Tuesday, 11 September 1984 Mr SPEAKER (Hon. Harry Jenkins) took the chair at 2 p.m., and read prayers. Mr BRAITHWAITE(Dawson) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That this House- (1) condemns both the honourable member for Leichhardt and the Minister for Primary Industry for attacking the Queensland State member Mr Menzel under privilege of the House and not by substantive motion when allegations against him could be rebutted; (2) regrets the depth to which the Australian Labor Party has sunk in the debate on the sugar industry; (3) views this attack by the Minister as a cover for his own inadequacies in not being able to get Commonwealth agreement to assist the ailing sugar industry or to come to grips with the real and major problems the industry now faces-- Honourable members interjecting- Mr SPEAKER —Order! Mr BRAITHWAITE —Honourable members opposite are not interested in the sugar industry; that is what it is, Mr Speaker. My notice of motion continues: (4) calls on the Minister to cease his normal response to his failure of claiming that he was 'rolled' by Cabinet and provide the opportunity for a meaningful debate in this House on the sugar situation. Mr BURR(Wilmot) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That this House- (1) condemns the Government for its announced intention to repeal sections 45D and 45E of the Trade Practices Act, and (2) expresses the view that the Government is actively attempting to place the Trade Union Movement above the legitimate laws of this country with which every other section of the community is duty bound to comply. Mr GEAR(Tangney) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That this House- (1) notes- (a) with deep concern reports that the Western Australian Liberal Party received donations from Mr Christo Moll, an admitted entrepreneur in tax avoidance, and (b) that the Liberal, National Party and Democrats have repeatedly defeated Government legislation in the Senate aimed at retrieving stolen taxes, and (2) reminds the honest taxpayers of Australia that only the ALP is totally committed to ending tax avoidance and retrieving taxes avoided under the previous government. Mr COLEMAN(Wentworth) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That this House- (1) notes with grave concern the recommendation of the Waller Committee on in vitro fertilisation that under certain circumstances human embryos should be destroyed; (2) urges the Government to encourage other methods of treating infertility than the IVF program; and (3) calls for the cessation of experiments that involve the deliberate destruction of innocent human life. Mr Blanchard proceeding to give notice of a motion- Mr SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member knows the rules with regard to such notices of motion and the inclusion of argument and information in them. I suggest that he look at his notice and reword it. I will then give him the call. Mr SHIPTON(Higgins) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That this House- (1) condemns the Government for its failure to honour any of its pre-election taxation promises to small business in the 2 annual Budgets and the mini Budget brought down by it, and (2) deplores the failure of the Treasurer to mention the importance of small business in his 1984 Budget speech. Mr FRY(Fraser) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That this House- (1) supports the view that every Member of this Parliament is a loyal citizen of the Commonwealth; (2) calls on the Attorney-General to carry out a detailed examination of all information kept on files or in computer data banks of all security organisations in Australia concerning any Member of this Parliament; (3) further calls on the Attorney-General to issue instructions to have all such information removed and destroyed unless he believes that the destruction of the information would constitute a threat to the security of this country, and (4) requests that the Attorney-General undertake this action as a matter of urgency so that no Member of this Parliament should leave the Parliament with their reputation impugned by unjustified security reports kept without their knowledge in secret files of security agencies. Mr DONALD CAMERON(Moreton) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That this House- (1) notes that bricklayers, carpenters, nursing sisters and many other occupations must now pay tax at the rate of 46c-in-the-dollar, and (2) condemns the Government for applying this tax rate to average weekly income earners and for not keeping its promise to lower taxes for 99 per cent of taxpayers. Mr BLANCHARD(Moore) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That this House- (1) notes the international economic survey compiled by the influential Conference Board of New York which shows that Australia's economy is expanding faster than those of other major western countries, and (2) congratulates the Government on the success of its economic policies. Mr GROOM(Braddon) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move : That this House commends Commissioner Costigan for the dedicated and fearless way he has executed his Commission, and regrets that the influence of powerful people has caused his demise. Mr MILDREN(Ballarat) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That this House expresses its revulsion at the well-documented brutality of South African police in dispersing peaceful placard carriers during the recent South African elections which demonstrates the South African Government's rejection of human rights for black South Africans. Mr SHIPTON(Higgins) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That this House- (1) expresses its concern at- (a) the refusal of the Arbitration Commission to review its 'job security' case decision, and (b) the Government's support of the ACTU's case before the