refurbishment and restoration of Brunswick Technical School as a decent building in which children could learn started, and that is now nearly complete. It just goes to show the difference in understanding of the needs of various groups of children. The special purpose programs allocations of $144.8m for government schools represents 80 per cent of all Commonwealth special purpose funds. This funding provides, for the very successful participation and equity program, $39.9m. That program has provided schools with the opportunity to fund the programs that are specific for the children they have at those schools and to make sure that their own communities are well served by the teaching going on in the schools. The computer education program of $5m is again very important because it will provide hands on experience for children in those schools which do not have a private income available to them for such riches as the computer centres which I have seen in some non-government schools. Over $50m has been provided for English as a second language program, a program which is of fundamental importance in enabling children whose home language is not English to carry on their education as smoothly as possible. The disadvantaged schools allocation of $28.7m provides needed support for those schools whose responsibilities include many children who find schooling very difficult for a number of reasons. My personal experience in a disadvantaged school, a school in which the family income for more than half the children was provided by social welfare benefits of various kinds, was that the level of nutrition, variety of life experiences, failure in their early schooling, or socially disruptive influences all made the disadvantaged school grants a lifeline for those young people. The increase in those fundings for disadvantaged schools is very welcome. The predictability of funding for a period of more than one year is equally important for government and non- government schools, allowing government schools to plan for this part of their funding over a reasonable period. However, the Government recognises that simply making funds available is not enough and that it needs to direct those funds to the best possible outcomes. To do this it has established a Quality of Education Review Committee chaired by Professor Peter Karmel. This Committee will report on terms of reference which include the attainment of a satisfactory standard by the great majority of students at successive stages of their schooling; a review of student groups in the greatest need of specific assistance, improved relationships between secondary education and further studies and employment opportunities; encouragement for girls to opt for a wider range of studies enabling a greater choice of further studies or employment and a number of other terms of reference of very great importance and of a wide-ranging nature. Given both those terms of reference and its membership, which is very distinguished indeed, this Committee will be able to advise the Government and should be of the greatest possible assistance in achieving a national goal of an educated population, which individually and collectively can meet the challenges of the future. There is no doubt that, when we came to government, education, like the economy , was in a mess. In the same way that the economy, industrial relations and employment have improved since this Government came in, so has the fundamental basis of education. Years of funding one small sector of the school system in this country while regulating the larger component, years of denigrating the public system and years of taking no responsibility for this vital national resource are one with the divisive counterproductive policies of the previous Government. This Government, in contrast, has accepted its responsibility, with the States, for providing real choices for parents; choices between good schools, both government and non-government; and choices which will reflect restored confidence in the neighbourhood school with all the advantages which that implies both for the child and for the child's parents. Freedom of choice, after all, is choice between things of equal value and that is the choice of schooling that the parents and children of Australia should have. There is still a long way to go to produce a properly functioning education system in this country, and this will be a continuing challenge both to the Commonwealth and to the States and Territories, but this Government has taken up the challenge and is equal to it. Mr WILSON(Sturt)(5.26) —Earlier this week I was interested to read in the Age an article by Max Walsh. In it he said: It is not too melodramatic to say that the second Keating Budget could well mark the beginning of the end of the Hawke Government. He went on: When every nation in the OECD is desperately searching for ways to reduce the Government sector and the size of the national debt, the Australian Government goes the other way. It is worth noting now, as was the case 10 years ago, that whenever we have a Labor government we go the other way. Let me illustrate. In 1983-84 the public sector borrowing requirement rose to 8 per cent of gross domestic product, while the Commonwealth sector deficit rose to 4.8 per cent of GDP and Commonwealth outlays rose to 31.7 per cent of GDP. This year it is forecast that Commonwealth outlays will increase by 6.1 per cent in real terms while receipts are forecast to rise by 10.5 per cent in real terms, significantly faster in both cases than any realistic estimate of GDP growth. While over the long term the trend has been for the public sector to expand, an acceleration of that trend when we should at least be trying to move in the opposite direction has serious adverse implications for all Australians. There are a number of reasons why the size of the public sector has increased. One of these has been the desire of the Government to ensure that every member of society is protected against the principal risks of life. All too often, instead of using the instruments of public policy to enable as many people as possible to look after themselves, governments have become providers for an ever- increasing proportion of the population. New programs are justified on the ground that there is a need to redistribute resources towards the truly disadvantaged. Experience has shown that it is not long before they become programs which redistribute resources to an increasing proportion of those who at any given time are not in the employed work force, as well as to those in need of health care, housing or education. The way in which taxation is imposed to fund these programs, which were originally conceived as a means of protecting individuals and families against circumstances for which they have not been able easily to make adequate provision, means that they become the reason why others are prevented from making the provision that they need to meet in similar circumstances. As a result, a large proportion of public sector expenditure is returned in cash or in kind to the original taxpayers. Sometimes this occurs in the year that the tax is paid. In other cases expenditure is incurred either in anticipation of the fact that the beneficiary will later become a taxpayer or because he has been a taxpayer in the past. In addition to public social expenditures, there are substantial private expenditures of this kind. They are made in the form of transfers, in cash or kind, to dependent spouses and dependent children, as well as on school fees, health care and housing costs. Changing levels of community affluence, as well as changing community values, have a significant effect on the extent to which we as a nation, by individual or government decision, allocate our gross domestic product to social expenditure. I have no doubt that the majority of Australians want a society which ensures that nobody is excluded from essential health care, which provides adequate educational opportunities to all, which makes available housing of an acceptable standard and which, above all, ensures that all have incomes sufficient to enable them to live with dignity and independence. The expansion of government social expenditures has created a substantial dependency on public services and transfer payments. The result of this has been that most of the benefit of such expenditure flows to those who as taxpayers finance it. Social expenditures by government are sometimes justified by reference to what is described as the market's failure to guarantee outcomes which meet society's equity objectives. It is wrong to assume that this failure is always the fault of the market itself. All too often it has occurred as a consequence of the distortions caused by the actions of government. Even more important is the lack of affirmative government action to develop and implement policies which make it possible for these equity objectives to be achieved to a greater extent through individual and family self-reliance. The insensitivity of the tax and social security systems to the desire and latent capacity of many to fend for themselves has led to the present substantial dependency on public transfer payments and services. If governments are to achieve viable Budget strategies while being responsive to what may be described as the worthy aspects of the welfare state, they will need to put more time and effort into those reforms which facilitate and enable individuals and families not only to discharge the responsibilities which are currently theirs but also to undertake an extended role. In Australia over the last 20 years or so public sector social expenditure on such things as pensions and benefits, health care, education and housing has increased at a rate more than twice that of GDP growth. This rise in public sector social expenditure has been the result of political decisions, most of which have been expedient and had not taken into account medium and long term community objectives. They have been taken not only at the expense of the desire for lower average and marginal tax rates and the growth potential of GDP itself but also at the expense of the private sector and of individual freedom. In curing one truly disadvantaged patient, governments have caused many others to catch the complaint because they have made it impossible for them to provide themselves with immunity. The result has been that the extra cost of curing these additional patients has caused a further increase in the proportion of social expenditure borne by the public sector; and so the process goes on in a vicious circle. In my view the time has come for all Australians, especially those of us in positions of leadership, to evaluate and assess the changing relationship between public and private social expenditures, the direction and cause of that change and the extent to which it occurs as the intended result of government actions or as their unintended side effect. We need also to assess the impact on personal freedom of what I have described in this House on other occasions as the soup kitchen or meal ticket mentality. Such mentality results when increased public sector social expenditure is incurred on the provision of benefits in kind. The great majority of Australians would prefer an adequate income to spend as they please. This is so whether they receive that income from employment or from pensions, benefits and allowances or private provisions that they draw on during periods of dependency. They want freedom to send their children to the schools of their choice, where there is no price disadvantage. They want freedom to be treated by the doctor of their choice, in the hospital of their choice, where they do not have to pay their taxes and then pay the cost of making that choice. They want freedom to choose whether they will take the fringe benefits now available to pensioners or spend the money value of those benefits on the goods and services of their own choice. The prime responsibility of government should be not the provision of services but the implementation of policies which ensure that all Australians have adequate incomes. It is only by acknowledging the interrelationship between employment, taxation and social security policies that it is possible to develop the comprehensive program which will meet the income requirements of all Australians and to the maximum degree possible enable them to provide for themselves. The structure of the income tax system should no longer be seen simply as a means of raising revenue. Nor should the social security system be regarded as charity for a small but needy minority. Both, along with employment policies, should be seen as aspects of public policy aimed at enabling as many Australians as possible to live with dignity, with personal independence and with a maximum degree of freedom of choice. In framing this year's Budget, the Hawke Government has ignored the single most important cohesive force in Australian society-the family. This second Labor Budget, like the first, has done virtually nothing to help families. It is as if the Australian Labor Party does not know that most Australians are members of families who live in household economies. The Hawke Government has ignored these little aggregates and has left them out of the public debate. The Labor Party has failed the family. We in the Liberal Party have not, and will not. We believe in initiative and enterprise, incentive and self-reliance, and rewards for effort, and recognise the importance of having fair and equitable tax and social security policies which do not penalise families. Not so the Labor Party. In this year's Budget, Labor has overlooked many glaring inequities and has created or confirmed others. Under Labor, average Australian families are paying $22 a week more in tax than when Labor came to office. This Budget contains the infamous Clayton's tax cut of $7.60. It is an attempted con trick, exposed for what it is when account is taken of the $22 a week tax grab. This illusory tax cut does little to redress the fundamental inequality that exists between single -income families and two-income families. In spite of its pre-election promises, Labor has not increased the spouse rebate; nor has it lifted the tax threshold. It penalises not only those women who choose to be home makers, those who believe it is right that they provide their children with full time care, but also those forced to stay at home because they cannot find a job. Under this Labor Budget, single-income families pay more tax than two-income families with the same income. It is unfair that any family be required to pay additional tax simply because its income is derived solely by one of its members rather than two. Yet under this Budget the single income family with a dependent spouse and child and a household income equal to average weekly male earnings, will pay $10 a week, or 20 per cent more than a two-income family with the same household income. Single income families with an income equal to average male earnings plus average weekly female earnings will pay $72 a week, or 56 per cent more than a two-income family with the same household income. By ignoring the needs of families the Labor Party has seemingly rejected the advice of the Institute of Family Studies. In its annual report that Institute drew attention to this fact: The most basic resource for family survival is an adequate income. Yet if one looks at the way this Budget will tax single income families, one would wonder whether any member of the present Government has read that comment. The Institute went on to state: It is disturbing that economists seem unable to devise a system that will maintain the value and dignity of human life. Whilst the Institute sees it as a dilemma, it is clear from what I have said already that it is my view that 'so-called needs based funding exposes families not yet at risk to pressure which can be borne for only a limited time'. There is no doubt in my mind that prevention and general support must be the goal. Governments must recognise, as the Institute does, that every family has basic needs and the economic system must operate to guarantee those needs if supporting the family unit is to be anything more than rhetoric. The impact of government on the family is all pervasive. Taxation, social security, employment and housing policies, along with a vast range of other policies and programs, have an impact upon the ability of families to function effectively. Firstly, the Labor Party has done nothing about the major problem of our present system of taxation so far as it affects families. Families of the same composition and total income continue to be liable for substantially different amounts of tax. A family's tax liability is not assessed according to taxable capacity. It is largely determined by the proportions in which each spouse earns the family income. Secondly, Labor's tax and social security systems make inadequate allowance for the cost of maintaining dependent children , wives and husbands. It regards most expenditure on these dependants as a way in which taxpayers choose to enjoy their after-tax income and not as a measure of the increased needs of the family or its reduced capacity to pay tax. Though it has now introduced two Budgets, Labor has not increased family allowances to a realistic level to take account of the cost of maintaining children, nor has it done anything to help families through tax reform. I believe that all families should be taxed on a partnership basis or the spouse rebate should be increased and supplementary rebates introduced so that one income families are on the same tax footing as two-income households with similar incomes. In applying the capacity to pay principle, account should be taken not only of the taxpayer's income but also of the extent to which others are wholly or partly dependent on that income. To make the tax and the social security systems fair and to lessen the drift from private sector to public sector dependency, the tax burden of those supporting dependants should be reduced by the amount paid by the public sector by way of pensions for adults and children totally dependent for their income on the social security system. Full income splitting for tax purposes can be achieved either by allowing families to be taxed on a partnership basis or by means of rebates to achieve the same result. Equality of tax treatment is introduced for all couples with similar incomes. Whichever method is chosen, rebates should be used to ensure that sole parents, taxpayers who live alone or two-income families who incur costs earning a second income, are not at the same time adversely affected or unfairly treated. Not only did the Budget fail to help families, it also failed to recognise the needs of many who lack a sufficient degree of economic independence. The current social security pension and benefits scheme has the effect of providing the vast majority of adults with a guaranteed minimum income . The largest groups not covered by our categorical income maintenance system are: Unemployed married women, mothers of young children, other home makers and some full time students. This is because in providing income tested pensions, benefits and allowances, it is, in the case of married women, assumed that half of their spouse's income is available for their support and, in the case of students, that their parents will and should provide for them, whatever their age, up to the age of 25. It is my view that our income security system should be made more comprehensive . As a first step, something should be done for women by converting the spouse rebate into a cash allowance so that women who are at home and who have no income of their own are given some degree of economic independence. In the light of what I said earlier, I want to conclude by pointing out that I believe that tax and social security benefits paid to taxpaying families should be categorised as tax refunds and not as social expenditure. In this Budget Labor has failed women who are not engaged in paid employment, and it has failed children and it has failed families. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mrs Child) —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr TICKNER(Hughes)(5.47) —The 1984-85 Budget can, I believe, be categorised by three important features: Firstly, it provides taxation concessions for the vast majority of Australians; secondly, it extends the assistance given to the poorest sections of our society by substantial increases in expenditure on welfare, housing and health; and thirdly, it has reduced the size of the Budget deficit from $8 billion in 1983-84 to an estimated $6.75 billion this year. As a proportion of gross domestic product the deficit is estimated to decline by a full percentage point to 4.3 per cent. The Budget has therefore achieved what the Liberal Party and the National Party of Australia thought impossible. Their view has always been that the Government could not increase social welfare expenditure without further increasing taxes or the size of the Budget deficit. This Budget has proved them wrong again. This Budget will demonstrate that increased government involvement in the economy is not only desirable but crucial to the health of the economy and that this can be achieved in a way which is non-inflationary and productive. This Budget, I believe, needs to be examined in the context of the overall performance of the economy since the Australian Labor Party came to power 18 months ago. The gross domestic product in 1984 is forecast by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development to grow by 6 per cent, or at least one percentage point higher than every other OECD country. More jobs have been created during the period of the Labor Government than during any other period in Australia's peacetime history. Since last April the number of jobs has increased by 234,000. Unemployment has fallen from 10.3 per cent in April 1983 to 8.9 per cent according to the latest figures. The job loss in the manufacturing industry area has been arrested and the same number of people were employed in manufacturing jobs in May this year as a year ago. We should compare that with the 100,000 jobs which were lost in the year before Labor gained office. In the period of the Labor Government industrial relations have been more stable and more co-operative than in the memory of most Australians, and inflation has fallen from 11 per cent to 7.5 per cent. The latest consumer price index figure shows the lowest 12 month increase-3.9 per cent-for any quarter since the March quarter of 1973, over 10 years ago. During the period of the Labor Government business investment has risen by more than 5 per cent. Commonwealth expenditure in the very important area of public housing has increased by 50 per cent. There has been a trade surplus of $282m in the year ended last June-a turnaround from a trade deficit of $950m in the previous year. That is a truly outstanding record for a government. It is a record of which this Labor Government is proud. With that record in mind perhaps it is little wonder that the Liberal Party and National Party leaderships are running scared in this latter part of 1984. This Budget follows the Labor traditions of allocating a substantial commitment to extending assistance to the poorer sections of Australian society. I would like to address some of my comments to the contribution that has been made in this area. This Budget is an important and long overdue step in stemming the tide of poverty which has gripped an increasing proportion of the Australian population, the scale and extent of which has reached alarming proportions. Nine years ago Professor Henderson completed his inquiry into poverty in Australia, the results of which showed that 1.3 million Australians lived in conditions of severe hardship-that is, even below the austere poverty line threshold established by the Henderson Commission of Inquiry into Poverty. Since then, more recent surveys carried out by social welfare organisations indicate that this figure has more than doubled. One such survey conducted by the Australian Council of Social Service in 1982 estimated 2.8 million or one in six Australians lived in poverty, and that is said to be a conservative estimate. Accordingly, ACOSS recommended that the poverty line should be raised by 20 per cent above the Henderson poverty threshold as it was found that most people with incomes less than this amount were in crisis. A major cause for the rapid increase in the numbers of impoverished Australians over this period was undoubtedly the rise in the growing army of unemployed whose ranks were swelled by a quarter of a million people during the period of the Fraser Government. The responsibility for this tragedy clearly rests in the hands of the Liberal and National parties as a result of the policies they pursued and which directed their priorities in Budget allocations, taxation concessions and fiscal incentives to the wealthy and vested interests which they represent. However, not content merely to condemn a quarter of a million people to the dole queue, the Liberal-National Party Government aggravated those conditions of poverty by pursuing ruthless cost cutting measures, such as freezing the single unemployment benefit and other allowances, during its period of government. We heard it all again today when the honourable member for Sturt (Mr Wilson) talked about the soup kitchen mentality. He impliedly criticised Australian Labor Government expenditure in this important and vital area of social security . Members of the Opposition often trot out criticisms under a veiled and sophisticated title. However, when it comes right down to it, the Liberal and National parties have followed consistent policy of blaming the victims and hurting those who can least afford to bear the brunt of economic crisis. The legacy of the policies pursued by the Liberal and National parties is still with us today. An indication of the desperate situation which faces many Australians was recently provided by the results of a first six-monthly survey of applicants for social welfare assistance in New South Wales carried out by the New South Wales Department of Youth and Community Services. Items covered by social welfare assistance in New South Wales include clothing, blankets, cash assistance, rental assistance and transport concessions. This survey indicated that this scheme which was set up to function as a means of providing emergency grants and support to people in crisis, has now become a way of life. Thousands of people just cannot make ends meet because of the crisis they are in. As I have already indicated, quite clearly that crisis has resulted from the free market, heartless policies that the Liberal-National parties pursued during their period in government. How can members of the Opposition possibly reconcile the philosophy of efficiency in resource allocation, which they purportedly follow, with the evidence of eight years of Liberal and National Party practice? Where is the efficiency in an economic system which consigned a quarter of a million people- the most productive agents on this planet-to become a wasted resource in the a queue? The most shameful aspect of their policies is the situation of the young. I want to speak about another friend of the Liberal and National parties who burst into prominence in the media last week. Of course, I am speaking about Mr John Stone who, in a speech which received much publicity, made a great appeal for the plight of the unemployed. I am not subject to the proprieties that constrain the Treasurer (Mr Keating) and the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke), whose loyalty to Mr Stone has been unbelievable in the face of gross disloyalty by that gentleman to them. It is my view that Mr Stone's beliefs were cynical and hypocritical. They emanated from a man who quite clearly presided over 10 years of economic decline and whose economic policies-- Mr Hodgman —Madam Deputy Speaker, I take a point of order. I respectfully suggest that this matter should be the subject of a substantive motion. There is nothing worse than a member of this place attacking somebody outside this place. I suggest that if the honourable member is going to attack a great Australian such as Mr John Stone he should do so by way of a substantive motion. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mrs Child) —Order! There is no point of order. Mr TICKNER —The honourable member for Denison has raised another point that should be answered. Those who purport to be the greatest defenders of traditions in this country and the greatest defenders of the establishment and propriety are the first ones to tear down those pillars of the establishment when it suits them. The honourable member for Denison is one of the first to do that, be it his support for his Party's attacks on the judiciary and the breaking down of the Westminster system, his attacks on the principle of the independence of the Public Service or the role that his Party plays in attacking the Australian Constitution as it did very effectively in 1975. The very ones who purport to defend traditional principles are the first ones to tear down those traditional values when it suits them for some opportunistic reason. I was saying that I believe Mr Stone's comments were very cynical and hypocritical because, as a senior officer of the Treasury, he presided over a period of Liberal government that was responsible for massive unemployment among young Australians. It is my belief that the demise of Mr Stone represented the end to that free market Mafia in the Treasury which promoted the outdated irrelevant creed of monetarism, the failure of which is evident not only in Australia, Britain and America but also in other parts of the world. This Budget , as I have indicated, is a further important step towards correcting some of the major inequalities and injustices in Australia. Much more, however, needs to be done. I am convinced that the economic policies of the second Hawke Government will be as successful as the policies of our present Government. As I have already indicated, it is not surprising that the Liberal and National parties are running scared. Mr ADERMANN(Fisher)(5.59) —If the report is true that this Budget debate is to be terminated tonight, I must protest on behalf of very many of my colleagues who will be denied an opportunity to speak. If this is the case, this will have been the shortest Budget debate in history. I guess the Government's attitude is understandable because the more this Budget comes under scrutiny the more its inconsistencies, fallacies and deceptions are exposed. Opposition speakers have eloquently and accurately exposed these things and apparently the Government has no answer but quickly to terminate the debate. What we are seeing is part of the Government's unseemly haste to get to an election before it comes apart at the seams, and the symptoms of that disintegration are legion and are increasing daily. I listened very intently to the contribution of the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Kerin). He delivered an apologia which will convince no one. As the honourable member for Darling Downs (Mr McVeigh) has clearly shown, and as I will indicate as I speak, the primary producers of Australia have been forgotten and betrayed. All of the optimism for recovery and stability is predicated on a viable primary industry. This Minister knows that all he has done is to add more lead to its saddlebags. He was left with nothing but an apologia to present. Despite his pretty words, not one primary producer in Australia will be in any doubt about that. The Government knows about, and even takes credit for, the breaking of the drought. That has been its salvation. How does the Minister now justify reducing rural reconstruction by 42 per cent? What a Minister he is! Despite what the Minister now says, there is no doubt in the minds of the sugar growers and the sugar industry that this Government as an election promise committed itself to an underwriting scheme for that industry. Mr Braithwaite —Where is it now? Mr ADERMANN —Well, the Government and the Minister may engage in whatever semantics they wish, but I know what the industry believes. The industry believes that it was given an assurance, a commitment, and that that solemn promise has been completely dishonoured. So the Minister should not come into this House time after time and claim that he has been misrepresented. He should confront the sugar growers. I have heard these words loudly and clearly from the sugar growers that I have met: 'We know what was said. We know what has happened . The promise to us has gone into the waste paper basket, along with a host of other spurious promises'. Today the honourable member for Curtin (Mr Rocher) spent much time listing a score or two of those broken promises. Another Budget strike against primary producers is the revelation that minimum livestock value in tax returns will be more than doubled. The effect of that is not lost on dairymen and stock owners because, without any trading at all, in the first year there could well be by valuation increase alone an increase in taxable income. No matter what the year is, good or bad, the Government can catch them if they use the minimum taxation values, even if they do not sell a single head of stock. This Budget is a confidence trick which has failed. It is not a blueprint for a stable national future. It fails to come to grips with the structural deficit. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard) has clearly and often shown this . It is based on premises and projections which are not sustainable. It is the harbinger of a 1985-86 Budget which, the other side of an election, will expose all of the fallacies, miscalculations and dangers in the documents we are now discussing. But the nation will not be hoodwinked by cliches. It will condemn the architects of this Budget. I will address some of these matters in more detail as I proceed. This is the twelfth Budget I have seen presented as a member of this House. Mr Donald Cameron —Twelfth? Mr ADERMANN —It is the twelfth and it is the worst. I have always found the documents headed 'Budget Statements' very fascinating. They give the basis of calculation, the reasoning for projections and some indication of Treasury's thinking. They let the cat out of the bag. In all of those years, I have never seen such suspect premises, such unsustained and indeed quite often contradictory projection bases. Nor have I ever seen so clearly expressed the qualifications placed on revenue and expenditure estimates. It contains a great big 'E and OE', metaphorically, in red letters. I recommend to Government members that they refrain from rereading the speech of the Treasurer (Mr Keating ) and spend some time reading those statements and doing a big of figuring. I assure them that it is not the good news document that the Treasurer would have us believe. The Treasurer's sums are wrong and his projections grievously in error. For instance, has he heard of the desperate plight of the great sugar industry, dumping by the European Economic Community, no International Sugar Agreement, falling prices and second and third generation sugar producers sold up in bankruptcy? Mr Braithwaite —They have to go to the bankers to get their permission to draw their cheques for groceries. Mr ADERMANN —Indeed, that is true, and the situation is getting worse. The convoluted mathematics of the Treasurer, when faced with record Government expenditure, the massive proportion of gross domestic product, must perplex and dismay Australia. He says 'You should not count Medicare; you should not count the national debt interest' and so on. Before he has finished he will deny responsibility for any spending. However, the fact remains that in seven years of the Fraser Government average real growth of Federal Government outlays was 2 per cent. In less than two years of Hawke Government, the average real growth rate is 7 per cent-a turnaround indeed, but not the sort the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) and the Treasurer are talking about. This is a turnaround that they do not want underlined. Even the big spending Whitlam Government must dip its hat in awe at the profligate capacity of the Hawke Government. For all of the Treasurer's talk of a strengthening economy, it is fact that employment, consumer spending and growth rely on the health of small business. Small business provides the jobs. It is the cornerstone of regional and national prosperity. In this Budget nothing has been done to encourage or support small business. Mr O'Keefe —It is the biggest employer of labour. Mr ADERMANN —It is the biggest employer of labour. As I look around the electorate in which I live I see no expansion. I see increasing numbers of small businesses going to the wall, with employees being thrown out of work. The Government of Queensland has shown real initiative and real concern in setting up its small business advisory services. But what does this Federal Government provide? It provides simply a provision for the taxation treatment of losses-prophetic, is it not? One can make mileage by assisting the Broken Hill Proprietary Co. Ltd and the motor vehicle industry, but, quite frankly, the short-sighted neglect which shows no concern for small business is what will weaken our economy and stability and cause more unemployment. That neglect I condemn. What about our school leavers? The Minister for Science and Technology (Mr Barry Jones) expresses eloquent concern and talks of a great future for them in technological advance. But he came out of the Budget discussions with little but the seat out of his pants. We must face reality and not dream dreams or engage in hyperbole and political grandstanding. Our school leavers, so many of them with little prospect beyond community employment program schemes or the dole, deserve far better than that. This Budget does not do one thing to come to grips with that. There is no attention to structural deficit problems, just a few clumsy band-aid measures to get past an election. All that stands between this Government and national bankruptcy is Australia's primary producers and small businesses. Yet this Government goes on kicking them in the teeth and this Budget is a classic example of that. All of the flowery language and hyperbole about supposed tax cuts falls absolutely to the ground. The Budget Papers show that pay as you earn taxpayers will provide 53.1 per cent of the Budget receipts. Those average wage earners, whom the Government is supposed to be supporting, are revealed in the Government 's Budget statements to have their tax bill increased by a hefty 23 per cent. Some tax cut! I hope we never get an increase. With more and more workers reaching the 46 per cent tax bracket for additional income, we have reached the level where we do not have taxation; we have confiscation. The supposed tax cuts will not operate until 1 November anyway, and that is just before the elections. What a tissue of misrepresentation and a farrago of nonsense are the Treasurer' s and the Prime Minister's claims that there are tax cuts and taxation relief in this Budget. If we add the surreptitious automatic twice-yearly increases in indirect taxation, we see further proof of the magnitude of our taxation burden which has not been honestly addressed, despite all of the promises. The Treasurer made a statement in answer to a question in this House, which is totally unacceptable and completely illogical. When talking about the growth in outlays he said that we can really deduct 2.2 per cent because: We have taken a private charge, Medicare, which was formerly paid by people over the counter to health insurance funds. What an astounding statement that is when we look at it. Firstly, he is paying out what he is first collecting from the taxpayer. A ledger has two sides. If he wants to use that rather amazing method of bookkeeping, he must also admit that the private charge, Medicare, which he has taken as he describes it, is financed by a very hefty levy or tax. In the Budget statements at page 366 we read: Notwithstanding the impact of tax cuts from 1 November 1984, personal income taxes are expected to rise to an historically high level. The Treasurer said this- relative to GDP in 1984-85; in the main, this reflects the full year effect of the Medicare levy and the strong growth in primary producer incomes in 1983-84. Further, if the Treasurer thinks his statement will be happily received in Queensland, he will be very sadly disillusioned. I remind him that in Queensland people receive free hospital and medical treatment without private health insurance. To them, Medicare is not a substitution; it is a new and additional tax. Many people who want the services of their doctor in private hospital accommodation are hit twice. They pay the Medicare levy, not instead of but in addition to sizable private health insurance. The Treasurer's claim is spurious. He has substituted single entry bookkeeping for double entry bookkeeping. He has also neglected to say that in Queensland, in particular, he has not taken over outlays previously paid to private health funds; he has added a brand new tax on to them. Queenslanders are slugged by this Treasurer for the same service which the Queensland State Government provided free. Worse still, there is no family rate. Every individual taxpayer pays the levy. Some families pay a double penalty. His cavalier approach, when faced with the fact that revenue tax collections are the heaviest and the highest since the war, is to make nonsensical claims such as this. There is no way the people of Australia will fall for that pea and thimble trick, certainly not when they are filling in their income tax forms and realising the full impact of the Medicare levy in the radical reduction in the refunds they are receiving from the Australian Taxation Office. Let us look at the legacy which is bequeathed to this nation by governments which are committed to big spending, a mushrooming bureaucracy and socialist centralism. For a government to come into this House extolling the virtues of an unacceptably high deficit is disastrous news for taxpayers, present and future. The Australian people had best take heed that a warning is sounded in the Budget statements that revision of the accounts may reveal that revenue might be overstated and expenditure understated. So if ever figures are admittedly rubbery, those are. That is the Budget's assessment of its own veracity. That is the alibi in advance. When we get to the stage where interest on the national debt is within much the same parameters as the appropriation for defence, should we not worry? Mr Braithwaite —It is more than for education. Mr ADERMANN —As my colleague says, it is more than education. Young Australians, some of whom are just starting to pay tax and some of whom are not yet taxpayers , are being faced with a huge future repayment which is achievable only by way of increased taxation. They are being betrayed by a government which is piously proclaiming it cares for them. Despite the hyena laughs directed from the Government benches at the probing questions by the shadow Treasurer about the next Budget, the truth will out. John Stone said: Growing public debt could defer-if not fundamentally impair-the chances of lasting recovery in the longer run. He pointed out that there is a price of $5,000 on the head of every man, woman and child in Australia as a result of Australia having to borrow more money than we collect in revenue. Although the Government has benefited by the breaking of the drought, it is fallacy to expect that the primary industries of this country can continue to replenish the coffers. The Prime Minister and the Treasurer have trumpeted forth that this Budget helps the family man and the disadvantaged. They have also claimed, in talking of their iniquitous assets test, that by curtailing payments to those in better circumstances more assistance can be given to those in greater need. Let us test the honesty of those claims. We find not only a glorious inconsistency but also another attack on the family and the institution of marriage. Did the Government do anything about the family allowance? Did it increase the spouse rebate allowance? No, it did not. These are areas of need and are worthy of support. The Prime Minister, in a characteristic charade, said that it would cost too much. What did the Government do? It quite willingly saddled the taxpayer with the cost of extending the travel rights of members' spouses to de facto partners . Without a thought to cost, the Government has extended the spouse taxation rebate to include de factos. Quite plainly and bluntly, that is the equation. That is the Government's priority. It costs too much to increase the family and spouse rebate allowances. But apparently the further attack on marriage and the family by extending this largesse to de factos is a legitimate cost to load on to taxpayers. Government members-Ha, ha! Mr ADERMANN —Honourable members opposite can laugh if they like. Those may be the priorities and the values of the Hawke Government, but they are not mine and they are not that of many decent Australians. Mr O'Keefe —And National Party members, of course. Mr ADERMANN —Certainly National Party members. Already we are seeing the inevitable extension of that line of thinking. Demands are being made for similar extensions to homosexual partners. Surely, sometime, somewhere, the Government must take some sort of stand. Apparently the family is unworthy of consideration or support. Extra-marital relations are subsidised and apparently encouraged. The Government's boast that it helps those in need, and those worthy of support, is patent nonsense. Like every other claim, it falls down under scrutiny. The Government's priorities are questionable. Its sense of values is terribly warped. For all of the Dorothy Dix questions and the notices of motion propagated by the honourable member for Stirling (Mr Ronald Edwards) which extol the first home owners scheme, we now see clearly the hollow concern of this Government in this Budget. Land prices are frightening. Building costs have escalated and continue to escalate. Young couples have to defer having a family because both partners have to work to get a deposit to begin to pay off a home. Interest rates and repayments are high. Young couples face monthly repayments of $300, $ 400 and much more. How serious is the Government in its claim that it wants to help people, and young people, buy their own homes? What about the tax rebate on mortgage interest? We know what the Government did about that. Was increased help made available to assist people to put together an adequate deposit in view of increased costs? Not on your life! Fiddling around with the income limits ensured that many people were denied help. Fewer couples qualified; not more. That is a simple matter of mathematics. Single applicants have had the allowable income limit halved. That is how this Government is helping. So much for the Government's spurious boast that it wants to help home ownership. So much for its claim that it wants to stimulate the home building industry. Where is the consistency or honesty in that exercise? How the Government's claims crumble when we put them under the searchlight of analysis. No wonder the Prime Minister and Ministers seek to divert questions which probe their record, by charade, vilification, sarcasm and red herrings. The Government 's own Budget statements condemn its projections out of hand. After reading about recovery and a great rosy future, on page 71 we read: A country like Australia, whose terms of trade are highly sensitive to commodity prices, would be particularly vulnerable to any major falling off in the level of world economic activity and associated slowing in world trade. On page 69 we read that exports are forecast to grow strongly. This statement is linked with prospects of a record sugar crop. As I have already said, there is a crisis, if the Government does not know it, in the sugar industry. That industry has seen dumping, oversupply and falling prices. The monthly paper published by the Department of the Treasury, which was quoted in the Brisbane Courier Mail of 22 August, forecast some very grim things. It stated that if we can sell our coal we cannot expect increased prices. It said the same things about wheat, sugar, iron ore and alumina. Thus the Treasury view is that Australia's growth will be impeded as many of our commodities sell overseas at historically low prices. Let the Government deny that. None of this sits very happily or comfortably with the song which the Treasurer is trilling. I condemn this Budget. The people of Australia will condemn it. Already there is evidence of it. As each new day dawns and the truth emerges, that resentment increases. The Budget is no blueprint for recovery. It is not a plan for sustained growth or economic stability. It is the epitaph of the Hawke Labor Government which has failed this nation and failed it miserably. Mr WILLIS(Gellibrand-Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations)(6.19) —I wish to use my time, speaking to Appropriation Bill (No. 1), to take up a number of major criticisms made by the Opposition in this debate and to repudiate them. The first one to which I refer is the charge that this Budget is a big spending Budget. That charge is patently false. If one looks at the overall terms one will see that outlays increased by 13 per cent, which compares with 18.5 per cent in 1982-83, the last year of the previous Government. On the basis of the nominal figures, our increase in outlays is far less than the increase which occurred in the last year of the Fraser Government. If one looks at real terms, certainly the picture is a bit different. Inflation has fallen considerably under this Government, but still we see there is a lesser real increase under this Government than in the last year of the Fraser Government. Real outlays have gone up by 6.1 per cent in this Budget, which is less than the 6.5 per cent real increase in 1982-83. So in either nominal or real terms the increase in outlays in this Budget is less than in the last year of the previous Government. So much for the charge that in overall terms there is a big spending Government. It is obviously spending less than the Fraser Government did in 1982-83. With regard to compositional factors, the House should be aware that there are special factors built into our increase in outlays which indicate that this is a very tight Budget on the expenditure side. There has been a big increase in public debt interest expenditures which has been referred to by previous speakers. These have grown rapidly over the last two years. Indeed, expenditure on public debt interest has gone up by 94 per cent over the past two years and in that time has added $2.5 billion to outlays. This year the increase is $1.3 billion and represents 18 per cent of total expenditure. This big increase in public debt, it must be emphasised, is not attributable to the present Government. The reason we have this enormous increase in public debt is that we have had a very large increase in the Budget deficit, a situation which this Government inherited, and also that we had in the first half of 1983-84 a large private capital inflow which had to be soaked up, and I will come to that in a moment. Let me go back to the deficit. The fact is that when this Government came into office it inherited a situation in which the Budget deficit for 1983-84 was headed for a figure of $9.6 billion, an enormous blowout and a situation which we, as an incoming government, picked up. It was a result of the Fraser Government's Budget in 1982 and also because of the enormous recession into which the economy had been plunged largely because of the policies of the previous Government. We took action immediately to reduce the deficit. In 1983- 84 the deficit ended up $1.7 billion less than the figure which the Fraser Government was heading for when we came into office; that is, $7.9 billion instead of $9.6 billion. The deficit in this financial year is another $1.2 billion below the 1983-84 level; in other words, in two years we have reduced that deficit by $3 billion below the figure that the Fraser Government was heading for in 1983-84. We also took revolutionary action to end the private capital speculative inflow last year which created the need for some $2.5 billion to $3 billion of government securities to be issued to soak up the large amounts of private capital which came in, speculating against a revaluation of the Australian dollar. By floating the dollar in December we stopped that private capital inflow and that, of course, was a revolutionary action. Since that time there has been no problem. The previous Government, of course, would never have taken that action. We took that dramatic action and it has been very successful. But in the interim period before we did so, we had, as I said, to put out government securities to the order of $3 billion to soak up the money supply impact of that private capital inflow. Those securities created a debt interest expenditure for this year's Budget of $300m to $400m. Those are the factors which have created this enormous increase in public debt interest. For the Opposition to squeal about this Government being responsible for it, of course, is an absolute absurdity. We have taken dramatic action on the deficit side and in terms of the exchange rate fixation procedures to prevent that situation from becoming worse and to redress it considerably. The other factor which must be taken into account-the other compositional factor-in regard to our expenditures, of course, is Medicare. Medicare was introduced in 1983-84, but 1984-85 is its first full year. It added $1.4 billion to outlays in this year's Budget. But this is not on top of private expenditures as is the way with normal government expenditure. It replaces what was previously a private expenditure, so it is a special one-off factor that will not be repeated in terms of an increase in government expenditure in future years. Those two expenditure factors-public debt interest and Medicare-added $2.5 billion to government expenditures in this year's Budget and accounted for 34 per cent of the total increase in government expenditure. Alternatively, one could say that it accounted for 4 per cent of the 6.1 per cent increase in real outlays. Outside those two exceptional areas, the Government has clearly been very restrictive on its outlays. All other outlays account only for an increase of 2 per cent in total outlays. So we can see that there is no big spending. Once one leaves aside the two special factors with which the Government was faced, we had very tight limits on expenditures. Opposition charges about a big spending Budget simply do not stand up. In regard to overall tax levels, the Opposition points to a rise in overall individual income tax receipts of 23 per cent. But this is totally misleading in regard to what is actually happening to the tax obligations of wage and salary earners. Again, there are a number of special factors involved. The Medicare levy applying for a full year for the first time pushes up receipts on the Medicare levy by 226 per cent. The Medicare levy stays the same, at one per cent levy of taxable incomes, but receipts are well up because of its being a full year of operation. Provisional tax receipts are up by 45 per cent, mainly because of a big increase in farm incomes in 1983-84 and also in other business profits, and the fact that the taxes are raised on those in this financial year. The prescribed payments tax also has a 39 per cent increase in receipts this year, not because it is being increased, but because it is its first full year of operation. In regard to pay as you earn tax payments, the taxes which are relevant to most wage and salary earners-that is, the tax taken out of the pay packets of wage and salary earners during the year-are up by 10.7 per cent, far below the 23 per cent figure that is talked about by the Opposition. The claims by the Opposition that the tax cuts in the Budget are not real, that they are a deception and that they are less than tax indexation are, of course, absurd. The fact is that the tax cuts that have been given in this Budget are undeniably real for the overwhelming majority of taxpayers. If one looks at the overall level of expenditure, one can immediately see that that is the case. The cost of tax indexation-tax indexation being adjustment of the tax scale to stop the tax obligations of people going up when their incomes are simply keeping up with inflation-would have been $985m. The cost of our tax cuts is $1.3 billion; that is, 32 per cent more than tax indexation. If one looks at the structure of the tax cuts, one sees that most wage and salary earning taxpayers will receive tax cuts well in advance of tax indexation . Indeed, all taxpayers earning between $135 a week and $540 a week, which is 80 per cent of taxpayers, obtain tax cuts in excess of tax indexation. All taxpayers earning between $240 a week and $375 a week, which is 36 per cent of all taxpayers, obtain a tax cut which is over three times the level that tax indexation would have given them; that is, they get $7.60 a week instead of the $2.30 that they would have got from taxation indexation. I seek leave to incorporate in Hansard a table which demonstrates those points. Leave granted. The table read as follows- SINGLE TAXPAYER Difference: Government Wage Increase November 1 Tax Cut Tax Cut over Equivalent to Income $ per week Tax Cut With Indexation Indexation Tax Cut $pw % $pw $ $pw $pw 140 2.58 16.7 2.30 14.8 0.28 3.69 200 5.58 16.7 2.30 6.7 3.29 7.97 240 7.58 16.7 2.30 5.1 5.30 10.86 280 7.60 13.2 2.30 4.0 5.30 10.86 320 7.60 10.9 2.30 3.3 5.30 10.86 360 7.60 9.3 2.30 2.8 5.30 10.86 400 7.60 7.8 6.29 6.5 1.31 14. 