Commission; (2) deplores the fact that- (a) the result of the decision means savage cost increases for small businesses , and (b) the value of the capital of many businesses will be wiped out because of the requirement to provide large sums for redundancy payments, and (3) condemns the Government for its support of the Commission's decision. Dr THEOPHANOUS(Burke) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That this House- (1) declares its total support for the objective of the elimination of poverty in Australia; (2) welcomes the measures in the 1984-85 Budget designed to achieve a redistribution of income in favour of the poor, and (3) urges the Government to maintain its commitment to the elimination of poverty. Mr McVEIGH —Is the Minister for Primary Industry aware that a series of crisis meetings expressing concern about Federal and State Labor Government policies relating to the wheat industry is being held in New South Wales during the next three days? Are these concerns about crippling Federal and State Government imposed costs, such as high railway charges and import duties on harvesters, and government attempts to socialise the industry? Will the Minister tell the House what action the Government intends to take to prevent the industry becoming uncompetitive in world markets on account of strikes and high wages such as a wage of $60,000 a year for grain terminal workers, while the average farmer's income is $8,500? Mr SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member for Darling Downs is supplying far too much information. Mr KERIN —This is terrific. This is the third question this year that I have had from the shadow Minister for Primary Industry, and I am very grateful to him for it. I am aware of the so-called crisis meetings with respect to the wheat industry that are being held throughout New South Wales. More than anything else that reflects a bit of a crisis in the leadership of the Livestock and Grain Producers Association of New South Wales which seems to be losing touch with what is happening in the wheat industry. The honourable member for Darling Downs lost touch with the industry quite a while back when we introduced a means whereby the Australian Wheat Board could raise money overseas and thereby save the Wheat Board tens, if not hundreds, of millions of dollars. The honourable member criticised that measure. The wheat plan, which I shall shortly be introducing in the Parliament, gives the Wheat Board and the wheat industry more flexibility. We shall introduce a permit system which will enable the Wheat Board to save costs for wheat growers. This Government is doing more to free up the Wheat Board and to give higher incomes and more returns to wheat growers than any other government has. Many of the problems referred to by the honourable member relate directly to State charges on the wheat industry. Off-farm costs is one of the questions that greatly concern the Commonwealth Government. That is part of the reason we are trying to move towards a permit system. If the honourable member could convince me that his beloved Queensland National Party Government is moving to do things that other State governments are not doing, he might have some argument. By and large, we are more aware of the problems of the wheat growing industry. We have moved to give more flexibility to the wheat industry and the Wheat Board. We are doing more for wheat growers than the honourable member for Darling Downs did when the Liberal Party was in government. Mr ROBERT BROWN —Will the Prime Minister detail to the House the steps that his Government is taking to stamp out the tax avoidance industry in Australia? Mr HAWKE —It is noticeable how touchy those opposite are on this subject; and well they might be. I can certainly give the details for which the honourable member for Hunter asked. As a result of the initial work of the Costigan Royal Commission into the Activities of the Federated Ship Painters and Dockers Union and the Government's response, the tax avoidance industry now knows that it can expect no protection in its nefarious activities. When the Liberal Party was in government it completely abdicated its responsibility to fight the tax avoidance industry. Mr Commissioner Costigan showed that year after year the former Government failed to institute prosecutions against tax evaders promoting illegal bottom of the harbour schemes , costing the people of this country hundreds of millions of dollars each year. The honourable member for Hunter will recall the rather lengthy extract that I read from the Royal Commission's interim third report. I shall not go into that report in detail again, but it is worth giving just a one sentence reminder. Mr Cadman —Mr Speaker, I raise a point of order. Is it a fact that the Prime Minister pulled Mr Costigan off his examination of tax avoiders? Mr SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member knows that that is not a point of order . The honourable member will resume his seat. Mr HAWKE —As I said, it is no wonder members of the Opposition are touchy about the Costigan subject. Anyone would be touchy when the Royal Commissioner, Mr Costigan, had this to say about their five years of government and the tax avoidance industry: This industry has developed in Australia, particularly over the last five years , at a rate far in excess of any other industry and has brought with it profits comparable only to the heady days of the Victorian gold rush. No wonder they are touchy about Mr Commissioner Costigan. Now under this increasingly desperate and untruthful Opposition leader, the Opposition has surrendered totally to the tax avoidance industry. Mr Hodgman —Not true. Mr HAWKE —What is certainly true-those opposite cannot avoid this-is that they have rejected on four separate occasions bottom of the harbour legislation submitted by the Government. Those are the facts. They are on the Hansard record of this country. That is what they have done on four separate occasions. In the case of our latest proposed legislation the actions of members of the Opposition have cost the ordinary, law abiding taxpayers of this country $270m. That is their contribution. I just ask honourable members to understand what that $270m which those opposite have helped the tax avoidance industry to hang on to would have enabled a government to do. It would have been enough to finance a tax cut of $44 a year for every taxpayer in Australia. It would have been enough to cut the marginal tax rate by 0.4 percentage points. For that they must and will answer to the Australian people. Their hypocrisy on this matter is even more striking when we think of the ostensible reason they have given, that is, their reference to the retrospective element involved in that legislation. Yet that was the essential element of the recoupment legislation that they reluctantly introduced when in government. Without reading it, the Deputy Leader of the Opposition will recall, because I have referred to it before, the point that he properly made on 23 September 1982 in regard to the acceptance by those opposite of the retrospectivity principle. What is the explanation for the way in which they in government and in opposition have protected the tax avoidance industry? Why have they consistently done it? I think it timely in the context of asking that hypothetical and obvious question to remind honourable members again of the article in yesterday' s Age regarding the donations by Mr Christo Moll, a notorious tax avoider and corporate criminal, to the Liberal Party. As I say, in government and in opposition they have been friends of the tax avoider. Unlike the previous Government, this Government is providing the resources to the Taxation Office to fight tax avoidance, and I give these figures to the House, particularly to the honourable member for Hunter. The Budget that we introduced last month into the House provides for an increase of over 700 in the total staff of the Taxation Office. That includes 392 new positions in addition to normal growth. That is an increase of 4.7 per cent in the resources of the Taxation Office, and it means a total increase in staff resources of the Australian Taxation Office, including the very substantial increase in our first Budget in 1982-83, of 13.5 per cent. Let us contrast that with what the previous Government did. I remind the House that in 1978 and 1981 the Budgets of the previous Government actually imposed staff reductions on the Taxation Office. No wonder the tax avoidance industry flourished during the years of those people in government. Mr PEACOCK —In view of the last answer, my question is directed to the Treasurer . Did the Treasurer have contact with the Attorney-General about the possible contents of the forthcoming report by Special Prosecutor Gyles? How many times did he discuss the possible contents with the Attorney-General, what matters were discussed by the Ministers, and did not the Treasurer seek to suppress some parts of the report dealing with the Taxation Office? Mr KEATING —The answer to the last part of the question is no. It is an absolute absurdity to think that I would be able to suppress parts of a report of a special prosecutor reporting to the Attorney-General. Mr Tuckey —Neville Wran will show you how. Mr KEATING —Just listen for a moment. The Attorney-General is obliged, I think, to report to Parliament. I reject absolutely the remark of the Leader of the Opposition, as I do the calibre of his remark yesterday, which was a total fabrication and an untruth, which the Leader of the Opposition knew. On the other question, I did have a communication with the Attorney-General-- Mr MacKellar —Oh! Mr KEATING —Well, Ministers do write to one another-clown! I had a communication with the Attorney-General after there had been some expression of concern to me by the Commissioner of Taxation about not only the question of Mr Gyles's activities but also indeed the question of the law and the taxation system. It may come as a shock to the Leader of the Opposition but I am the Minister responsible for the taxation system. The Attorney-General and the Treasurer communicate about these features, given the fact that Mr Gyles reports to the Attorney-General. I have had discussions and correspondence about a number of matters with the Attorney-General. I am quite happy to confirm them. Mr CUNNINGHAM —Is the Minister for Health aware of claims made by 60 Minutes and Nationwide that defective heart valves have caused at least five deaths in Australia? Is the Minister able to say whether the Government will take steps to ensure that heart valves and other therapeutic devices are placed under a satisfactory regime of testing and control to minimise the possibility of further occurrences of this kind? Dr BLEWETT —I am aware of the grave problems raised by the honourable member for McMillan. It was a matter of great concern to the Government when it became apparent that there was an inadequate regime in this country for supervising medical devices. It appears that at least five people in this country died as a result of faulty artificial heart valves. As soon as this was brought to the Government's attention an immediate report was sought from my Department on ways in which we could deal with this problem. I am pleased to say that since I received this report the Government has taken positive steps to ensure that medical devices used by Australian patients are administered through a safe and effective regime. My Department has moved to establish a register of medical devices sold in Australia, to collate and disseminate information on problems relating to them, to evaluate the safety and effectiveness of high risk items prior to their marketing, and to establish a facility to develop