08 440 7.60 6.6 7.49 6.7 0.11 14.08 480 7.60 5.7 7.49 5.6 0.11 14.08 520 7.60 5.0 7.49 4.9 0.11 14.08 560 7.17 4.2 7.49 4.4 - 0.32 13.28 600 6.37 3.4 7.49 4 .0 - 1.12 11.80 680 3.94 1.7 7.49 3.3 - 3.55 7.30 780 2.79 1.0 15.83 5.6 -13. 05 6.95 Mr WILLIS —I thank the House. This table demonstrates the points I have made and shows that most wage earners will receive very real tax cuts. The table also shows that tax cuts are equivalent to very substantial wage increases. For those earning between $240 and $374 a week, the tax cut represents the equivalent of a wage rise of $10.86 a week; that is, it gives the same amount in the pay packet as a wage rise of that amount. For those earning between $375 and $540 a week who are in a higher marginal tax bracket, the tax cut represents the equivalent of a wage rise of $14.08 a week. So for the overwhelming majority of taxpayers, the tax cuts are undeniably real. It represents a very substantial tax cut. The third criticism which is used is that the Budget deficit is too high. The Opposition claims that the Budget deficit is too high by about $1 billion to $1. 5 billion. In regard to that claim, let me say this: Firstly, the deficit for this year is almost $3 billion less than that left to this Government by the Fraser Government for 1983-84. Secondly, the Opposition's claim that the deficit should be reduced contrasts totally with its calls for increased expenditure and reduced taxes in a whole host of areas. I will give some examples. In the course of this debate we have heard calls by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Peacock) and his minions to increase expenditure on family allowances, child care and pension levels; provide an increase in the spouse rebate and home ownership assistance; the abolition of the assets test and the superannuation lump sum tax; increased investment incentives to business; increased expenditure on rural industries and rural centres; and higher tax cuts. We have had all of those claims for increased expenditure and reduced taxes from the Opposition at the same time as it berates this Government for having a Budget deficit that is too high. How can one possibly put together those two sides of the argument? The answer is, of course, that one cannot. The Opposition has absolutely no credibility in this debate because at the same time as it condemns the Government for having a high Budget deficit, it calls on us to take action which would clearly, on the face of it, blow the deficit way out and create a situation which is totally the opposite of what it is calling for. Sitting suspended from 6.30 to 8 p.m. Mr WILLIS —Prior to the suspension of the sitting, I was describing to the House the illogicality and hypocrisy of the Opposition's position in this Budget debate. On the one hand it has called for a reduction in the deficit by another billion to a billion and a half dollars, and on the other hand it has called on the Government to increase expenditure in a whole host of areas and to cut taxes in a whole host of areas. Both those actions, of course, would have increased the deficit. The Opposition is in an impossible situation in this debate. None of its contributions to this debate has sought to bring about some overall rationality in its position. It has in no way sought to bring together those two divergent arms in its debate. It remains totally without credibility on its economic position. The Opposition clearly has no economic policy to speak of. It simply has a lot of rhetoric, many arguments and much criticism to make about the Government on a whole host of areas. If we try to put it together, it simply does not make a credible argument. Opposition members obviously went out of government totally bereft of any economic credibility. A year and a half later they are still totally without it. None of their contributions to this debate in any way would have convinced anyone in this country that they have learnt anything from their year and a half in opposition. I will refer to one other area in which the Opposition has been making accusations against the Government. Those accusations are completely without foundation. The Leader of the Opposition, in particular, and other Opposition members have been declaring that the Government has taken action which has led to declines in living standards for Australians generally. The effrontery of the Opposition in raising this allegation is quite amazing. It is not only patently wrong but also amazing that those who presided over policies designed to reduce living standards when in office now seek to accuse the Government of such action . When Opposition members left office they had in place a wage freeze which, in the face of inflation of 11.5 per cent, was clearly designed to lead to a fall in living standards. They had in their period in office slashed living standards of many lower income earners, particularly those on the unemployment benefit, and particularly the single unemployed. Of course, they had created many unemployed while they were in office and that had led to greatly reduced living standards for those people. In contrast, this Government has taken a whole series of actions designed to protect and improve the living standards of ordinary Australians. In regard to a wage policy, we broke the wages freeze, but not in any irrational way. We instituted a wage indexation system designed to protect living standards of wage and salary earners. In regard to tax policy, we have given tax cuts, as I indicated prior to the suspension of the sitting for dinner , well above tax indexation to most wage and salary earners and other lower middle income earners. We have introduced Medicare, which has reduced the cost of health insurance for many Australians and ensured coverage to many who had no such coverage before. In the interest rate area, we have reduced mortgage interest rates by one per cent to 2 per cent which means that the cost of housing repayments on a $30,000 loan, for instance, has fallen by between $24 and $48 a month. We have reduced the level of unemployment by 100,000-odd from the peak in September last year and so considerably improved the living standards of those people who now have jobs who did not have jobs previously. We have reduced the inflation rate from 11.5 per cent when we came into office to 3.9 per cent now. If we exclude the Medicare effect on the CPI the inflation rate is 6.5 per cent. Either way, it is a very substantial reduction. People with fixed assets or fixed incomes are now having those assets or incomes reduced by the impact of inflation by a much lesser rate than was the case prior to our coming to office. In the social security field we have increased the value of all pensions and benefits faster than inflation. We have increased the value of the single unemployment benefit much faster than inflation. Indeed, by May of next year it will have increased by 30 per cent in the two years since we came into office. We have increased the dependent children's allowance by 40 per cent for pensioners and beneficiaries. We have increased the supplementary assistance for low income pensioners renting privately by 50 per cent. So quite clearly we have improved the lot of welfare recipients, particularly those most in need. So it is absurd to argue that this Government has been reducing living standards. The opposite is quite clearly the case. Finally, I would just refer to the Opposition's failure in this debate to acknowledge economic reality. Throughout this debate the Opposition has argued as though the economy were in the deplorable state it was in when it left office . Of course, the facts are completely the opposite. There has been a dramatic improvement, far better than anyone could realistically have hoped for. The last year of the previous Government, 1982-83, was the worst year for the Australian economy since the Great Depression of the 1930s. By contrast, 1983-84, the financial year we have just been through, was the best year for economic growth since the 1930s; indeed, it was the best year since we have kept records of our national accounts. We had 3.7 per cent growth in employment and falling unemployment, falling interest rates and falling inflation rates. By any standards it was a tremendously good year for the Australian economy. This Government has shown that it has what it takes in regard to economic policy. This Budget provides a sound basis on which the enormous gains of 1983-84 can be consolidated and continued. It strikes an appropriate balance between the need to reduce the deficit and the need to ensure a continuance of economic activity until private investment picks up. As all the indicators show, that will be the case in the second half of this financial year. The Budget provides additional incentives to business to encourage further private investment. It protects the prices and incomes accord by providing substantial tax cuts to wage and salary earners, thereby providing a sound basis for expecting strong growth of output and employment during this financial year. It protects the most needy in our community by concentrating expenditure and welfare benefits on them. It clearly is a Budget which deserves the strong support of every person in the House. Mr HODGMAN(Denison)(8.07) —Australia in 1984 is in even greater danger than it was in 1975. Heaven knows that in the dark years of 1972 to 1975 the Whitlam Government brought this country to the brink of bankruptcy and it endangered, indeed wounded, the fabric of our society, the structure of our federation, the strength of our institutions and the traditional Australian way of life. The great threat confronting all Australians today is the threat of the Hawke socialist Government and the risk that this Government may con its way into a second term in office. I have always referred to the Hawke socialist Government as such because that is what it is. Let me say very bluntly that we have now reached a stage in the political history of Australia when a spade must be called a spade. I am sick and tired of people who talk to me about the Left and the centre Left and the medium Right and the unity faction and all those other terms. The plain fact is that this country is under the control of a government, the Prime Minister of which is a committed, dedicated and thoroughly ruthless socialist. I remind everybody listening to this broadcast and those in the chamber that some 12 years ago the Sydney Morning Herald on 4 September 1972 had a very interesting news report. Under the headline 'Labor is Socialist Hawke Says', the following appeared: The Australian Labor Party is a Socialist Party, ACTU President Mr Hawke says. He had no respect for anyone who denied this, Mr Hawke said last night. Mr Hawke was speaking at Belmont, a Newcastle suburb, at the opening of the Federal campaign for the seat of Shortland in support of Mr Peter Morris. that is, the present Minister for Transport- Mr Hawke said the Labor Party was a Socialist-based organisation. 'I have never at any time tried to walk away from the fact that I am a dedicated and convinced Socialist myself', he said. Mr Peacock —Did he say that in the 1940s or the 1950s? Mr HODGMAN —He said that in 1972. Just 12 years ago the present Prime Minister of Australia said: I have never at any time tried to walk away from the fact that I am a dedicated and convinced socialist myself. The newspaper report goes on: He believed that overwhelmingly his colleagues within the Parliamentary Labor Party were convinced that the best way to run Australia was by organised socialism. But he warned that Australians were not yet ready to vote for a program of Socialisation. The report continued: If you went out tonight between now and the next Federal Election and said you were going to bring in Socialism, you would not get in because for too long the people of Australia have been brainwashed into believing Socialism is something evil, Mr Hawke said. The present Prime Minister said that people had been brainwashed into believing there was something undemocratic about socialism. There we have the words of the then President of the Australian Council of Trade Unions, now the Prime Minister of Australia. 'I am a dedicated and convinced socialist myself', he says. 'The best way to run Australia is by organised socialism'. But then he says: 'We do not want to say too much about it because the people of Australia are not yet ready for it'. What have we seen in the last 17 months? We have seen the charade, the fraud and the confidence trick of a socialist government pretending that it is not socialist, a socialist government going quietly in its first term because, having conned the electors once, it thinks it can do so again. Every single member of the Australian Labor Party is bound by a platform, one of the fundamental commitments of which is the socialisation of Australia. I say bluntly and unequivocally that Australians ought to wake up because the man who is Prime Minister of Australia, the man who parades himself as Mr Consensus and Mr Sweet Reason, is a self-confessed dedicated socialist. Looking at his track record, do not think for one minute that he will waste a second in getting implemented the objectives that he wishes to see implemented to turn this country into a socialist republic. The Prime Minister, a self-confessed socialist, is also a self-styled President of what he likes to see as some Australian socialist republic. I believe that he single-handedly poses a greater threat to the future of this nation than Mr Whitlam and his Government ever did. We have in office a Prime Minister who gained the leadership of his Party in brutal fashion. We have in office a Prime Minister who conned his way to power on election promises which he knew or ought to have known he could not possibly honour. We have in office today a Prime Minister who quite blatantly seeks to rewrite history by misrepresenting the position as it was when he came to power and who repeatedly misrepresents the position as it is today. I wonder how many people listening to this broadcast will remember those stirling words on the stage of the Sydney Opera House when in one of the greatest theatrical performances of Australian political history this century, the then honourable member for Wills, now the Prime Minister of Australia, said: 'My Government will introduce immediate tax cuts for 99 per cent of Australians'. He gave this clear and unequivocal commitment: 'My Government will introduce immediate tax cuts for 99 per cent of Australians'. What do we see 17 months later? We see a situation in which from the time of the Government's election until the day of the delivery of the Budget last week, the people of Australia are paying an extra $ 22.41 a week in taxes under the Hawke socialist Government than they paid when Malcolm Fraser was Prime Minister. As I have said before and I will say again, the secret wicked taxation by stealth of Prime Minister Hawke starts to make Malcolm Fraser look a bit like Father Christmas. On the day of the Budget in came the members of the Government and said: ' Marvellous, here are your immediate tax cuts'-17 months after they were promised . What do the cuts turn out to be? They turn out to be a miserable tax cut of $7 .60 a week. 'But' they say, wait for it, in the Budget itself your taxes will go up by $8 a week. So even with the phoney tax cuts these people are 40c worse off . If one cares to add that figure to the original $22.41 by which people were worse off before the Treasurer (Mr Keating) uttered a single word of the Budget Speech, every average Australian worker today under the Hawke socialist Government is paying $22.81 a week more in tax than he paid under Malcolm Fraser . What was the second promise that the Prime Minister made upon which he conned his way into power? He said: 'My Government will not take any money out of the pensioners' cheques'. Mr Donald Cameron —Ha, ha! Mr HODGMAN —My very good friend the honourable member for Moreton is here. My word, if ever there were a member who has fought for the pensioners in the electorates he has represented in his distinguished career in this Parliament, it is the honourable member for Moreton. What did this Prime Minister, the man who said he would bring Australia together, decide to do? First and foremost he decided he would declare war on the elderly-the pensioners, the superannuitants, the grandfathers and grandmothers of Australia, the men and women who have made this country what it is today. Mr Speaker, I remember last year saying something by way of interjection in this Parliament, and you very kindly did not rule it out of order. I said to the Prime Minister: 'Why don't you pick on someone your own age?' Look what he did. Within weeks of coming to power the income test on the over-70-year-olds was promptly reintroduced. The superannuation tax slug was next in line. The promise to lift the pensioners' tax threshold went out the window. Pension increases were reduced by the rigging of the consumer price index in the infamous Medicare fiddle, whereby over $200m has been snatched out of the hands of Australia's senior citizens. Last, but not least, this cruel and heartless socialist Government pushes on with the Hawke assets test, pushing it through the Parliament this week. Knock, knock. 'Who's there?' 'It is one of Bob Hawke's stormtroopers'-one of the 1,500 inspectors who will persecute the pensioners of Australia. I say in passing that the Minister for Social Security (Senator Grimes) ought to be renamed the Minister for Gold Fillings. Nearly three months ago I pointed out to the Government that the way in which the legislation has been drawn up means that gold fillings in one's teeth constitute an assessable asset under the Hawke assets test. I was told that in the Senate on Tuesday Senator Grimes said that my statement was outrageous. The plain fact is that it is the truth. It was pointed out to the Hawke Government and it has not moved to amend the legislation. As I indicated in this Parliament this afternoon, a leading Australian dental surgeon has pointed out to me that many of our elderly people who have had extensive dental reconstruction would have at least $500 worth of recoverable gold in their mouths. Mrs Darling —That is disgusting; it is not true. Mr HODGMAN —The honourable member for Lilley can laugh and make fun of this but I have pointed out that the honourable member's cruel and heartless Government has done nothing about the situation. I challenge the Government to deny the fact that it has had legal advice that even the gold fillings in the teeth of pensioners of Australia constitute an asset under this wicked Hawke assets test. The most frightening thing of all is that I am told that as a matter of law these fillings will be an asset whether an elderly person is alive or dead. This Government thought it had the pensioners in its pocket but grey power will rise up as its nemesis. I predict that thousands and thousands of pensioners, senior citizens of this country who may well have voted for the Labor Party in the past, will certainly not be voting for the Hawke socialist Government when we go to the polls later this year. The whole principle of bringing in an assets test which, on the Government's new figures will cost the people of Australia $ 55m in year one and which will terrorise thousands and thousands of our senior citizens, indicates how absolutely cynical the Government has become towards those people whom I believe really made Australia great today. The Government intends to appoint 1,500 inspectors. We heard today the mealy- mouthed Minister for Health (Dr Blewett), the Minister representing the Minister for Social Security in this place, saying: 'Of course, the inspectors will not have the power to enter people's property'. The Minister had better have a good look at the Income Tax Assessment Act. He had better have a look at the principal Act relating to this question, because I do not believe him. I do not think the pensioners in Australia will swallow his nonsense. What is the point in having an assets test if the Government is not giving someone the authority to implement it? It will be a case of, knock, knock, 'Who's there?' unless the people of Australia wake up to what is happening to them and make sure that this Government comes to the end of its term at the next Federal election which will be held this year. Let us look at the next promise that the Government made. The next promise was that the Government would create 500,000 new jobs for Australians. As recently as the week before last the Prime Minister was falsely claiming that the Government was on target in honouring this promise. What a gross misrepresentation that was. On what possible basis could the Prime Minister make that claim? On 2 May in this Parliament the Prime Minister claimed that since April 1983, in 12 months, his Government had created-and I emphasise the word ' created'-210,000 new jobs. What did the media have to say about this claim? In stark contrast to the Prime Minister's claims, the Australian Financial Review said that the number of additional jobs created between February 1983 and February 1984 was only 101,000, that is, less than half the number claimed by the Prime Minister to have been created between April 1983 and April 1984. Even that, I suggest, was not due to the efforts of the Hawke Government. It was due to the economic strategy that was in place when the Fraser Government went out of power, the return to economic prosperity internationally and the breaking of the drought. Does the Prime Minister really expect this Parliament and the people of Australia to believe that his Government has actually created 108,100 new jobs in just two months between February and April of this year? That is absolute nonsense. The Prime Minister must think that the people of Australia are a bunch of fools who will accept anything that he says just because he says it. On those three fundamental promises, immediate tax cuts, not taking money out of the pensioners' cheques and creating 500,000 new jobs, the Hawke socialist Government has betrayed the people of Australia because each of those promises has been dishonoured. Let us have a look at the tax record as is demonstrated by the statistics for last year and this year. I am sorry that the Minister has fled from the chamber because he said he wanted to hear a little bit about economics. Personal income tax receipts rose in the first year of the Hawke socialist Government by 7.6 per cent, that is, in the 1983-84 financial year. In the 1984-85 financial year, the one we have just commenced, personal income tax receipts will rise by 23 per cent. In the space of just 12 months we have a situation in which personal income tax receipts will rocket by 30.6 per cent. What really frightens me is the fact that the growth in 1984-85 will be four times as fast as it was in 1983 -84, and, heavens knows, that was bad enough. Provisional tax receipts for the small businessmen, the farmers and the battlers who want to start their businesses, the people who are taxed in advance by this wicked socialist Government will go up by 44.7 per cent. If ever I have seen a government go from low gear to overdrive in less than 17 months, I have seen it with the Hawke socialist Government and what it has done on taxation. Let us look at the terrible, wicked Malcolm Fraser, as the Prime Minister would like the people of Australia to believe he was. Of course Malcolm Fraser was not terrible and was not wicked. More and more people in Australia are ruing the day that this country put him out and this imposter in. In the last year of the Fraser Government income tax receipts were $22,967m. Mr Donald Cameron —Say, $23 billion. Mr HODGMAN —All right, $23 billion. In the first year of the Hawke Government we see tax receipts go to $30.383 billion, which is an increase of $7 billion in just one year. It is an increase of 32.3 per cent-and this is the Government which says to the people of Australia: 'We have done you a very good turn. You have got some tax cuts. You are doing very well indeed'. I do not think the people of Australia will swallow that and I think they have already noted that the tax refund cheques this year are the smallest that have been delivered to any Australians in nearly 20 years. I hope that a few hundred thousand more of these tax refund cheques come out between now and the election. Do I need to say anything about the way in which this wicked, rotten and corrupt Government has treated Australia's smallest but most beautiful State. The treatment of Tasmania in the 1984-85 Hawke socialist Budget is the worst that our State has ever endured in living memory. Let me give some good examples of how this bully boy Prime Minister, this self-styled President, takes it out on the smallest State in Australia. Madam Deputy Speaker, you love Tasmania, you have links with the State and Tasmanians like you. Let me remind you that in the last year of the Fraser Government, the Commonwealth capital works program for Tasmania, Australia's tiniest State, was $35.7m. What is it this year? Commonwealth capital works new projects for Tasmania total $3.5m. Mr Groom —What was that figure? Mr HODGMAN —It was $3.5m, less than one-tenth than what it was under the Fraser Government. As we are on air at the moment, I should mention the Australian Broadcasting Corporation. It was expecting the magnificent new ABC headquarters to be built right in the centre of Denison. What is the appropriation for this magnificent multimillion dollar project? It is a project which is desperately needed because the only two major Commonwealth capital works projects in Denison , the Commonwealth Law Courts and the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation Marine Laboratories, both Fraser Government projects, have now reached conclusion. How much has been appropriated for the ABC's headquarters? Only $300,000. Mr Groom —This Government hates Tasmania. Mr HODGMAN —Yes, it absolutely hates Tasmania, because $300,000 would not even cover the cost of plans and specifications, and for building an amenities block or, if you prefer to call it, a dunny for the workers on that new job. But as the Mercury so correctly pointed out, Mr Hawke has obviously decided that there is no point in trying to buy seats in Tasmania because Tasmania is the one State which has seen through him from the word go. The time allotted for this speech has nearly gone but I warn once again the people of Australia: Do not give this man or this Government another term of office because what they will do to Australia will make it unrecognisable. Gough Whitlam and Jim Cairns look like a couple of choir boys compared to Robert James Lee Hawke and his socialist Government. The people of Australia have just 12 weeks to make up their minds. I love Australia and I do not want to see this shameful Government get another term in office. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mrs Child) —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr LINDSAY(Herbert)(8.27) —In this debate I wish to speak about some of the Budget accomplishments of a decent honest government, particularly as they relate to North Queensland. One hundred and sixty kilometres south-south-east of Townsville on the boundary of the Bowen and Dalrymple shires is the site of the Burdekin Falls Dam. In November last year the Hawke Government, an authentic Australian government, approved the acceptance of the lowest conforming tender to build the Burdekin Dam. That tender was won by Leighton Contractors Pty Ltd. It was an historic moment for the people of North Queensland. Since the beginning of this century north Queenslanders have dreamed of taming the mighty Burdekin River. There have been promises to build the Burdekin Dam virtually continuously since the Second World War. The Hawke Government's decision to proceed with the construction of the Burdekin Dam wall is probably the most significant boost to the north Queensland economy since the establishment of the sugar and mining industries. The $276m Burdekin Dam project is of national significance. This joint Federal- State Government project will provide water supplies for further agricultural development and for large scale increases in urban and industrial development in Townsville and the region until well beyond the year 2000. Previous Liberal- National Party Federal governments treated the Burdekin Dam project with disdain . They rebuffed persistent requests from the people of north Queensland to commence construction of this great project. The Hawke Government, in its first Budget, allocated $13m towards the cost of construction of the Burdekin Dam. The second Keating Budget has allocated $19m. Generations of north Queenslanders had pursued the quest to build the Burdekin Dam. This decision of the Hawke Government will forever more be saluted by the people of north Queensland The Burdekin Dam project is the first major construction program of its kind since the completion of the Snowy River scheme. North Queenslanders are fortunate that the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) has committed the Federal Government to completing the Burdekin Dam as a national priority. The Federal Government's decision to build the dam reflects its commitment to integrated and forward looking development of Australia's natural resources. Any future expansion of industry, agriculture and population in this region cannot take place without an adequate water supply. The construction of the Burdekin Dam will provide an enormous boost to the construction industry, irrigation works and job opportunities in north Queensland. Last year the Queensland Commissioner of Water Resources said that the completion of the Burdekin Dam project would herald a $1,000m injection into the north Queensland economy. There will be new contracts for new projects, new jobs, new demands for goods and services and new confidence in north Queensland for investors. The Burdekin Dam will contribute substantially to the industrialisation of north Queensland and assist the development of a strong and healthy industrial base for the region. Equally as important, it will provide a guaranteed water supply of high quality for more than 130,000 people who live in the Townsville- Burdekin region. The people of north Queensland are fortunate that the Deputy Leader of the Liberal Party, the honourable member for Bennelong (Mr Howard), is no longer Treasurer. Last year he was quoted in the Age newspaper as saying: I wouldn't have regarded the Burdekin Dam as any more sacrosanct than other areas. I would have put it into a hotch potch with some of the other things. That negative, anti-north Queensland attitude of the Deputy Leader of the Liberal Party is a great source of concern to me, for his statements have never been repudiated by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Peacock) or by the National Party. Fortunately, north Queenslanders can depend on the Hawke Government to complete the Burdekin Dam. History was made last Monday when workmen poured the first batch of concrete for the dam. The Queensland Minister for Water Resources when describing it stated: . . . an historic moment-a major milestone in the development not just of this State but of the nation. Stage 1 of the dam will be 37 metres high and 875 metres long. It will impound 1 .86 million megalitres of water, covering an area of 22,400 hectares. The dam is capable of subsequent enlargement up to 8.5 million megalitres capacity for future hydro-electric power generation of up to 500 megawatts. Into the huge dam wall will go 630,000 cubic yards of concrete, requiring 88,000 tonnes of cement and 800 tonnes of steel. The Burdekin Dam workforce is building up. Currently almost 150 people are on site. The population of the Burdekin Falls township is expected to reach 800. The village has bitumen roads, sewerage, treated water supply, swimming pool, community hall, licensed canteen, school and picnic areas . A multi-channel radio telephone link has been established and tenders are currently being called for a satellite television receiver. Work is well under way to completely seal the entire 120 kilometres of unsealed road to the Burdekin Falls site. An all weather airfield, adjacent to the dam, has been completed. The dam is programmed to be fully operational and storing water during 1988. It is a tremendous project by the Hawke Government. It will enable north Queensland to leap to the forefront of Australia's most productive regions . It will also enable Townsville to lay the foundation as the economic and industrial giant of north Queensland. The Hawke Government has continued its determination to increase dramatically the prosperity of north Queensland through a multitude of initiatives contained in the second Keating Budget. The community employment program has received a major increase in funding for 1984-85. Expenditure on projects under the community employment program will be $410m-a 44 per cent increase over community employment program expenditure in 1983-84. Queensland will be allocated $58m for projects under the community employment program in 1984-85. This sum includes $ 11.6m for jobs on local roads programs. Already 67 projects under the community employment program, valued at about $5.5m, have commenced in the Herbert electorate. More than 540 north Queenslanders have been employed through these programs. The Budget has allocated $258.8m for Queensland roads-a 44 per cent increase over the two-year period 1982-83. Funds to local governments for local roads have increased by 60 per cent since the Hawke Government came to office, to a record level of $293m in 1984-85. The threat by one of the Opposition spokesmen on transport that a Liberal-National Party government would not directly fund local and arterial roads but would leave it to the State is a savage attack on local government. This would mean that for every bridge or arterial road-in fact , any stretch of construction or maintenance-local governments in north Queensland would have to go cap in hand to the National Party Government in Queensland and beg for the money to fund projects. The cost of providing urgent road works is already beyond the resources of almost all local councils in north Queensland. The Opposition policy amounts to a slap in the face for local councils in north Queensland. It is a callous and brutal policy of discrimination against local authorities. By contrast, the Hawke Government has done more for arterial and local roads than any other government. This year the Budget has allocated Queensland $99.4m for arterial roads and $47.7m for local roads. The notorious and dangerous Bruce Highway is being reconstructed to a safe standard by the Hawke Government. The Budget provides $111.7m for national highways in Queensland. The bulk of these funds will be used by the Hawke Government to continue upgrading the Bruce Highway. During the past 17 months single lane timber bridges along the Bruce Highway in the Herbert electorate are gradually being replaced. Major road reconstruction projects have been undertaken. New bridges have been built. There is a new confidence, a new spirit of prosperity in the Herbert electorate as a result of the Hawke Government's interest in north Queensland. The needs of Federal public servants were recognised by the provision of $7.5m in the Budget to enable completion of the Commonwealth Government Centre at Townsville. This highly acclaimed $13m project will provide accommodation for more than 20 government departments when completed in March next year. As an election stunt the Fraser Government promised to provide a new domestic air terminal at Townsville. Nothing was done. The Budget provides $115.3m for a new domestic air terminal at Townsville, of which $300,000 has been allocated this year to enable demolition and other works to be carried out. The completion of the new domestic air terminal in association with the Townsville international air terminal will provide northern Queensland with air terminal facilities equal to the expectations of travellers and the pride of north Queensland. Tourism is a major growth industry in northern Queensland. With increasing international and domestic air traffic through Townsville, this area of northern Australia must surely become one of the major tourist destinations of this country. The recent announcement by the Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism (Mr John Brown) of a new air fare package will not only encourage Australians to holiday at home but also international visitors will be able to obtain the benefits of cheap travel to the Great Barrier Reef. An air fare of $ 500 will enable Australians to travel up to 6,000 kilometres anywhere in Australia. Another fare of $800 will entitle people to travel up to 10,000 kilometres. The discounts on both fares average around 35 per cent but can be as high as half the price of the normal scheduled fares depending on the distance travelled. In other words, people will now be able to fly to just about any destination in Australia for around 8c a kilometre, which is one of the cheapest fares currently available anywhere in the world. Broadly speaking, there are only two main conditions to the new fares. First, the duration of the journey must be between 10 and 45 nights and, secondly, passengers must visit one port other than a capital city for at least four nights. The Hawke Government is committed to the development of tourism particularly in north Queensland. This can only result in benefits to all Australians. A total of $54m has been allocated to enable the continuation of the first home owners scheme. More than 1,000 householders in the Herbert electorate have benefited from the first home owners scheme since its introduction and this has provided a much needed boost, through our infusion of millions of dollars, to the housing industry particularly in Townsville. The Australian Institute of Marine Science and the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority have also received increased allocations of funds in this Budget. An amount of $2.2m has been allocated to continue with the provision of a second radio regional network in north Queensland. Townsville is host to the 3rd Brigade, and the Royal Australian Air Force base at Garbutt. The operational deployment force is a vital component of the Australian Defence Force. North Queenslanders applaud the efforts of the Hawke Government to provide an adequate Defence Force for Australian people. This year 's Budget allocation for defence is $5,820m. This represents an 8.1 per cent growth in money terms over last year's defence spending and a real growth of around 3.3 per cent. In the Hawke Government's first two Budgets the average increase for defence has been 3.7 per cent compared with an average of 2.5 per cent in the previous seven years under the disastrous Fraser Government. In this Budget the capital equipment share of defence expenditure will increase to 23.5 per cent, from about 22 per cent in 1983-84 and from 16 per cent in 1980-81 during the term of the Fraser Government. This year, the total amount of expenditure on capital equipment will be $1,315m. The majority of this expenditure is dominated by projects such as the FA18 fighter, additional PC3 Orion maritime patrol aircraft , guided missile frigates and destroyer updates. At the same time, there is continuing expenditure on, for example, Army trucks and guided weapons. For maritime defence, helicopters will be acquired for our guided missile frigates. The Hawke Government will also acquire air defence and anti-shipping missiles, and new electronic warfare equipment for the 10 PC3 aircraft. For ground defence , provision is made for the acquisition of new 105 millimetre guns to be produced in Australia. An amount of $48m will be spent on new and better service housing in 1984-85. This is a 30 per cent increase over last year and a further indication of the concern of the Hawke Government for the welfare and living standards of individual service men and women. Since the election of the Hawke Government service homes in Townsville have been progressively upgraded. Maintenance works include painting and structural improvement of houses, and service men and women are grateful for this support. A milestone in the development of the conditions of service for defence personnel was achieved by the Hawke Government with the passage of legislation to establish a Defence Force Remuneration Tribunal. The new tribunal will have the power to determine salary and salary related allowances for members of the Defence Force. It will be able to review salaries at least every two years and the Parliament will not be able to disallow its determinations. These are significant initiatives from this Government. A statutory appointment of Defence Force Advocate is also to be made, and this will ensure that the Defence Force is not disadvantaged before the tribunal by not being unionised. I am sure that these changes are welcomed by all members of the Australian Defence Force. The real growth that defence is receiving in this year's Budget recognises the expenditure requirements of existing commitments and it also provides for a number of new, high priority projects to commence in this year. The defence budget this year reflects a continuing commitment to defence by this Government. A major Queensland weekly newspaper estimated that the Herbert electorate has received approximately $50m from the second Keating Budget. No greater affirmation of faith in the destiny of northern Queensland has ever been made by any previous Federal Government in the history of our Federation than by the Hawke Government. North Queensland is a thriving part of Australia which has been hampered and stifled by the failure, over a long period, by many governments to match local initiatives and hopes with the provision of services and resources upon which greater development could be founded. The Hawke Government has pledged itself to the pursuit of national reconciliation, national recovery and national reconstruction. It is determined to place north Queensland firmly on the road to dynamic economic growth. Mr CADMAN(Mitchell)(8.43) —The Hawke Government may well have made those commitments in northern Queensland and it may well have fulfilled some of its promises in that part of Australia. However, the majority of Australians are far worse off from this Budget. It is a Budget with the objective of making everybody happy enough so that the Government wins the next election. That objective will fail simply because the people have seen through the facade of what is being done by the Hawke Government. An indication of how responsible and how lasting this Budget will be is the fact that the chief official of the Department of the Treasury, who gives advice to the Government on these matters, would not put his name to it. He resigned five days before the Budget was brought down. Does the community need any further indication then that the Public Service and economic advisers will not take the cheap political tricks that are put forward in this Budget? A magnificent, superb and huge tax grab is in line for the Australian people, the biggest tax grab since World War II-a 23 per cent increase in the size of personal income taxes before the end of the financial year. An extra million people will have to face the fact that they will lose half their wages in taxes. One million more on average wages will go into the 46 and 48 per cent tax bracket. That is where the money is coming from to fund this heavy spending and heavily committed Government. On top of these factors the Government has hit the pensioners and the retirees with the assets test. At a cost of $54m the Government will bring hardship and heartburn to the pensioners and retirees of Australia. The broken promises to the electorate will not be forgotten, neither will the community forget the promises that have been kept to the union movement. The extra members of parliament, the prospective capital gains tax, gift duties and gift taxes, together with the lump sum tax on superannuation, are part of the armoury of the Labor Government in attacking the average member of the community. The concept of managing the affairs of government, so that broad sections of the community are attended to, their needs assessed and proper strategies designed to assist, support and encourage, is not part of the thinking of this Government. There is no concept about the average family, where the various threads of tax, welfare, education and support systems are considered in toto. The Government rejects that concept and, in fact, selects specific groups in the community which it assesses are doing better than they should be. There is no prospect within this Government of assessing what the work place is all about so that the combination of effort by an employee and employer is considered and so that they are complementary and mutually productive. The concept of a federation is beyond this Government because it really does not believe in the States and the role that they should play in a federation. As for defence and foreign affairs-the Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr Hayden) roams the world willy-nilly and on every occasion has to be brought back, corrected, or have his announcements altered by the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke). Despite some growth in capital expenditure in the defence area the bulk of spending is a declining resource for this Government. As for our trade and resources area-the other large, significant area of government activity-the relationship between the work place, the commitments, the transportation, the negotiations, the settlement of trade agreements and the development of our resources is not attended to in a precise but all-encompassing way. I believe this Government acts by a process of identifying those things within its philosophy to which it has some particular attraction or antipathy and taking those singular and specific instances to deal with the community without looking at the broad issues. I need only refer the House to the policy statement made by the present Prime Minister when he was delivering the Australian Labor Party's policy speech on 16 February 1983 at the Sydney Opera House theatrette. On that occasion he said: I believe the Australian people have had enough of election promises made only to be broken. I offer no fistfull of dollars to be snatched back after the election. In that speech the Prime Minister went on to promise the Australian community immediate tax cuts. Those tax cuts were not delivered until 18 months later, when their significance is not as great. But linked with those tax cuts is a massive disguised tax grab which shows up in the Budget, to which Mr Stone would not give his name. He saw through it-the massive confidence trick of delivering some tax relief in a marginal way on 1 November but finishing the year 23 per cent in front. If a shyster selling motor cars was doing that in New South Wales , Neville Wran would be down there terrorising him. Not this Government though- Mr Wran, the State governments and the community of Australia need to know that the Hawke Government is offering a facade of a commitment with these marginal tax cuts. Yet the Prime Minister said in his election speech: I offer no fistfull of dollars to be snatched back . . . What was in the Budget? A small amount of dollars was given which has been snatched back 100-fold. Not only has the Prime Minister snatched back the dollars that he has given away in this one year but also average families in his 18 months of government are $22 worse off. They have lost $22 and been given a marginal concession, but on top of that $22 there is a grab of 23 per cent. The grab of 23 per cent for an average wage earner is roughly $40 a week. So if we add $60 and $22, we get $82 by which the wage earner is worse off, and that is over a period of two and a bit years. The gift back, the fistfull of dollars that was not going to be grabbed back, is a lousy $7. Now what manipulation! No wonder anybody with any sense of decency, such as the Secretary to the Treasury, could not give his name to it. I am ashamed to think that some members of principle on the Government benches will not expose what is happening to the community and to the families of Australia. Mr Hawke in that same speech in February 1983 when talking about these great matters said: . . . as in everything else in this campaign and beyond, I am not in the business, and the Labor Party is not in the business, of making promises that cannot be fulfilled. Then he went on to make the promises that have not been fulfilled. Some of them are tax reductions for low and middle income earners. If we examine the scales of tax reductions given in the Budget we find that the low income earners miss out completely. In terms of marginal difference they are the worst of any section of the community. The group that did the best are the middle income earners who collected a total of $7 a week. But they have already suffered the worst of any group. Then the Prime Minister said: Another commitment that we will not break is the widening of opportunity for borrowing by business, farmers and home buyers. I do not know how he could have made that promise because there has been no prospect for farmers, businesses or home buyers. In fact, home buyers are starting to turn away from their commitments. The real cost of interest is too great for them. One only needs to go around the home building companies of Australia to find out how concerned they are. We can look at Treasury figures and listen to the Minister for Housing and Construction (Mr Hurford) whose figures are three to four months late. He gets up in this House and says what great things are happening in the housing and construction industry in Australia . However, I advise members of the Australian Labor Party to get out there on the ground and just find out what is happening. People are not sustaining the impetus that occurred during last year and already there are problems in the housing industry. Of course, the Prime Minister made the commitment that he would provide support for private sector investment. The worst feature of the Australian economy is the extent of capital investment. The economy relies on people actually backing the confidence of this Government by saying: 'We can produce, expand, manufacture and improve employment and the prospects for the community.' But that is not happening. There is great stress and uncertainty in much of our manufacturing industry. The Prime Minister said that Labor's tax reform program would have the objectives of increasing the real value of the pay packet and stimulating demand in the economy. A 23 per cent increase in taxation in one year for employees can hardly really be offered as putting real value in the pay packet. It is a declining value. I would like to point out to employers the other impact of some of the Government's decisions in regard to their wages. I have talked about tax and the take home part of salaries and wages. However, people need to be aware of some of the imposts that are part of their total wage, a part that they do not gain real benefit from while they are on the job although there may be some indirect benefit. However, these imposts are a real cost of the total wages outlay. I have dealt with tax which must be met by the employee. However, the employer, and not the employee, does have to meet the cost of workers' compensation which has risen by 30 per cent in the last 12 months. Employers also have to meet the cost of redundancy payments that have been approved by the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission. They also have to meet the cost of the affirmative action process which, good as it may be in some areas, is a cost factor that the Government must recognise. Voluntary participants in the program have said to me that there are cost factors that they can identify and that the cost is greater than was anticipated. National superannuation is also a wages on -cost. The details of this program are being settled between the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations (Mr Willis) and the union movement. All of these things add up to a considerable cost. It is no wonder that total wages rose by 14 per cent last quarter and this pattern is going to continue. Whilst the level of take home pay will not increase, the cost of wages will and the real benefits to employees will be reduced. Not only will the real benefit be reduced but also job opportunities will be reduced because the same amount of money will actually purchase less time on the job. Therefore, the working community of Australia is starting to lose out. This Government is rushing to an election because it knows the cumulative effect of all of the things it has put in place or agreed to. It knows that an election must be held by Christmas because that would be its best opportunity to take advantage of a good sound economy and to present itself well to the Australian electorate. But what the electorate knows and suspects is that in 1985 it will feel the pinch of this Government's policies. The Prime Minister would consider it unwise to call an election in such circumstances no matter how ethical allowing a parliament to run its full term might be. It is interesting to read in the speech the Prime Minister made at the time of the last election how important it was for governments to run their full term. He gave an unequivocal commitment. The honourable member for Denison (Mr Hodgman), who is sitting at the table, will remember that he said: 'There will be no short term government. We will go our full time'. Now, suddenly, we have a government going to the people within 18 months of being elected; but that is another promise that has been put aside and neglected. The Prime Minister has said to the people of Australia: 'We need to go now because there is something about the Senate being involved'. Of course, the people say: 'Oh yes, there needs to be another election and therefore it is a good idea to have an election for the Senate and the House of Representatives before Christmas'. The real reason that an election will be held before Christmas is the fear by the Government of the repercussions of its decisions and the state of the international economy in 1985. The Government does not have the guts to sit here and see the time out. It does not have the guts to face the people at the proper time. It wants an early election so that it has a better chance of winning. That is all right, but let the people of Australia understand just precisely what the Government intends to do. The Government has a tax grab set in place. It proposes to change the whole tax structure. I have been through about half a dozen of the promises that the Prime Minister made before the last election and broken. The Prime Minister gave a commitment just in the last few days to the Confederation of Australian Industry that he would not increase taxes. Who can believe that commitment when promises have been made not to break promises and those promises are broken? That commitment was made before the last election. Who would believe his commitment that he has given now in that respect? The more he affirms his commitment, the more the community worries because it knows that the promises that are most strongly held are the ones that are most likely to be broken. So the Australian community needs to fear and be concerned about the commitment not to increase taxes beyond the present limit. I think we all remember the Prime Minister's comments to Cliff Dolan in Canberra at the National Economic Summit Conference when he said that there would be no lump sum taxation on superannuation. He said: 'Mr Dolan, I give you my commitment as a former President of the Australian Council of Trade Unions that I, as a brother unionist, will not impose a lump sum tax on superannuation' . Of course, within a few weeks he had done just that. So the commitment to Australians that the restructuring of the tax scales will not mean extra tax is something that is fallacious and should be regarded, as should so many of the other promises of the Prime Minister, with absolute caution. In fact, I would go so far as to say the community should disbelieve the Prime Minister in regard to these matters. His track record indicates that we cannot believe commitments of that kind. As the pensioners, Cliff Dolan and many others have found it is dangerous to believe commitments such as that. Should the Prime Minister be successful at the next election we will find that down the track there will be capital gains taxes, gift duties and taxes and all of those other weird and wonderful taxes. Mr Hodgman —Death duties. Mr CADMAN —Well, death duties are half there with the assets test. Mr Hodgman —Teeth. Mr CADMAN —Yes, I am aware of the things that the honourable member has raised. But with the assets test and gift duties it is part way there. It needs only a little extension-a running out of a figure or two and, zingo, we have it; no problem about that. What about the other commitments of the Government? I have run through the Prime Minister's commitments at the last election but I need just to remind the community of the commitments that have been kept. They are very narrow but then they are in a very select field. They all relate to the union movement. One of them is: The Government will endeavour to create a better industrial relations climate by itself adopting and encouraging other employers to adopt a rational and less confrontationist approach to industrial relations. The Government has done that because it has agreed to national superannuation. It has agreed to Mr Dolan's Budget and it has agreed to every proposition that the union movement has put to it. It has even started to remove the common law sanctions and the penal aspects of the Conciliation and Arbitration Act. Another commitment is: The Government will establish . . . an Inquiry into the Conciliation and Arbitration Act. That is on the way. It has kept that commitment. Here is another: The Government will support the establishment of rights for employees- That is running hot and strong. Mention is made of the introduction of compensation for technological change. Yes, that came through a week or two ago, right on line-there will be extra payment for technological change. Another commitment relates to fair redundancy protection. For the sake of honourable members of the House and those listening, I am reading from a copy of the agreement between the unions and the Government. I got this copy courtesy of the Amalgamated Metals, Foundry and Shipwrights Union. It is very generous in handing out leaflets of this sort. We see that the Government has kept its commitment to the union movement but for the rest of the community promise after promise has been broken. It is a tragedy that the Prime Minister, who is so much up front in taking credit for such modest things as breaking the drought, winning the America's Cup and all those other things he has done, will not take credit for the mess that he has created in the lives of people by putting commitments out in the public arena- commitments that people believed-and then breaking them. I warn the community that every commitment made by the Prime Minister coming up to the next election cannot be believed because there are few that he is prepared to keep. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mrs Child) —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr BEDDALL(Fadden)(9.03) —The essential difference between the Australia of September 1984 and that of February 1983 is the mood of confidence which has captured the Australian people. This confidence is a direct result of Australia' s strong economic performance and of satisfaction with the national leadership displayed by the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke). Any impartial examination of the economic indicators reveals the extent of the growth and serves to contrast our economic inheritance after seven years of rule by the Liberal Party of Australia . Under Labor, employment has increased. From April 1983 to June 1984 employment increased by 4.1 per cent or 250,000 people. Unemployment has fallen now to 8.8 per cent of the work force, compared with 10.4 per cent unemployment rate in March 1983. These improvements have not occurred by accident. They have been part of responsible economic management, a level of responsibility our predecessors never showed during seven disastrous years. The Government's community employment program, established in 1983, has been part of a deliberate process to reduce unemployment for those who have been denied work for so long. The scheme has given some of these people some self-worth, some feeling of confidence to re-enter the work force. I am pleased the Government has increased its allocation to this worthwhile scheme by 43.7 per cent in this Budget. In my own State of Queensland, there has been a 40 per cent increase in allocation to $57.96m in 1984-85. This will provide an estimated 11,000 jobs for my fellow Queenslanders. No matter how worthwhile such schemes are, they will sustain Australia's economic recovery only if an investment climate is created. Unlike the previous Government which ruled by division and fear, this Government has fostered a climate of trust and understanding between business, Government and the trade union movement. Following on from the historic National Economic Summit Conference, the Government has developed continuing consultation through the Economic Planning Advisory Council. These consultations have given a climate of predictability about the direction of this Government's policy and the result has been the highest rate of growth through 1983-84 of any nation of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. Whereas the previous Government devised a policy of tackling inflation by driving unemployment upwards, this Government has addressed the two evils of unemployment and inflation simultaneously and successfully. The prices and incomes accord signed between the Government and the Australian Council of Trade Unions has been a part of the consultative process, but has been a vital step in setting Australia on the path towards economic growth and development. The accord has enabled wage justice for all wage and salary earners to occur. It has also given business, both small and large, some predictability in wage costs for the year. These measures have caused a decline in industrial disputation giving Australia the lowest level of industrial stoppages for some 15 years. Additionally, there has been a near universal adherence to the 'no extra claims' provisions of the new wage fixing arrangements. Whilst award rates have increased in 1983-84 they are still well below those of the wages explosion of 1982-83. The tax cuts announced in the Budget are a further extension of the prices and incomes accord. The $7.60 a week tax cut not only honours our election promise on taxation but also offers hope to business and the trade union movement. A $7. 60 tax cut is the equivalent of a $14 a week pay rise and will give wage and salary earners additional spending power which will flow through to the private sector. 'How will the Budget address the problems of small business in Australia?' is a question often asked. Let us take the building industry around which is based industries like wholesale and retailing, construction, finance and community services. In a paper entitled 'The Enterprises of Australia in 1980', these industries accounted for 50 per cent of small businesses employing less than 10 people. The economic upturn has probably given much higher significance to this percentage. Nevertheless, the housing policies of this Government have been a central plank in assisting small business. The Government's housing policy has been developed on two levels-public housing and the first home owners scheme. Expenditure in this Budget for housing is estimated $1,252m, an increase of 21 per cent on 1983-84 and a staggering increase of 69 per cent over the last year that the Liberals reigned in this country. Of this amount, $82m will be spent for public housing in Queensland under the Commonwealth-State Housing Agreement. The aims of this scheme will be the alleviation of housing related poverty and, as far as is possible, the fair provision of housing assistance between renters and home buyers. At another level, the Government is committed to first home buyers. In particular, the Minister for Housing and Construction (Mr Hurford) is deserving of the highest praise for the efforts he and his Department have made. This year expenditure will be $265m-an increase of 85 per cent over that of last year. These amounts represent a magnificent turnaround for the housing industry. In 1982-83 the housing industry was stagnating at a 20-year low of only 105,000 dwelling commencements. In fact throughout the fiscal year 1981-82 there was an annual decline of 12.9 per cent. The upturn in the housing industry throughout the year of operation is quite marked, with approvals for housing in November of last year 71.9 per cent greater than the previous year. These figures illustrate the strength of the growth and prosperity since March 1983. In the last financial year, some 55,000 Australians were assisted into home ownership with around $141m in tax free grants. Over 11,000 of these households were in Queensland, with 135,000 dwelling commencements in Australia at large. In Queensland, building activity has increased by 25 per cent with 30, 500 dwelling commencements in 1983-84. For the future, the Government is hopeful that there will be a 7 per cent increase to about 145,000 dwelling commencements in Australia. Of these, 33,000 will be in Queensland-an increase of 8 per cent. These housing policies have a direct impact upon my electorate which has a social mix of low income earners who will benefit from our public housing policies, and young home owners who have been assisted by our first home owners scheme. As well as assisting the many thousands of people in my electorate, the housing policy has spawned many small businesses directly dependent upon it. Real estate agencies, financial companies, nurseries, small corner stores, professional agencies and larger business corporations are following in the wake of the population boom in my electorate. As the housing industry has benefited from lower interest rates, so too have small businesses directly benefited. Similarly, the tax cuts given to wage and salary earners will be a stimulant to small business operations because of the extra money they will be spending. Indeed, financial corporations have recognised the importance of the housing industry as a stimulant to the economy. In Queensland the Metropolitan Permanent Building Society has dropped its interest rate by one per cent for first home buyers. The Queensland State Government Insurance Office Building Society has also announced a one per cent cut to 12 per cent for first home buyers. A one per cent reduction for home buyers in the range of $35,000 to $50,000 has also been granted by the Society. I applaud these actions and hope that other lending institutions will develop their own innovations in interest rate reductions to assist small businesses to encourage growth and development in the Australian economy. Of a more direct assistance to small business is the Budget proposal to double the allocation for programs to help small business owners develop their managerial skills. The total of $360,000 to be provided will develop the highly successful 'Managing the Small Business' series and new management training courses, including specific courses aimed at particular industry sectors, and a special training course for small business counsellors. A recent research paper entitled 'Small Businesses in Australia' defined the two major problems facing small business as access to finance on reasonable terms and the need to raise the level of business knowledge, education and training of many small business entrepreneurs. This Government has undertaken many initiatives to free up the financial sectors in the Australian economy. I have already told the House of special arrangements made to help first home owners. I hope that the financial institutions can modify their lending arrangements to assist the small business sector. I have shown too how this Budget has addressed the second of these problems. It is worth noting that in Australia there is considerable freedom in establishing a small business. In other countries, adequate skill, training and education are to be displayed before registration of a business. The Government, through this Budget, has gone part of the way to addressing this problem. It is worth noting that the paper on small business had to look to general economic recovery for improved prospects rather than specific programs of government assistance. Clearly, all the economic indicators have significantly improved and it is, therefore, fair to say that the small business sector will also undergo a revival. This Budget has also addressed the plight of the pensioners and the needy. These groups are those less able to withstand any economic downturns. Pensions will rise by $2.50 a week for single people and $4.20 a week for married couples . It is well to remember that the basic rates of pension are increased automatically every six months in accordance with the movement in the consumer price index. As a result of the fall in the CPI, no movement in pensions would have been expected. However, the Government has honoured its election promise by increasing the real rate of pensions and benefits. Additionally, assistance will be given to pensioners who rent homes. Rental assistance will go up by 50 per cent to $15 a week and additional pensions and benefits for children will increase by $2 to $14 a week. Those people are the ones in our society who can least afford to meet the increasing cost of living. Therefore, the Government has addressed these problems. I feel the Budget has been well received by the Australian community. It will ensure that no matter when the election is held the Hawke Government will be returned to office. Mr BRAITHWAITE(Dawson)(9.13) —It would be appropriate for me to make a few general observations on the Budget before dealing with certain specific aspects of it. In general terms the Budget can be described as one in which the Treasurer (Mr Keating) has compromised himself to the benefit of the Australian Council of Trade Unions and its President, Mr Cliff Dolan. It is a very sorry day when the whole of the financial arrangements of this nation and this Parliament are left at the whim of the de facto government. That is what I think we can call the trade union movement and its bosses. The second compromise was in subrogating what was good for the long term future of the nation to the political expediency of the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) for an early election this year. While admitting to the desirability, not the need, of an early election, to tie in with a half Senate election, this could be accommodated with an election as late as May 1985. So the whole aspect of subverting the interests of the Australian nation to that of an early election is not only humbug but also irresponsible, and I need not mention the all too frequent cost of $21m to hold an election. I mentioned the subrogation of long term national interest to short term political expediency. In no way is this better demonstrated than by reference to the 9 per cent of the 1984-85 Budget outlays which are appropriated to the national debt interest. I want to draw the comparison of the last 10 Budgets whereby the figure has doubled from 4.4 per cent of Budget outlays in 1975-76 to 8.8 per cent of Budget outlays in the current Budget. This can only increase as this year's deficit is added to the national debt. The real tragedy of this year 's Budget is that, in spite of the windfall income expected from the growth in personal income tax, excluding Medicare, of about 20 per cent-a windfall of almost $6 billion-it has been absolutely squandered on a resurgence of public expenditure. If last year's record expenditure deficit of $7.9 billion was justified, as it was by the Labor Government, as encouraging spending in a sluggish economy, there is not the same justification this year. If, as the Prime Minister recorded in answer to a question the day after the Budget was announced that employment growth will be about 3.25 per cent, growth in the economy will be 5 per cent and the rate of inflation is 5 per cent. Why is it necessary, if prospects are so favourable, to go into another spending spree when the needs should be so much less? There is only one answer: The Government has disregarded every economic principle in presenting this Budget to paper over the real and urgent problems that face Australia today. There can be no other reason for the Secretary to the Treasury, Mr Stone, a great Australian, resigning to dissociate himself from the irrationalities of the Dolan Budget. The windfall increase in personal income and company tax should have been used to reduce the deficit considerably below the $6,745m result achieved in this Budget. I understand that the total capital expenditure in the Budget is $5,630, which is considerably below the figure of the deficit. It is fitting that I should draw the attention of Ministers to a paragraph in their own Budget Papers. Page 382 of the Budget Statements shows the slide that capital works has taken as a priority for funding over the last decade as compared with the tremendous increase in non-capital outlays. If they would care to look at it, the paragraph reads: The past decade has witnessed a pronounced shift in the composition of budget outlays. Mr Dawkins —Who wrote this? Mr BRAITHWAITE —I imagine the Treasurer did. He reckons he understands every word contained in the Budget itself. Mr Dawkins —No, who wrote the speech? Mr BRAITHWAITE —I did. At least I read the Budget Papers, which is more than Ministers do. Mr Deputy Speaker, I am being affected by these interjections. Can I keep going? Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Rocher) —The honourable member will direct his remarks through the Chair. The Minister for Finance will cease interjecting. Mr BRAITHWAITE —This indicates the big switch over the last few years. The paragraph continued: In 1974-75, total budget payments for capital purposes comprised one-quarter of total outlays. That proportion had declined to less than 9 per cent in 1981-82, a level around which it has since remained. Outlays for non-capital purposes increased in real terms by some 40 per cent over the same seven years. In effect this means that the nation will be borrowing for the Prime Minister to hand out his election goodies. The Treasurer himself is bankrupt of any economic principle when such rationale is applied to the Budget. Perhaps the same can be said the Minister for Finance (Mr Dawkins) who has left the chamber. Mr Blunt —You embarrassed him; he had to leave. Mr BRAITHWAITE —That is right. I am glad that he took the hint and removed himself. Perhaps he has gone to read his own Budget Papers. What about the morality when this Government asks today's youth, that is, tomorrow's taxpayers, to pay more to service the public debt interest than it spends on education. At the same time, the Government burdens future governments and taxpayers with funding programs necessary only to gain sufficient time to go to an election on the most favourable terms. Soft options took over the hard decisions in this Budget. I question the morality of any parliamentary institution that frames its Budget to commit children not yet born, or children not yet taxpayers, to meet at some time in the future the penalty of our indulgence today. Mr McVeigh —They are born with a mortgage. Mr BRAITHWAITE —That is right. I will come to that in a moment. Let us put this matter into its proper perspective. All children born today, 6 September 1984, equal in the eyes of God, will be loaded with their share of the national debt of $5,000 before they receive one benefit from being born an Australian. Mr McVeigh —That is their first day of birth. Mr BRAITHWAITE —Their first day. Each family, which has been savagely ravaged in this Budget and made a second class unit, now bears a debt of $22,000. So much for this being a family Budget. In this year, 1984-85, taxpayers-- Mr Cohen —It gives them something to aim for, doesn't it? Mr BRAITHWAITE —I ask the Minister for Home Affairs and Environment to listen as this is interesting. In this year, 1984-85, each taxpayer will contribute $900 in taxes alone just to service the interest on the Government's public debt; not the redemption, just the interest on that debt. So much for the morality of a Budget that increases public expenditure to produce a deficit when that public expenditure produces an expectation of a continuation of benefits given only to try to secure a political party in government. Mr Cohen —You worry about your extension; I will worry about mine. Mr BRAITHWAITE —A $6.7 billion deficit is not a bad public contribution to an election by a government to get itself back into government, and that is basically what it is. The public expenditure on elections that we have heard about before shrinks into insignificance when we point to the $6.7 billion. Mr Cohen —What about what you did? Nine billion dollars and you would not tell anybody. Mr BRAITHWAITE —I think that has been properly explained. The Minister is creating a mischief by continuing that line because the Government's own Treasurer admitted that the deficit under the previous Treasurer, the honourable member for Bennelong (Mr Howard), would have been considerably less than the figure the Minister is spouting at the moment. So the Minister should talk to the Treasurer. Will our future be to belong to a banana republic like Mexico, Brazil or Argentina, which cannot meet their debts? As a result of deficit financing over the past 10 years alone-I include all governments in this statement-we have doubled our commitment from 4.4 per cent to 8.8 per cent of outlay towards our national debt. We are now facing the second largest deficit in this Parliament's history of $6.7 billion. What will be the commitment in the next 10 years? What happens when the nation's credit rating becomes so poor that we cannot even roll over our debts and we cannot pay the interest, at a time when Australians have indulged themselves to the extent that they cannot or will not compete in the world and on Asian markets. From such events, banana republics are formed. This Budget will not move the economy or business. It can lead only to a supplementary Budget, if Labor wins the election, to introduce extra taxation measures, such as capital gains, capital value, a wealth tax and death duties. In fact, if the economy will not move under Labor, it is determined to tax everything that stands still or dies, and that is basically what will happen. That is the legacy that it will hand over to next year's taxpayers and to the succeeding government. The present Budget is a Budget of short term convenience for the Government to seek a further term for itself. It is a Budget of give now , but pay later. I want to address a few remarks in relation to local government, which is my responsibility as shadow Minister. It, like many other areas, has lost out in this Budget. General revenue grants under personal income tax sharing have again been set at less than the inflation rate. Over the two years of Labor Government , local authorities have now received $29m less than they would have received if Labor had lived up to its election promise that 'general revenue grants in any year will not be of less value than those of the previous year in real terms'. The Minister for Territories and Local Government (Mr Uren) and this Government do not appreciate that the consumer price index does not even come close to the local government's increase of annual costs, which one local government authority advised me was about 10 per cent for 1983-84. Mr McGauran —How much? Mr BRAITHWAITE —Ten per cent, after the medifiddle of about 6 per cent. This was con- firmed by the New South Wales shire councillors who came yesterday to meet members. Rates have had to be increased to absorb the loss from the general grant funding. Also I understand that some States in charges alone have taken back 40 per cent of personal income tax. This has been absorbed in New South Wales, I understand, by extra charges on local government or a withdrawal from services that were normally provided. That shows how much use PIT from a Labor government is when it is hooked into another State Labor government. Worse than that, Labor has indexed the bicentennial road development fund levy. Again, the revenue from that indexation has gone into Consolidated Revenue, not to local government roads. The outcome is that local government has lost another $9m from its road funds while being asked to absorb the six-monthly indexation of those same fuel costs into its own costs. This has occurred in spite of opportunities that the Opposition so generously gave the Government last year to accept our amendments to place those funds where they were most needed-into local government and into roads. What did the Government do? It ran away from them and voted against the amendments that were moved. Mr McGauran —Every single one of them. Mr BRAITHWAITE —Every single one. There was not one deviation. Mr McGauran —Not the honourable member for Eden-Monaro. Mr BRAITHWAITE —He is the only one here, so we cannot speak for the others. The Minister will say that the Government has considerably increased other grants to local government. Let us have a close look at those other grants, as these are outlined in Budget Paper No. 7. In so doing, we find that nearly all of those programs are community based, in which the Commonwealth provides part of the funding and has total responsibility: Nursing homes, aged persons' homes, Meals on Wheels, handicapped persons' programs, children's services, homeless persons' programs, migrant services, the arts and a host of others. All of these are programs which can be provided by community organisations or local government. In many communities they are provided by community organisations. This is not funding of local government. This is funding of community programs which are Commonwealth programs and actually Commonwealth responsibilities. So why does the Government have to be so flash when it dishes out moneys on specific grants for specific areas when that is its responsibility? I turn to the aerodrome local ownership plan and the community employment program. Both of these areas-aerodrome development and employment creation-are traditional areas of Commonwealth responsibilities which are now being foisted on local authorities without a commensurate allocation of funding. In other words, the aim of the Commonwealth is to have local government use rate revenues to support Commonwealth programs. The reduction of the CEP requirement to 20 per cent funding from the sponsor was in response to local government's complaint of the cost being too high just to convey a Commonwealth program. I must say to the Minister that we welcome that change from 30 per cent to 20 per cent in the sponsor contribution. Mr Cohen —Of what? Mr BRAITHWAITE —I thought that the Minister was not listening. I turn to he local government improvement program and the local government development program. It is unfortunate that the Government has apparently changed its experimental program away from community development towards community services. Some were keen to see the outcome of this trial self co-ordination and self help . The Minister will be aware that part of my electorate of