standards and to test certain types of devices. We have allocated $1.3m in the Budget to provide resources to carry this through and to establish a register of medical devices. If in the event of reports coming in of a faulty device, that device will be traced and an immediate alert issued. I have to say that in the 1970s there was a real revolution in medical devices internationally, a great development in this area, and I think that the previous Government was somewhat negligent in addressing the kinds of problems that flowed from that revolution. In developing this regime we will be learning from a number of other countries which have begun to apply effective regimes in this area-notably, the United States of America, the United Kingdom, Sweden and West Germany. Mr Hodgman —The Soviet Union. Dr BLEWETT —That frivolous remark from the honourable member for Denison is typical of the Opposition's attitude. I was listing a series of Western democratic countries from which we are learning about this regime. We got from the honourable member for Denison the remark 'The Soviet Union'. It is typical of the frivolous attitude this Opposition took to this question when in government. Mr Tuckey —Mr Speaker, I raise a point of order. The matter would no doubt get considerable support from the Opposition-- Mr SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member will come to his point of order. Mr Tuckey —It would get support if it were put other than as a question. Mr SPEAKER —The honourable member will come to his point of order. Mr Tuckey —Yes, sir. My point of order is that this is an abuse of Question Time and yet it is a matter that could be dealt with at another time. Mr SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member will resume his seat. I call the Minister for Health. Mr Steedman —You are an abuse of Parliament. Mr Goodluck —On a point of order, Mr Speaker, that is a remark that I ask the honourable member to withdraw. Mr SPEAKER —The honourable member for Franklin has asked for the withdrawal of a remark of which the Chair has no knowledge. Does he wish to persist? Mr Goodluck —The trouble is, sir, that it is broadcast time. Many people in Australia may have heard it if you did not. Mr SPEAKER —Order! I call the Minister for Health. Dr BLEWETT —So that members of the House will have realistic expectations in this area, I have to say that the enormous range of devices, ranging from quite simple hypodermic syringes to highly sophisticated computer controlled X-ray equipment, means that we will be able in the first instance to give priority only to high risk medical devices, but we will be seeking the co-operation of manufacturers and distributors to make a broadly effective regime in this area. Mr PEACOCK —My question is directed to the Minister representing the Attorney- General. I note the delay, at least until this week, in the printing of the Gyles report. Bearing in mind the action of the Attorney-General in relaying the Treasurer's representations to Mr Gyles to suppress elements of the Government's mishandling of tax evasion, I ask again: Will the Minister assure the House that the Gyles report will be tabled before this parliamentary session ends? Mr LIONEL BOWEN —Let us make the position very clear. The Leader of the Opposition keeps asking me questions about reports which have not even been received by the Attorney-General. It is a very interesting fact that the first question asked about the Gyles report was asked before the Attorney-General even received it. The Opposition certainly is getting a lot of information which, as the Leader of the Opposition knows, it is getting before the Attorney-General is receiving it. He asks me questions in this House as to why the report, which has not yet been received by the Attorney-General, is not tabled. Surely the honourable gentleman has enough integrity to know how to behave when he knows that we do not have the report. It may be about time he looked at his position in the Parliament and realised that there is not much sense in asking questions about the tabling of reports which he knows have not yet been received by the Government. I make the point that every night I have to write to the honourable gentleman to tell him that the reports about which he is asking have not been received by us but, of course, are in his possession. Perhaps I should put an additional paragraph in the letter asking him to oblige the Government by telling it who is giving him these reports in advance. After all, there is some probity about the situation. Let us make it very clear that we are always mindful of the fact that when we were in opposition honourable members opposite did not just ask questions; they used to send the police around at times to find out why we had some information. We are not worried about that, but let us be very honest and bona fide. I understand that the Gyles report has been received by the Government today, so the honourable gentleman is a week in advance of us. I tell him that the Attorney, as is his duty, will guarantee that this report is tabled without any delay. So I do not think that we will be stampeded into any action because the honourable gentleman has some special privilege these days by which he is able to get reports, be they in draft or printed form, well before the Government gets them. That is a matter which, obviously, the Attorney-General ought to pursue further. Dr THEOPHANOUS —Will the Prime Minister assure the House that the Government will continue its rational approach to industry development, based on co- operation and consultation on industry policy, and will ignore the Opposition's new industry policy, which proposes abolition of the Australian Manufacturing Council and other consultative councils? Mr HAWKE —I have noted the Opposition's industry policy. Our prayers have been answered. Opposition members will continue