Dawson was keen to participate in this project. With regard to road funding, the Government has added nothing to the pre-existing commitments of the previous Government which were put in place by the then Minister, the honourable member for Gwydir (Mr Hunt). We had already written the program into the Roads Grants Act and the Australian Bicentennial Road Development Trust Fund Act, which Labor cannot change. Indeed, as I said before, the Government has taken away from road funds by indexing the ABRD levy and not passing it on to road construction. On the whole, in the areas of real assistance to local government-that of general revenue grants and road grants-this Government has cut back on funds to local government. The only thing that has been given-it is appreciated-is the extension of the exemption from the bank accounts debit tax. Even here, we must wait for the proper interpretation of incidentals to be made to know whether local governments in total are exempt. The Government has done nothing to move towards the allowance of election expenses of local government elected representatives and candidates as tax deductions to bring them into line with Federal and State candidates. The Government has done nothing to recompense local government for the loss of rate revenue through the occupation of ratable land by Commonwealth Government buildings. The Government has set up a committee of inquiry into personal income tax sharing. It is a committee made up of academics and bureaucrats, with no elected representatives among its members. But it is the elected representatives who carry the can at the next election if local government does not function. The Government has put itself at risk of being charged with rigging the inquiry for its own purposes, particularly if the inquiry comes out with a report unfavourable to local government. Also, why not widen the inquiry to ascertain the impact of government occupation of ratable lands and the impact of the Government's charges on local government costs, such as fuel excise, bank account transactions and also the cost to local government for the delivery of Commonwealth programs. I am sure the inquiry would be better received if those aspects could be included. I would like to deal with aspects of the family that have been the criteria of some of the speakers for the Government. One of the greatest areas of cost in this Budget is against families and I say against families. We are all aware that the family rates very low with this Government after last year, and particularly this year. It is too interested in wiping away the meagre supports which do exist for the family unit and extending others to de facto and homosexual partnerships. The Sex Discrimination Act and the affirmative action program are aimed at driving women into the work force and promoting them above men, regardless of suitability for the job, in the interest only of reaching set quotas, or as some want to call it, preferred balances. We have had massive increases in child care funding and in subsidies to middle income families, but only for child care centres and family day care schemes which have predominantly full time placements. Which families want full time places except for employment reasons? But because of preferences set by this Government and the Office of Child Care, child centres are filled with children from two-income families, and no subsidised child care places are available for the parent who works in the home, the traditional mother caring for the family's pre-school aged children. Mr Blunt —They are an endangered species under this Government. Mr BRAITHWAITE —That is exactly right; they are becoming an endangered species. The mother from the one-income family gets no relief from the strain of caring all day-no relief to do the shopping, to visit the doctor, or to play sport or to have a social outing. These tasks are just as important to the effective functioning of that family as the family where both partners choose to work; yet , under this Government's priorities the family with both parents working pays only $35 for the full time care of two children, on a family income of $25,000. The full cost of that child care is actually $200 per week. On what basis does that family receive the $165 subsidy, when the family next door, perhaps on a lesser income, gets nothing, because a parent chooses to stay at home and rear the children? In the two years since the last National-Liberal Party Budget, families have had to endure an inflation rate of 18.5 per cent, but families have received next to no benefit from this Budget. Mr Cohen —What? Mr BRAITHWAITE —Two years. Mr Cohen —We have not been in office for two years; we have been in government for 18 months. Mr BRAITHWAITE —Twenty-one months, yes-a bit too short a period after which to go to an election, I remind the honourable member too. This is what has happened . There have been no benefits from this Budget. Families have received no increase in their family allowances. They have received no increase in the spouse rebate. They have lost their health insurance rebate. They have lost their home mortgage interest tax rebate. They have received no increase in the zero tax threshold. After allowing for the tax cuts, families have endured a 27 per cent increase in personal income taxes, plus the Medicare levy, adding another 6 per cent. Food cost components have led the consumer price index. Health costs, now made up of Medicare and private health insurance, have skyrocketed, but topping up is still required from consolidated revenue. The massive deficits of the past two Budgets that I have mentioned have put an average cost on taxation for the average family of about $1,500 just to meet the interest. These same deficits have maintained interest rates, particularly home purchase rates, well above the real interest rate of 7 per cent-and for what? Where are the jobs for the unemployed and the young school leavers? They have gone. They have gone in increasing wages for those employed, in increasing redundancy payments, in the building unions' superannuation deal, in preparing for next year's superannuation/productivity trade-off, and in keeping the Australian Council of Trade Unions on side. As Mr Stone said, 'It has been wages , wages, wages, not jobs, jobs jobs'. The Government can find no money to increase the legitimate spouse rebate but it can introduce a rebate of the same value for a de facto spouse, so why have a legitimate marriage and a traditional family? I wonder whether the speech of the honourable member for Canning (Ms Fatin) in this Budget debate was indicative when she claimed that the traditional family was no longer the legally married family but the one-income family and that that is where we should be putting our preferences. So said the honourable member for Canning. I wonder if that is an indication of not only her thinking but also the Labor Party's thinking-that the one-parent family is what we should be encouraging in not supporting the traditional family. One wonders exactly what the Labor Party has introduced through this Budget. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Rocher) —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr SNOW(Eden-Monaro)(9.33) —Eighteen months after losing office, the Opposition is talking about an escalating deficit. It walked out of the kitchen leaving the deficit boiling over, one of nearly $10 billion, and when a new cook, the Hawke Labor Government, turns down the heat by $2 billion, Opposition members say that it is still too hot. They had seven years in the job. They were too scared to deregulate the dollar, to return it to its true worth, to give our rural and other exports the returns they are worth from overseas sales. They were seven years in the job, unable to realise that a fair go for education returns a dividend to the community. There were seven years in the job, too confrontationist to consult the unions, the farmers and social welfare organisations, even business; they preferred standing up to the unions, as they called it. They preferred confrontation. Their wage freeze hurt wage earners and small businesses that had the Government as a customer. Their confrontation exacerbated industrial disputes. They were seven years in the job, and the tax system discriminated against low income earners, who are most income earners in this country. In 18 months in the job, the Hawke Labor Government had the courage to deregulate the dollar, the foresight to recognise the importance of education and the good judgment to encourage discussion and agreement between unions, business, farmers, the professions and, most importantly, social welfare organisations. This discussion, and the Economic Planning Advisory Council which now operates, has led to a drop in inflation. It has led to lower pressures on wages and prices-the very thing that the Coalition failed to achieve with confrontation. In 18 months the Hawke Labor Government-every member of it has played a part-has turned the tide against unemployment and inflation and has reduced taxes. The tax rate for low income earners and part pensioners is no longer 32c in the dollar but 25c. As one pensioner told me, 'This is the most welcome part of the Budget for me'. These changes are not the achievement of just our Ministers, the best team that Australia has seen for many years; they are the combination of day to day initiatives by the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) and his team, along with carefully planned legislation, in which each member has had a hand, on the various policy committees of the parliamentary Labor Party. Add to this the vital role of the Party's rank and file policy committees in longer term planning and we see the reasons for our successful economic management, our teamwork and the refreshing success of our policies. More has been achieved in one and a half years than in the previous seven and a half years. This is a government strong enough to make the hard decisions yet flexible enough to take into account the community's views, and even to change direction if necessary, consistent with economic and social recovery. The Opposition's main object in this debate has been to whitewash its past, to frighten by deliberate misinformation the retired people in our community and those on social security benefits, and to mislead taxpayers. What do Opposition members think the people of Australia are? Do they think that the people are all tranquillised, living in blissful ignorance of the seven years of uneasy life under the Liberal and National parties? Our back benchers, including company directors, unionists, farmers, professional people and small business operators, all now members on this side of the House, work with Ministers involved in legislation. That is why this Budget will reduce the enormous rise in small business bankruptcies over those seven and a half years. That is why the investment allowance for businesses and farmers will be extended by one year after it was due to finish. That is why the depreciation allowance on buildings will operate over 25 years instead of 40, and provisional tax will have its loading reduced by one per cent. One of the National Party members called out, 'What have you done for the farmers?' Economic recovery-that is what we have done for the farmers; deregulation of the dollar-that is what we have done for the farmers. Our small business legislation has also helped farmers, including the extension of the investment allowance. Not only have we worked for the farmers; we have worked with the farmers. We have worked with them in a soil conservation program and on biological control legislation. Honourable members opposite must admit that it was not only with farmers but with farm organisations as well. Current export programs are working with farmers. The fishing industry programs, which the coalition parties were too scared to introduce, have been worked in conjunction and in full consultation with fishermen. The feral animal control program, introduced for the first time under this Budget, followed a search conference which I convened in my electorate, at Snowy Station, in Eden-Monaro. This is a policy which has come from working with farmers. We have also taken other initiatives which will help people in this region and throughout Australia. The Australian people's enterprise, the Snowy Mountains Engineering Corporation, will be restored to viability as an outstanding engineering consultancy firm, with a long history of successes in Australia, as a result of the Government's economic decisions. The Snowy Mountains Engineering Corporation does not normally receive funding in a Federal Budget. However, because the previous Government allowed the Corporation to wither without attention, this Government decided to inject a capital grant of $6m for its restructuring and revitalisation. The Government's previous Budget provided $4m for this purpose and this Budget completed the grant with a further $2m. An amount of $294,000 had been provided to carry out a further program of pollution abatement works at Captains Flat. It is great to see the Minister for Home Affairs and Environment (Mr Cohen) here in the House at the moment. I thank him and the Government for this program. At its peak Captains Flat was the largest mine in Australia next to Broken Hill. Lake George Mining Co., a 100 per cent British owned company, took profits from an Australian resource and the labour of Australian miners. When profitability slowed down some years ago it showed no responsibility to the Australian workers or the environment. Mines were flooded, keeping workers out and rendering the mines unworkable. Mountains of highly toxic slag heaps were left untreated and uncovered to subside and seep into the surrounding waterways. Pollution from the Captains Flat mines killed all fish life in the Molonglo River, polluted the town's water supply with high levels of zinc and polluted Canberra's Lake Burley Griffin. A Labor government moved to correct the ecological disaster left by the Lake George Mining Co. and ignored by the coalition Government. I thank the Minister for Home Affairs and Environment and the previous Minister for Urban and Regional Development, now the Minister for Territories and Local Government (Mr Uren), for the pollution abatement works which he began at Captains Flat. The Government through the Budget has stimulated consumption. To do that, it gave a 17 per cent tax cut to people who spend, the poorer people, those earning less than $12,500 a year, and pensioners and social security recipients whose benefits were increased by $2.50 per single person and $4.20 per couple with a 50 per cent increase in rent assistance. The Government has increased the tertiary education assistance scheme and the secondary assistance scheme allowances by 10 per cent and 15 per cent respectively. That long overdue but welcome measure has come with the Hawke Labor Government. The family income limit has been increased by 10 per cent. The Government has had great success with employment in the region surrounding Canberra. There has been a great response to the stimulatory activities of the Government. They have not brought with them inflation, but have brought more jobs. In Eden-Monaro the number of jobs notified grew by 57 per cent, yet the number of unemployed people on social security benefits dropped 8 per cent. We believe that it is still unacceptable to have an 8.8 per cent unemployment level with more than a third of those who are out of work being people who have been out of the work force for more than nine months. For this reason, the Government has increased by 44 per cent the funding for the community employment program which aims at helping long term unemployed. Let no one make the mistake of believing that any member on this side of the House has abandoned the democratic socialist quest for justice. Let no one make the mistake of thinking that the labour movement or the union movement can or will walk out on hard fought standards. Australia will move, along with other governments, particularly the democratic socialist governments of Scandinavia and now New Zealand, to achieve strong technologically based industry which, added to our strong primary industries, will achieve economic properity under the Hawke Labor Government. Mr DRUMMOND(Forrest)(9.44) —The 1984-85 Budget has aptly been called the vote now, pay later Budget. Australians will pay new and heavier taxes in 12 months' time. We will pay either directly or indirectly for our mushrooming public debt burden. At the same time one group of Australians has absolutely no illusions about the Budget, because it will be paying already. I refer, of course, to the producers of quality wines in the seat of Forrest and to those others throughout Australia, and to the people whose livelihoods are dependent on this industry. Although I have had the opportunity to speak very briefly on this issue within the last couple of days, I must emphasise that we are looking at a Budget measure that will not merely result in restriction and inconvenience but will threaten the very continuation of a pioneer rural industry. The small quality wineries in the south of Western Australia have hardly led a feather-bedded existence until now. They have had to overcome serious problems with natural pests and the environment. Establishing markets and economies of scale have been tough going. Currently, 17 wineries operate commercially in the Margaret River area. Two of these face closure because this tax has tipped the scale against their financial viability. Seven wineries, small ones admittedly, had already been forced to close prior to the announcement of the new tax and the lessening of the effective import duty. The market place has already put some operators out of the industry. The Government has now added a new and savage means of restructuring the boutique wine industry, only this time I fear it may even restructure it out of existence as far as the south west and Great Southern producers of Western Australia are concerned. The economic importance of this industry to the south west of Western Australia really is beyond question. Prior to the establishment of the first vineyards after 1966, the area was a rural backwater. It now boasts an industry that pays $1m each year to permanent employees and $2.5m to contract labourers. Many of these are young people who might otherwise have no jobs. It is well known that this part of the south west has many residents who have opted for a simple lifestyle that can be sustained on small incomes aided by this kind of casual work. Without the wine industry and those other enterprises that have grown with it, these people would be forced to depend upon social security with the cost coming back to the taxpayer. Again, I emphasise that the tourist trade in the south west of Western Australia is virtually dependent on the wineries, about half of which conduct door sales and tastings. The South West Regional Development Authority attests to the fact that the wineries are a leading State tourist attraction with a big proportion of international visitors. In summary, a 10 per cent sales tax on wine impacts most heavily on that section of the wine industry least able to carry the additional cost. It is a tax on excellence in that the much higher price rise will discourage consumers from buying quality wines. They will not be discouraged from cask wines, the increased price of which will be scarcely noticed. What is particularly unfair and destructive of tourism is the application of the tax to wines used in tasting. One bottle in seven produced at Margaret River is used for free tastings by the public. It may well boost sales, but it is a major service to tourism. For this, the wineries are to be punished by the Hawke Government. There is an additional danger to small wineries through another Budget measure. Group taxation of companies can help the larger producer at the expense of the smaller. We can foresee what may happen when a major winery is 100 per cent owned by a conglomerate that can easily afford to have its subsidiary run at a loss for a while to increase its share of the market. One could name such very significant subsidiaries around the country. So I say that the Australian Labor Party Government cares more for the big corporations than for the smaller producer. I previously stressed that the effective loss of protection against foreign imports is as serious a blow to the wine industry as the new sales tax. On the basis of the Sales Tax Assessment Act (No. 5) the price of an imported bottle of champagne with a combination of 10 per cent duty and 10 per cent sales tax will rise by 6c a bottle. The price of the local product will rise by $1.10. A difference of $2.16 has been reduced to $1.14 This Labor Government simply asserts that the cheap foreign imports will not be a problem and that any significant increase in wine imports is not expected. I can only suggest that the Government does not understand the facts or has not bothered to check them. I ask honourable members to consider the following: European wine makers can land their product in Australia at less than $1 a bottle. Bulk wines can be bought from Europe for as little as 30c a litre for blending within Australia. If the price of local wines is forced up while that of imported wines remains effectively the same, surely imports will increase. It is not a matter of allowing the free market full rein when we remember the existence of the wine lake of the European Economic Community, a fact that the Premier of South Australia knows even if his Federal colleagues choose to remain ignorant of it. Imported French wines selling for $3 a bottle would cost $12 if it were not for the blatant subsidisation of primary production by the EEC. This amounts to something like $1 billion for wine growers in the EEC on top of the subsidies for freight, insurance and promotion. As sure as night follows day the European wine makers will swamp our local production. With incredible irresponsibility the Hawke Government has ignored the warnings of the Australian Wine and Brandy Corporation on the dumping of European wines. Imported wines are estimated to have increased their share of the market by 24 per cent over the last year, and this is before the level of protection is halved. The Australian Labor Party has shown equal ignorance of the wine industry in the past. Past taxes on brandy and fortified spirits ignored the role of this part of the industry in absorbing unwanted grapes in times of surplus. Taxes on long term maturing wines forced dry reds on to the market too soon and seriously damaged red wine production. Nor does the current attitude of the ALP inspire any confidence that this Government is at all concerned about the wine industry. It retreats to a kind of threadbare inverted snobbery by asserting that the Opposition hates beer drinkers. I certainly agree that beer has been taxed beyond its proper limit but I await an explanation from the Government as to how the manufacture of beer can be compared with wine growing as a form of primary production in my electorate. I certainly await that explanation. It should be noted in the south west of Western Australia that one of the Australian Labor Party senators who is supposed to have a special interest in our region is in support of his Government's action against the Western Australian wine industry. I will be interested to hear what he has to say to those losing their jobs as a result of the Government's decision. I make no apologies for the stress I have placed in my contribution to the Budget debate on the damage done to the wine growing and tourist industries throughout Australia, particularly in my area where these activities are so important to the people at the grass roots. It is relevant to all Australians to recall that on 20 February 1983 the present Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) at his rural policy launch at Griffith pledged that there would be no wine tax under Labor. We should note the use of the word 'pledge'. We are warned that all ALP pledges are expendable. It has taken only three days from the delivery of the Budget Speech for the honest member of the Hawke Government, the Minister for Science and Technology (Mr Barry Jones), to give away the deception relating to tax and to admit that the Government will have to raise taxes next year. Again, at this juncture, we should remember that the new ALP king-makers, the members of the Centre Left, admitted after the ALP conference that they only opposed the calls of the Left for the vicious paraphernalia of wealth taxes, gains taxes and coffin taxes for tactical reasons in an election year, and that they fully supported those aims in principle. This Budget gives to some of us a $7.60 tax cut, after increasing the tax burden over the last two years by $22. The next Budget is almost certain to, and has to, hit us with new taxes. Taxation is one area of major deception in this Budget. Another is the argument that the Government is being responsible in its management of the deficit. This myth too has been exploded since 22 August by that far-sighted and courageous Australian, John Stone, who noted: Democracy is always hopeful of disposing of economic facts by manipulation. He pointed out that the term of the Hawke Government has seen the public sector borrowing requirements double from 4 per cent of gross domestic product to 8 per cent. The slight cutting of the deficit in 1984-85 is made possible only through a one-off surge in revenue. We have to recognise that this growth in borrowing is nothing more than stealing from future generations. What else is it when we borrow today not for long term national investment to provide a return for future generations but to spend on ourselves and on the needs of today? The public debt is not just a matter for arid economic debate. It is an issue that will matter very much to the ordinary Australian when we look ahead to June 1985 and realise that each employee will have as his share of the accumulated debt a sum of $14,000 and an interest payment over that year of $875 or $17 a week of his taxes. This is what a public debt of nearly $90 billion will mean in practical terms. The Federal Government in this Budget has reached a new high of 31.7 per cent of GDP. When State and local governments come into the picture we find that total public sector outlays have reached over 42 per cent of GDP. This must squeeze the private sector, which is still expected to produce 75 per cent of the jobs throughout Australia. The interest bill on the public debt will be met through taxes or higher interest rates. Eventually the ordinary Australian will be hit by both of these; he will just have to be to meet that debt. One of the three biggest rises in Budget expenditure falls under the heading of public debt interest, where outlays are up over 29 per cent. In dollar terms the only items showing a rise larger than the public debt interest figure of $1.27 billion are health and social security. The biggest rises in spending are not in the productive areas which would increase national wealth and long term jobs. In percentage terms the item with the biggest growth in 1984-85 is legislative services-up by 53 per cent to more than $300m. While the new Parliament House will be a permanent national asset the other causes of this mushrooming spending are the increased size of the Federal Parliament and the early election for which this whole Budget was designed. It says a lot for the priorities of the ALP in government. Neither side of politics is not guilty of putting electoral self-interest before long term national good, as John Stone brought home to us, but the Hawke Government has taken this to a new pitch. The biggest rise in expenditure in dollar terms, a rise of $1.7 billion and the second largest percentage rise of over 40 per cent, is in the field of health. This single fact bears witness against the catchcry that we have a pragmatic, middle of the road government. The $6 billion, nearly a tenth of total outlays, is a monument to the dogmatism of the Australian Labor Party in pursuing its goal of socialised medicine regardless of cost or efficiency. The inevitable response to criticism of the scheme is that the ALP got elected in 1983 and it intends to do as it pleases. It is highly debatable that health policy in any way led to the change of Government, but it is significant that while pledges to wine growers and taxpayers in general are disposable under the Hawke Government, that Government will press ahead with Medicare regardless. The people of Forrest are already learning that they are paying more for inferior health cover. They have no guarantee of getting public patient status even in the largest hospitals in Bunbury and Albany, as non employs salaried doctors. Every family, other than those on low incomes, places itself at serious risk if it does not maintain private hospital cover. Yet this Budget pours money into the new black hole of Medicare, with a 60 per cent rise in medical benefits and hospital funding. The outlays in medical benefits will reach $2.4 billion, but the Medicare levy will raise only $1.2 billion. Inevitably, with an election out of the way this Government plans to be back here next year boosting this levy up to 2 per cent of income or more. If it does not how is it being honest, as speaker after speaker has pointed out that the one per cent falls short by $800m of covering the Medicare bill? If the Government wants to be honest it will have to put up the percentage of income. Although social security remains the largest category of expenditure, with over $18 billion, the actual rise is less than 10 per cent. Rises in indexed pensions and benefits by $2.50 for single pensioners and $4.20 for couples merely allow the aged and the single parent to stay where they are. The Hawke Government had already reduced indexed pension rises by its artificial removal of health care costs from the consumer price index. This supposed generosity does nothing but restore the balance. Clearly as a Liberal I would not urge any government to go out and spend big unless it were absolutely essential. Yet if a government is raising outlays it should surely look to raising the real incomes of poorer Australians in preference to building an ideological monument in Medicare. The largest employer in Australia is small business, which the Treasurer (Mr Keating) accused of seeking special treatment and handouts. These are sought by neither the Liberal Party nor by small business leaders. What is needed, what the ALP has failed to tackle, is a lifting of some of the burdens that restrict small business and discourage it from creating jobs. All the Government needed to do was carry out some of its 1983 election promises that involved neither handouts nor heavy cost to the revenue. The honourable member for Higgins (Mr Shipton) in his speech here in the last day or two has aptly made that point. The abolition of Division 7 of the tax Act could have allowed for the reinvestment of all profits of small businesses, rather than have 30 per cent compulsorily distributed to shareholders. It is that kind of regulation that helps keep small business small. Payment of provisional tax by quarterly instalments would be another easing of financial constraints on small business without in the end any cost to the revenue. So, too, would the extension of sales tax remittance dates, another forgotten ALP election promise. That fact has been pointed out by the honourable member for Higgins. Small businessmen know better than this Government that while the tax has to be paid within 21 days, actual payment to the small businessmen could take two months or more. When this Government remembers business it is large business. This was what John Stone meant in his reference to the corporate state of the Government, unions and capital. This corporate state is akin to facism. I welcome an increase in the depreciation allowance from 2.5 per cent to 4 per cent as it will continue the Fraser Government's initiative in aiding the tourist accommodation industry. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Rocher) —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr WELLS(Petrie)(10.05) —Tonight's debate concerns the Budget and tonight I want to talk about how the Budget affects ordinary people who benefit from the changes introduced in the Budget. I want to talk about a variety of these people . One of the most sorrowful but most appreciated duties which many members of parliament undertake is to write to families of constituents who have died and offer those families sympathy and, if needed, assistance with the arrangements that they have to make. Recently I wrote to a family in these circumstances and in reply I received a thank you card and a letter. The letter was the most eloquent piece of prose I have ever read. I will read it now: Thank you for your expression of sympathy. Our son's death was tragic. He in a moment of desperation and irrationality shot himself. Life, for him offered no hope. His self-worth was eroded by the lifestyle he and so many others live today-a fortnightly handout was and is all they could expect. Society does not need them, they are the 'paid off ones'. Drugs relieve that pain of alienation for they alter one's perception of reality, but in so doing erode further their dignity as fully functioning human beings. Until our society puts together a more humane way of support for those not absorbed into the work place, Australia will lose to death, sickness, mental institutions and disease many of its young before they even get a chance to flower into people with a sense of dignity and purpose. I write to you openly for our Government must halt the destruction (and we do not need to shoot ourselves to be destroyed). You, as our representative, must state our case to avert further tragedy. The letter was signed 'Sincerely in hope' by the mother of the young man in question. There is nothing that I could possibly say which would add to the force of those words. They confirm me absolutely in my conviction that the removal of the blight of unemployment should continue to be this nation's No. 1 priority. Recently I visited the Redcliffe community youth support scheme facility. About a dozen young women attending that facility had completed a receptionist's course, and the purpose of my visit was to present certificates testifying to the skills to which they had been introduced. Community youth support schemes are Federal Government facilities which offer training and retraining for young unemployed people. After presenting the certificates I spent some time talking with the young women who had just completed the course. They were without exception intelligent, well spoken, well dressed and attractive. Had they been born 10 years earlier they would have been an asset to any organisation which employed them. They would have been snapped up very quickly by the labour market . They were born at an unfortunate time. All these young people had been unemployed for more than three months, some for much longer. Yet none of them were members of the groups in the community which are regarded as those suffering the worst unemployment rates. Of this particular group none was handicapped, none had disabilities. There is also high unemployment among migrant groups, but of this particular group all were Australian born. Since the election of the Hawke Labor Government the rate of unemployment has come down decisively and the number of jobs in the economy which has been created since then is impressive. The number of discouraged job seekers who had simply stopped seeking work has declined and many of those are now once more actively in the job market. Things have looked up tremendously, but we should not let these facts dazzle us and prevent us from seeing the extent to which unemployment remains the blight on the soul of the nation. At the Commonwealth Employment Service office where these young people registered for work, the Redcliffe CES, the rate of unemployment among those of their age group, 15 to 25 years, is dramatically high. Of those seeking work at that CES office, 47 per cent are in the 15 to 25 age group. The unemployed are not, however, the only people in our community who are getting a rough deal at the moment. My electorate has a very high proportion of pensioners, particularly age pensioners. Many of these are concentrated in the city of Redcliffe. They have retired after having served Australia all their lives and have chosen, and chosen wisely, to spend their retirement with dignity in that beautiful seaside city. However, one statistic tells a powerful story. The suburb of Woody Point has the lowest household income in the whole of south- east Queensland. This is solely because of the very high concentration of age pensioners. I regularly have the pleasure of meeting many of my constituents at community cere- monies, celebrations, meetings, sporting clubs, service organisations, community groups and so on. Queenslanders are traditional people and certain formalities are observed at such events. Often at such functions the procedures will be formal. Participants will wear suits or other better than casual clothing and begin by toasting the Queen with wine and settling down to a three course meal. I have often attended such functions in Redcliffe, however, where the participants wore suits, the Queen was toasted with water and we sat down to a meal of sandwiches. The expression of loyalty was no worse for that, and the nourishment was probably better. Nevertheless, such an event is a dramatic illustration of the relativity of the amounts of disposable income available to different sections of the community. Our Government has taken some steps recently to improve conditions for age pensioners but I would be less than frank if I said it was enough. For years pensioners have received only consumer price index increases which barely kept pace with inflation. However, in the last Budget a CPI increase would have meant no increase at all for pensioners because, to their benefit, as well as to the benefit of the rest of Australia, there was no significant movement in the CPI in the last quarter. For the first time since the days of the Whitlam Government pensioners have received an increase which was over and above CPI increases. This came in the Budget. This was a welcome move but much more of the same remains to be done, and I and many of my colleagues hope that it will be done very soon. Age pensioners are not the only class of social security beneficiaries who have been suffering in recent years. I recently received a letter from one of my constituents, a supporting parent. She had been working for the last couple of years and had been on the supporting parents benefit before entering into employment. She had to terminate her employment for family reasons and return once more to a supporting parents benefit. To express her astonishment at the escalating costs of basic essentials, she wrote to me in these terms: My electricity bill was approximately $80-- that is, before she went back to work- and now its $129 a quarter. The amount of electricity used is the same as before and I have the same appliances and same conditions as before. Also, the house rates have jumped by about $150 in two years, with car registration increasing $ 60 in the same period. It hardly needs to be pointed out that most of these increases in costs which my constituent is complaining about are State Government taxes. Even the rates which have gone up recently have gone up largely as a result of the State Government forcing municipal councils to collect a fire levy for it. The people of Queensland might very well wonder why the State Government of Queensland is prepared to grant electricity concessions to transnational corporations but makes ordinary citizens, including those on the breadline, pay the full price. My constituent went on to discuss some other matters which bear on Federal responsibilities. For some years we have needed in this country a thorough review of the social security system. What my constituent writes is conclusive proof of the need for such a review. She writes: Also I have been told that when my youngest son is 16, as I will only be 41, there is a gap of four years when I will not be eligible for any supporting parents or widows pension and would have to go on unemployment benefits unless my son is still at school. As I have a part-time job I would not be eligible for unemployment benefits, so we would have to live on my part-time earnings . . . and whatever my son would be able to contribute, depending on whether he was working or not. If he was unemployed, most of his benefit would go on transport to look for work, so I would still be sole support. I am not a bludger, and am studying at night school in hopes of bettering myself and family, but with employment being so hard to find, especially for young people. I'm very worried about the future. My constituent's fears are certainly very important and meaningful ones. According to the Department of Social Security, in my electorate of Petrie there are 2,211 female supporting parents and 125 male supporting parents. Many of these supporting parents are young widows and deserted wives, and their children , future citizens of Australia, have as much right to the fruits of our civilisation as any other young Australians. One difficulty is that when they get part time work, as a great number of them do-of all social security beneficiaries, it is supporting parents who try the hardest to get into the work force, motivated as they are by the desire to give their children a good start in life-many of them lose their eligibility for various pensions and benefits once their income exceeds a certain weekly figure. This is an anomaly, particularly in the case of this group of social security beneficiaries. As I said before, the whole area of social security needs to be reviewed, and indeed such a review is to be undertaken by this Government at ministerial and Government policy committee level. The social security system, which has been administered parsimoniously and sometimes in a miserable way by the Liberal and National parties for 30 of the last 34 years, is largely an ad hoc system hardly deserving of the title of system. The task ahead of sorting out its anomalies is a large one. This Budget comes to us in circumstances of economic management which have seen in this country a decline in the deficit, a considerable fall in unemployment, an increase in labour force participation and the number of jobs created in the economy, a dramatic fall in inflation, a fall in interest rates, an increase in capital investment, the highest consumer confidence in this nation since figures were first kept, an increase in the non-farm domestic product-that is, the domestic product which does not have anything to do with the breaking of the drought-and the highest growth rate in the Organisation for Economic Co- operation and Development, indicating that our achievement in this country is not just an imported phenomenon. This Budget is one which is bringing Australia forward. There is much more work to be done but the people of Australia should know that this is a government committed not only to responsibility but also to justice, and as we return to prosperity so justice as administered by the Hawke Government will increase and be distributed to more and more Australians. Mr WHITE(McPherson)(10.17) —I join a lengthy queue of speakers for the Budget debate. The first thing I wish to say, which has been said before but bears repeating, is simply that this is a facile election Budget which has been well described as a vote now pay later Budget. It is the biggest spending Budget in the history of this country. The Government said it would cut taxes and reduce government spending but it has brought in the biggest spending Budget in the history of Australia. As with any budget, whether it is a family, business or government budget, if the money is coming in one can spend it. But if money is not coming in, where does it come from? We are borrowing on the never-never again and again to pay and we are building up a legacy for the future, for ourselves and for our children who will eventually have to meet the debt being accumulated by this Government. As usual, it is the taxpayers who will pay for it. In the next 12 months, one million people will move into a higher tax scale. The average weekly earner is now in the 46c in the dollar tax bracket. It means that he works at his job for the Government until lunchtime Tuesday and he can put the rest of his pay in his pocket, apart from all the other hidden taxes. Australia is accumulating a big debt and the Government thinks that people do not understand what that debt is. They might not understand the details, but they understand very well that the Government is putting us in a position similar to that of many South American countries. It is something the people of Australia do not like. According to Government predictions personal tax to pay for this debt will increase by 23 per cent in the coming year, not because more people are employed , as current figures indicate, but because they are moving into a higher tax bracket. It is estimated that provisional tax will go up 44 per cent not because there will be another breaking of the drought next year but because of the breaking of the drought last year. That money is going to be raked in in provisional tax. Total tax receipts, the Government predicts, will be up by $9 billion. Instead of using some of that to pay off the debts that have been accumulated-some $17 billion in the last two years-what happens? We save $1.2 billion and make a big fuss about that, and spend the rest. The public debt for the Commonwealth alone is now $30 billion. By the end of the year it will probably be $40 billion. The interest on that is $5.6 billion, slightly more than the total amount we spend on education and slightly less than the total amount we spend on the defence of this country. What it amounts to is that Australia is in hock. Not so long ago we were laughing at South American countries and wondering how they could get into such a mess, but if we take a good look at ourselves, and there are many people who are doing that, we will laugh no longer. We have to ask: How is it going to be paid for? There is no way that if, by mischance, the Government is returned next year it will wind down these expensive projects. They will be paid for by all the taxes that I have been talking about, plus extra taxes on companies and individuals, capital gains taxes and death duties. One after the other people on that side of the House tonight have been getting up and saying that capital gains taxes and death duties are the way to go. Mr Gear —No, it is only your side. Mr WHITE —Enough Government members are saying that to indicate the general feeling about exactly which way we will go. The Minister for Science and Technology (Mr Barry Jones) to his credit, spelt it out quite clearly and correctly. He said that a government spends big when an election is coming up but taxes heavily once the election is over. He will not get any credit for saying that-it will be repeated around the country in the next few months, to the Government's disadvantage-but he got it right. There is no money for science because there are no votes in science, despite all the rhetoric that has been going on here month after month about how important it is to restructure industry, to introduce new technology, to introduce new ideas into industry in Australia. What happens when the crunch comes? Where do the Minister and his Department of Science and Technology finish up? They finish up with absolutely nothing. Mr Cadman —Under the table with not even enough for dinner. Mr WHITE —Not only under the table, but kicked to death in the process. If anybody in Australia is looking for smaller government and smaller taxes while this Government is in power, they can forget it. There is no way that the Government's programs will be wound down. For example, let us take what might be described as a small part of the Government's program-the extra politicians who have been foisted on the Australian public, 35 extra politicians at a time when people are struggling and we are trying to get out of the mire. Australia already has something like 900 politicians. It is interesting to look at-- Mr Hurford —God help us if they are all like you. Mr WHITE —That is a bit unkind. It is interesting to look at the cost of the Australian taxpayer of a politician. Each politician costs the taxpayers about $ 200,000 in direct costs, in salary, staff, office accommodation and travel. About $500,000 is the politician's share of running this Parliament. Before we even complete the new Parliament House we are talking about an extra $40m to accommodate another 35 politicians. I repeat that there will be $200,000 in direct costs, half a million for running the Parliament and $40m to extend the new Parliament House. Mr Cadman —What does all that add up to? Mr WHITE —Well, if the honourable member multiplies that by 35 he will get the answer. I wish to say a few words about the unions. Tonight we are debating the Budget and the economic future of Australia. If there is one cancer on the future of this country that we all live in, it is the union movement. It must be without doubt the biggest single obstacle to economic growth that any of us face . It is continuing to make impossible demands on the economy, on the employers and on the taxpayers that no country can ever meet. What is more, it is getting what it is asking for from a government that is too frightened to say no. The Government has a tiger by the tail and it cannot let go of it because if is locked into this mystical prices and incomes accord which will devour the Government in the end. There was a time when the unions in this country devoted their energies to looking after their members. Now they are simply looking after those members who are employed and to hell with all the others, to hell with Australia and its future and to hell with those who create employment. If honourable members doubt and laugh at these things, how many of them have faced union leaders who have said exactly that to their face? If they have not, they have certainly said it to me. Union leaders say: 'I don't care about the unemployed or the future of Australia. What do I care about that company? All I am concerned about is the union members who are employed because if they don't get bigger and better I will be out of a job'. They ignore the unemployed, the capacity to pay and the plight of those juniors whose wages they have jacked up year by year until 25 per cent of under 19-year-olds are unemployed. They ignore the international competitiveness of Australia and the burdens that employers have to carry, for example the redundancy provisions which were handed down the other day by the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission. We once talked about union power and people were worried about it. But we have gone past that stage. We are now talking about union authority and it is that authority that should concern us. There used to be a time when employers and governments consulted unions but now it is not a matter of consultation, it is a matter of unions determining the policy which the Government in this country follows. There is no future for this country if we follow this slippery road to oblivion. The prime reason for it is that the Government is locked into the accord. It has become the centrepiece of government economic authority. It means that one section of this country is determining our future policy. A pressure group is running the country. It is not without interest to note that the Western country that has produced the most jobs in recent years is the United States of America. In America the union movement is on the decline. Some 25 per cent of employees are unionised. In Australia, with 320 unions all busily fighting each other and determining government policy, some 55 per cent of our employees are unionised. I am happy to say that that figure is declining, but it is still significant. There is no doubt that under this Government the unions are getting stronger. Let me quote from an article from the Business Week which mentions unions in America. It states: A revolution in the way workers do their jobs is beginning to take hold throughout America's basic industries. Changes in work rules are moving the workplace away from rigid labor practices . . . Instead, a more flexible structure is evolving that can adapt to advanced technology, provide new products at a competitive cost, and release the nation from the stranglehold of stagnant productivity. If we had any sense, that is the model we would be following. Let me talk a little about the decision handed down recently by the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission. Debate interrupted. Mr SPEAKER —Order! It being 10.30 p.m. I propose the question: That the House do now adjourn. Mr McGAURAN(Gippsland)(10.30) —On 7 March this year I addressed the House on the problems of communications for East Gippsland. In particular I drew the House's attention to the problems being encountered by the residents of Cann River, Genoa and Mallacoota who are unable to receive Victorian television or radio. Regrettably, I have to inform the House that the Minister for Communications (Mr Duffy) and his Department have failed to act in the ensuing months. They have failed to act by permitting GLV8, the regional television station which broadcasts from Traralgon, to instal a very high frequency translator in Cann River in place of the required ultra high frequency translator. I called on the Minister through the Parliament and through correspondence, to permit some flexibility. Otherwise, it is commercially impossible for GLV8 to install a UHF translator, thereby depriving the residents of East Gippsland any possibility of receiving commercial television. When I last spoke on this subject in the Parliament, I called on the Minister to permit the installation, as he has committed himself to doing, of an Australian Broadcasting Corporation translator in the region so as to allow the residents of East Gippsland access to ABC television. Again, although communication between the Minister and me goes back several months-in fact, well over a year-nothing has been done. This is despite the fact that I have lodged in this Parliament a petition with several hundred names calling on the Minister to act. The signatories to that petition are people from Mallacoota. I again implore the Minister and this Parliament to act so that a significant population is not deprived of the same rights that other Victorians, not to mention other Australians, accept as of right. Further problems arise because of the Minister's insistence that translators now be UHF. I received a deputation on behalf of the Ensay television committee led by Mr Bill French and Mr Oscar Thoms. You will appreciate, Mr Speaker, that Ensay is another part of East Gippsland although somewhat removed from the Genoa- Mallacoota region. The committee wishes to install a translator but, again, there is a problem in that the Minister and his Department require that the translator be UHF thereby making it almost financially impossible for the local community, through the Ensay television committee, to install a translator. It is the committee's opinion, based on some technical expertise, that a VHF translator is more appropriate, not to mention far less expensive and more affordable to the local community than a UHF translator. Moreover, the Ensay television committee needs approximately $3,000 to purchase and install the translator. It has raised a great deal of money already to install smaller translators and is now calling on the Government for assistance. One wonders how often matters of importance such as this have to be drawn to the attention of the Minister and the Parliament before action is taken. It seems there is a great deal of discrimination as there are examples in the last few months of the Minister for Communications allowing VHF translators to be installed in other parts of the country. Why, then, can he not act in relation to the matter that has been put before him several times so that a significant proportion of the Gippsland population who are my direct responsibility can enjoy the same communications as are enjoyed by other Victorians because, after all, they pay the same taxes as all other Victorians? It is the responsibility of this Government and the Minister to ensure that this need is met. A great number of people in Gippsland will no longer tolerate the Minister's inaction. We now call on the Government at long last to take this overdue action. Mr SNOW(Eden-Monaro)(10.35) —When Betty Powell of Queanbeyan parted from the Australian Public Service, she left it as a woman whose health had been affected by intensive treatment. Even her department-Social Security-admitted liability for her health. Under the Freedom of Information Act provisions Mrs Powell was able to examine her personal and medical records. These records include medical reports, family history-or purported family history-an above average work record and excellent relationships with senior and other officers within the Department of Social Security. It is a small wonder that Mrs Powell is now unfit for further service. What has happened to Betty Powell is a warning to people in bureaucratic situations and happens all too often to Australian public servants. Mrs Powell has been denigrated and defamed under the legal guise of 'medical opinion recorded at the time'. The official medical records wrongly stated that Mrs Powell's problems at work related to personal and family problems. An examination of her records show that her health problems were work related as substantiated by her referee reports and admission of liability by the Department. A Government medical referee made a host of inaccuracies and I will refer to only one of the less derogatory: He said Mrs Powell had undergone unnecessary operations. Her other medical records first show clearly that any operation she had undergone was necessary and, secondly, that her operations had nothing like the effect of work related problems on her health. I do not want to delve deeply into Mrs Powell's personal records, suffice it to say that the Commonwealth referee is continually contradicted by records of other medical experts who examined Mrs Powell. The tragedy is that the Commonwealth referee's files are still held. These reports, accepted by Government departments, entirely misrepresent the environmental reasons for Betty Powell's ill health. Betty Powell is known personally to a great many politicians, Clerks and others on the parliamentary staff of both Houses and many people in the Canberra- Queanbeyan community. She has, in the past, given great service and loyalty to this Parliament, as a servant of the committees of Parliament and its elected representatives, and Clerks of the Parliament, and as an electoral secretary in Queensland where she showed efficiency and the ability to liaise with people from all walks of life. She gave great service and loyalty to the Department of Social Security and had an excellent work record in spite of her tragic personal circumstances. Other elected representatives on both sides of Parliament agree with me that she has been put through a whole series of ordeals by a department which can ill afford an intrusive reputation. The Department of Social Security was asked to remove the offensive medical report but made only side notations and then informed the Minister for Health ( Dr Blewett) that the records were amended in April 1984. I ask the Minister for Housing and Construction (Mr Hurford), who is at the table, to refer this matter to the Minister for Social Security (Senator Grimes) and have removed from the record unfair, defamatory and unjustified references to Betty Powell and her family situation. It is probably too late to help Betty Powell but it is not too late for Government departments, doctors and senior public servants to be warned that unsubstantiated opinions can devastate the lives of individuals and their families. Honourable members will understand why I cannot go into the full medical records of this person. Betty Powell's employers were right about her excellent work record; let them remove the unfair, unsubstantiated and distorted medical and family records. Betty Powell has told me that without the support of her many friends from all walks of life in Australia, whom she wishes to thank, she would not have endured . I will place the medical reports before the Minister for Health and will ask for an investigation into their inaccuracies, their inconsistencies and their irrelevancies. I also ask the Minister to seek an explanation from the doctors concerned. At the very minimum, I ask the Ministers for Social Security and Health that anything defamatory, derogatory or damaging to Mrs Powell be removed . There have been other complaints about the medical referee in this case. People must be protected from such procedures. Safeguards may have to be introduced and freedom of information taken to its logical extension, freedom from misinformation. Mr SHIPTON(Higgins)(10.40) —I wish to speak in this debate about the devastating effect on small and medium size businesses in Australia of the job security decision handed down this week by the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission upon an application by the employers to review that case. On Tuesday the review was dismissed by the Commission. I was in the courtroom that morning and I saw large numbers of owners of small and medium size businesses who came to that court to see that decision handed down. There has never before in Australia been such a reaction by employers and businesses to a decision of the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission. This decision will change the character of business and employment in Australia . It will result in the small business revolution that is underway, gathering further momentum. This job security decision will have a most damaging effect on the ability of young people to get jobs. Small and medium size firms are discouraged from taking on employees by this decision. As it comes at this time of high unemployment in Australia in 1984, it is particularly damaging to those who will be leaving school at the end of this year and looking for jobs in 1985. Small and medium size businesses which are the major area of job opportunity and should be the major area of job opportunity for school leavers in Australia will be deterred by this decision from taking on employees. I was talking with one businessman in the courtroom who said that as a result of this decision he would not take on any more apprentices. That is a direct result of this job security case decision. At this time of economic uncertainty, a tribunal should not be handing down a decision that adds an extra cost burden on the business sector. Governments and tribunals in the conciliation and arbitration area should be supporting business, employers and the private sector. What has happened here has been an application by the Australian Council of Trade Unions, supported by the Federal Government and every State government. Extra cost burdens will be placed on the small business sector. This decision will have the most damaging effect on the value of the assets of small businesses in Australia today. The value of shares, the value of goodwill in every business in Australia will be reduced by the amount that that business has to set aside for contingent liabilities in its accounts, those contingent liabilities being in respect of the severance payments that will need to be included in the accounts of the company or business because the job redundancy case provides that every business has to provide retrospectively for redundancy payments. One day before the decision, there was no such liability. When the Commission hands down the decision, all of a sudden there is a retrospective liability on every small and medium size firm in Australia. It has to be included in the accounts of companies and businesses. To small businesses particularly, these amounts will be staggering. As I have said, the operation of the decision is retrospective. Businesses have to fund out of existing assets the amounts to be put aside to pay for these severance payments. Many small businesses will find that the value of their business is wiped out overnight by this decision. If a milk bar employs one person and suddenly finds as a result of this decision that it has to account in its books and provide for redundancy payments when that employee is made redundant or leaves the business, the goodwill that the owners of such a milk bar might get on the sale of that business could well be wiped out by the amount they have to provide for that employee. In other words, people who have worked hard in small businesses, say, in a milk bar of the nature I have indicated to the House tonight, will suddenly find the total value of their asset wiped out. Mr SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr HOLLIS(Macarthur)(10.45) —In this House on 7 May 1984 honourable members were witness to yet another assault on the morale of the unemployed people of this nation by the honourable member for Hume (Mr Lusher). The target of his most virulent attack of this occasion was the Commonwealth Employment Service. The honourable member made scathing and wide-ranging criticisms of a service which has earnestly and loyally served the Government, employers and unemployed people of Australia since its inception in 1945. Working in the CES has always been hard. In particular the years of Fraserism were not easy ones for the dedicated staff of this organisation. The celebrated Australian author Gabrielle Lord spoke of her years working in the CES in the late 1970s as part of an article in the National Times of 30 December last year. I will now quote selectively from this article for the benefit of those members on the Opposition benches who have not considered what life has been like over the last few years for CES personnel. She says: And so they came in their hundreds of thousands to the offices of the CES and the first person they spoke to was the counter clerk. If we found ourselves becoming angry, our instructions were to walk away and turn the aggressor over to someone else. One young clerk walked away all right. Right out of the office and wasn't seen again for some time. 'Most office managers were sympathetic but what could they do? They knew we were hopelessly understaffed and with ceiling imposed on further recruitment we just had to do our best with what we had. Morale was abysmally low, and electorally servile remarks about decreasing the size of the Public Service so that there would be 'less snouts in the trough' made us wonder who the pigs really were. We were the shock troops, and it was hard for us not to feel that ' us versus them' dichotomy, as the unemployed came over the top wave after wave. The personal tragedies were uncountable. The times you'd cross 'married' on the job seekers card and substitute 'separated' and wonder what hell they'd endured before that happened. Kids thrown out of home because they couldn't find work. Good men and women worked those; people who often contacted clients after hours , or dropped mail off for them in their own time. Not many of us deserved the bad reputation we seemed to have. But it was hard to be saintly all the time. We lent money (strictly against orders) we knocked back bribes 'The CES taught me staying power, it gave me a lot and it took a lot. It very nearly took from me everything I valued. Such an unfounded attack as that made by the honourable member for Hume not only affects the morale of the front line troops of the CES but also reduces the level of confidence unemployed people have in them. The honourable member received universal criticism recently for his farcical attempt to survive on the unemployment benefit for a week. I sincerely hope that this similarly ludicrous exercise in publicity seeking will draw the same response from members who do know what they are talking about. Mr MacKellar —Mr Speaker, I take a point of order. My point of order is that it is customary for members of this House to inform other members that they will be making a personal attack on them. I just wondered- Mr SPEAKER —The Chair is in no position to know whether members have informed other members, and the Chair is not required to ask. Mr HOLLIS —Does the honourable member know that I did not do so? That the honourable member for Hume does not know what he is talking about becomes obvious from the number of facilities in his speech of 7 May. He implies that the role of the CES is a duplication of that performed by classified advertisements. This demonstrates an appalling lack of understanding. It would be such a simple matter for him to obtain CES vacancy lodgment statistics for any of the major towns in his electorate and compare them with numbers of job vacancy advertisements in newspapers in the same town. He would find those newspapers receive several hundred per cent fewer vacancies. Inquiries made of staff in all the CES offices in the electorate of Hume reveal that the honourable member has never visited one of those offices. Likewise, despite his desperate concern for the plight of the unemployed he has never visited a community youth support scheme project in his own electorate. I ask: How can someone like this have any understanding of the complete role of the CES when he does not even know that unemployment benefit forms are not lodged at CES offices? I have in my office a copy of a telex sent to the CES office in Tamworth in May from the Leader of the National Party of Australia (Mr Sinclair) dissociating himself from the views of the honourable member for Hume and praising the work of the CES. I challenge the honourable member for Hume to arrange to attend a staff meeting at any CES office in his electorate in order to debate with the staff the contents of his speech. I also challenge the Opposition spokesman on employment and industrial relations to denounce publicly-- Mr SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr MacKELLAR(Warringah)(10.50) —We have just seen another example of the lack of moral courage that characterises certain members of the Australian Labor Party. The honourable member for Macarthur (Mr Hollis) has just made a statement without getting in touch with the honourable member concerned. Mr Hollis —How do you know I didn't? Mr MacKELLAR —Because you did not, and you know you did not. You do not have the courage to do it. You will not be a member of this House for long anyway. Tonight I want to raise the matter of the provision of mobile telephones within private cars. Unfortunately, a very grave matter has arisen in relation to the privacy achieved by the use of these mobile telephones. A constituent of mine has found himself in a position whereby his private telephone conservations, when using the mobile telephone, have been intercepted by outside bodies. This is a very serious matter because it costs a great deal of money to hire one of these telephones. In fact, the unit was purchased for the business purposes of this gentleman at a cost of over $5,500. It costs $200 a quarter in network rental and calls are metered at the subscriber trunk dialling rate. The matter of the privacy of mobile telephones was brought to the attention of the authorities last year. A routine letter was issued by Telecom Australia on 17 October last year to all customers who had acquired mobile telephones. The letter said: Dear Customer, Safeguarding privacy on your mobile telephone. As you are aware, radio scanners which allow entire frequency bands to be scanned and individual channels to be selected and monitored are readily available on the market. To further safeguard privacy on mobile telephone services, MTS, conversations, Telecom has determined a method whereby one direction only of conversation, fixed network to mobile telephone, will be transmitted to air on any frequency. This will effectively remove most of the intelligence of a conversation which happens to be overheard. A minor alteration to each mobile telephone unit, also modification to the channels, will be required for introduction of this enhancement to the Sydney MTS by the end of this year. Remember, that is, last year, 1983. The letter continued: The alteration of your mobile unit will avoid an undesirable lack of side tone caused by the channel modification. To assist in our speedy implementation of this plan would you please contact- The letter goes on. The fact is that despite that modification and despite that letter of 17 October 1983, the interception of conversations on mobile telephones is still taking place. This constituent of mine was telephoned by a television show because he had made some complaints about the interception previously. Following the modifications to the mobile telephones, he agreed to discuss the matter. When he was in a position to discuss the matter the person who was to interview him arrived with a crystal clear recording of a conversation that this constituent of mine had had the night before and, in addition, gave details of several other conversations that this person had had previously. This is a most serious matter. Discussions and conversations of a highly personal nature take place on these mobile telephones. If they can be readily intercepted, obviously the privacy of those conversations is very much at risk. Not only personal details relating to the lives and practices of the people who have these telephones but also the business dealings of many people who use these telephones can be intercepted. If Telecom charges a great deal of money for the use of these mobile phones it is up to Telecom and the Government to do something to protect the privacy of people who pay, as I say, a very great deal of money for the privilege of using them. If this matter is not taken seriously the professions of concern about civil and personal rights of which we hear so much from Ministers will be shown to amount to nought. Dr EVERINGHAM(Capricornia)(10.55) —Two nights ago I spoke on the adjournment debate about the provision of an eye bank network in Australia. I wish to add to my remarks on that subject. The only offspring of Mr Stanley Fitzroy-Mendis II is his 11-year-old son of the same name. Master Stanley Fitzroy-Mendis III. He attends a boarding school in the United States of America, on the advice of psychiatrists who are concerned at the bad emotional effect upon him by his mother who is practising medicine in Australia. This personable and intelligent boy, whom I have actually spoken to by telephone, is to present to Mr Sandber of the United Nations on 11 September at 10 a.m. and to a later Press conference his father's petition indicting Australia for failure to uphold the interests of patients in Australia and other countries. The Australian International Eye Bank and Research Foundation, the AIEBRF, may transport, free of charge, eyes and dehydrated corneas in accordance with the international code of ethics and the practice accepted in all other countries with eye banks and in accordance with uniform laws throughout Australia regarding the use of human tissues. Such transport was approved by the Federal Department of Transport in 1978. The honourable member for Bradfield (Mr Connolly) asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr Hayden) and the Minister for Health (Dr Blewett) on 9 August 1984 for a letter of support to the Russian Consulate in Sydney to receive a visa for his constituent, that is, Mr Stanley Fitzroy-Mendis III, to seek treatment for his chlorocort damaged eye at a famous Russian clinic. I trust that the Ministers will hasten their response as the patient believes his sight is failing. I appeal to the Health Minister, the Foreign Minister, the Attorney- General (Senator Gareth Evans) and the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) to ensure that these scandalous situations are corrected promptly, including the use of chlorocort, the eye bank's procedures and policies on supply to other countries; in other words, they do not want any eye tissue to be supplied to any other country. Dr Roberts, a Sydney ophthalmologist, told the Eye Banking Association of America Inc. Board of Directors on 19 October 1978 in Missouri in response to an address by Mr Fitzroy-Mendis: There is a large eye bank in Sydney. Some tissue is exported to the nearest Asiatic countries. According to Mr Fitzroy-Mendis, the Royal Australian College of Ophthalmologists was on record in the Medical Journal of Australia of that month as opposing the import and export of eye tissue. Australia has led the world for long periods in the recent past in blood bank development and has joined in international exchange networks, especially as a major resource centre for the South West Pacific. We have an unrivalled opportunity to provide a similar service for many sight impaired people, removing the professional restriction of access to corneal grafts apparently being exercised in Sydney. Such an expansion of curative services would provide dozens of skilled and satisfying jobs, restore constructive capacity of our own citizens, reduce stop-gap welfare arrangements, which are already costing the public purse money, and enhance the international good will of Australia. Question resolved in the affirmative. House adjourned at 10.59 p.m. The following notices were given: Mr Young to move- (1) That, in accordance with section 54 of the National Crimes Authority Act 1984, matters relating to the powers and proceedings of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on the National Crime Authority shall be as follows: (a) That the committee consist of 3 Members of the House of Representatives to be nominated by either the Prime Minister, the Leader of the House or the Government Whip, 1 Member of the House of Representatives to be nominated by either the Leader of the Opposition, the Deputy Leader of the Opposition or the Opposition Whip, 1 Member of the House of Representatives to be nominated by the Leader of the National Party, the Deputy Leader of the National Party or the National Party Whip, 3 Senators to be nominated by the Leader of the Government in the Senate, 1 Senator to be nominated by the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate and 1 Senator to be nominated by any minority group or groups or independent Senator or independent Senators. (b) That the committee elect a Government member as its Chairman. (c) That the committee elect a deputy chairman who shall perform the duties of the chairman of the committee at any time when the chairman is not present at a meeting of the committee, and at any time when the chairman and deputy chairman are not present at a meeting of the committee, the members present shall elect another member to perform the duties of the chairman at that meeting. (d) That 5 members of the committee constitute a quorum of the committee. (e) That the committee have power to appoint sub-committees consisting of 3 or more of its members and to refer to such a sub-committee any matter which the committee is empowered to inquire into. (f) That the committee appoint a chairman of each sub-committee who shall have a casting vote only, and at any time when the chairman of a sub-committee is not present at a meeting of the sub-committee, the members of the sub-committee present shall elect another member of that sub-committee to perform the duties of the chairman at the meeting. (g) That the quorum of a sub-committee be a majority of the members of that sub -committee. (h) That members of the committee who are not members of a sub-committee may participate in the proceedings of that sub-committee but shall not vote, move any motion or be counted for the purpose of a quorum. (i) That the committee, or any sub-committee, have power to send for persons, papers and records. (j) That the committee, or any sub-committee, have power to move from place to place. (k) That a sub-committee have power to adjourn from time to time and to sit during any adjournment of the Senate or of the House of Representatives. (l) That a sub-committee have power to authorise publication of any evidence given before it and any document presented to it. (m) That the committee have leave to report from time to time. (n) That, in carrying out its duties the committee, or any sub-committee, ensure that the operational methods and results of investigations of law enforcement agencies, as far as possible, be protected from disclosure where that would be against the public interest. (o) That the foregoing provisions of this resolution, so far as they are inconsistent with the standing orders, have effect notwithstanding anything contained in the standing orders. (2) That a message be sent to the Senate acquainting it of this resolution and requesting that it concur and take action accordingly. Mr Hurford to present a States (Works and Housing) Assistance Bill. The following papers were deemed to have been presented on 6 September 1984: Commonwealth Teaching Service Act-Determination-1984-No. 3. Conciliation and Arbitration Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1984, No. 224. Excise Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1984, No. 219. Health Insurance Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1984, No. 217. International Organizations (Privileges and Immunities) Act-Regulations- Statutory Rules 1984, No. 216. Loan (Income Equalization Deposits) Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1984, No. 218. Maternity Leave (Commonwealth Employees) Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1984, No. 220. Members of Parliament (Staff) Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1984, No. 221. Radiocommunications Licence Fees Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1984, No. 222. Wireless Telegraphy Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1984, No. 223. The following answers to questions were circulated: (Question No. 1603) Mr Hunt asked the Minister for Trade, upon notice, on 21 August 1984: (1) Did he fly Cathay Pacific on his trip to China in May 1984. (2) Why did he fail to use Australia's flag carrier, Qantas, for at least part of this journey. Mr Lionel Bowen —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) Yes. The trip actually took place in June 1984. (2) There were no Qantas flights via Hong Kong available on the days appropriate for travel given the program arranged with my Chinese hosts and my commitments in Australia. Alternative routes using legs where Qantas had a service available were thoroughly explored with Qantas by my Principal Private Secretary before my travel details were finalised. (Question No. 1611) Mr Ruddock asked the Minister representing the Minister for Social Security, upon notice, on 21 August 1984: When will the Minister be in a position to comment on the attendant care pilot program which commenced in 1983 with a sample of 25 individuals. Dr Blewett —The Minister for Social Security has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: The attendant care pilot project commenced in February 1984 with 24 participants. All indications to date are that the project is proceeding satisfactorily. The first six-monthly progress report has recently been prepared by the University of Sydney, which is conducting an independent evaluation of the project. This report is being examined and specific comment cannot be made until that examination is completed. (Question No. 1612) Mr Ruddock asked the Minister representing the Minister for Social Security, upon notice, on 21 August 1984: (1) Will the Minister consider extending the criteria of the mobility allowance to include all people with transport handicaps, irrespective of employment status. (2) Will the Minister also consider increasing the allowance to a more realistic level. Dr Blewett —The Minister for Social Security has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: (1) and (2) My Department is currently undertaking a general review of mobility allowance, including questions of level of payment and eligibility criteria. As part of this review a survey funded under the Community Employment Program will be made of people with transport handicaps to assess: the extent the mobility allowance assists in meeting the transport costs of those who receive it to what extent the mobility allowance would be of assistance to people who are unable to use public transport but who do not meet the mobility allowance eligibility criteria What other forms of assistance people with transport handicaps require. The review is expected to be completed by the end of the year. I expect that the review will provide a basis on which the Government may consider the possibility of any changes to the present allowance.