to produce these policies. I hope that they continue to do so, because we notice in this so-called policy that the Opposition proposes the abolition, as the honourable member suggests in his question, of the Australian Manufacturing Council, industry advisory councils, the Economic Planning Advisory Council and the Prices Justification Tribunal, and the sale of the Australian Industry Development Corporation. Opposition members-Hear, hear! Mr HAWKE —I am glad to hear Opposition members say 'Hear, hear!' because I assure them that the Australian people will be left in no doubt about their intentions. The restructured Australian Manufacturing Council, headed by Mr John Ralph, the Managing Director of Conzinc Riotinto of Australia Ltd, will greatly assist consideration of all the policies and issues affecting manufacturing industry, and will enable consideration of those issues by the great interests represented by businesses, employers, the trade union movement and governments. It is very instructive to understand that the Opposition wants to abolish that consultative mechanism in regard to the future of Australian manufacturing industry and bringing industry and the unions and governments together. I am pleased to hear it. So will the Australian people be pleased to hear it. In the same way as Opposition members want to abolish the Australian Manufacturing Council which is bringing the great interests of this country together to consider the issues of importance to the future of this country and its children 's opportunities for gainful employment in the future so they want to abolish EPAC which, on the broad macroeconomic scale, does the same sort of thing. But the Opposition wants EPAC to go too. The people of Australia overwhelmingly endorsed the concept of the National Economic Summit Conference, which brought the interests of Australia together. EPAC continues on a statutory basis the concept of the Summit; and it has been extremely useful. If we look at the Opposition's policy, in which it wants to abolish these instruments of co-operation and consultation, it is clear that the Opposition wants to abandon as a characteristic of Australian political and economic life the concept of bringing together the great interests of Australia. Opposition members want to go back to the dark days of confrontation, when they set industry against the trade unions, when they set groups of Australians against groups of Australians. They want to take this country back to the darkest days of the Fraser Government. All Australia knows what that produced. Just as a further indication of the reckless irrelevancy of Opposition members, they also want to sell off the Australian Industry Development Corporation, to get rid of that, showing that they are simply not interested in supporting Australian manufacturing industry. Mr Bilney —And what about the Commonwealth Bank? Mr HAWKE —I am aware of that. I am glad for the prompting by the honourable member for Kingston. But I also remind the honourable member for Burke and the people of Australia of what the Opposition proposes in its economic policy. It intends to sell off the Commonwealth Banking Corporation even though the Commonwealth Development Bank is the lender of last resort for small business. I assure the honourable member for Burke, this House and the people of Australia that we welcome this gradual unfolding of policies of irrelevant recourse to the past, because the people of Australia have made it clear that they have made their judgment on these processes of confrontation, these processes of refusing consultation. They have welcomed the redirection of Australia's resources, co- operatively and constructively, under this Government, and they will pass their judgment overwhelmingly when the opportunity is given to them. Mr WILSON —I refer the Minister representing the Minister for Social Security to A Guide to the Proposed Pensioners Assets Test published by the Department of Social Security. I ask: In light of this booklet and the Minister's assertions about the benign nature of the assets test, what will the Government do if, under the self-assessment provisions, pensioners do not assess themselves to be subject to the assets test? Is it not a fact that the Social Security Department can require not only a pensioner but also other persons, such as lawyers, accountants, relatives, neighbours, et cetera, to pimp on pensioners by furnishing information about a pensioner's assets? Is it not a fact that, if such a request is refused or information given is incorrect, not only the pensioners but also those other persons are liable to a $1,000 penalty or six months gaol, or both? Is it not a fact that this iniquitous assets test can operate only with severe punitive provisions? Dr BLEWETT —The compliance provisions to which the honourable member for Sturt has just referred are, of course, the compliance provisions in the Social Security Act. Of course, those compliance provisions were very much in operation during the period of the previous Government. Therefore, the provisions are very similar to those which operated over the previous seven years before this Government came to power. Let me at least give the Opposition the credit that when it was in power it operated those compliance provisions in relation to pensioners with a considerable degree of humanity and compassion. Exactly the same thing will occur in the way this Government operates the very similar compliance provisions under this Act. As I pointed out in relation to pensioners and the assets test, we will be relying basically on their self-assessment. If pensioners indicate to us that they are quite convinced, after having read through the assets test guide, that they are not covered by the pensioner test we will accept that, unless there is contrary evidence to suggest there is something false in their declaration. Mr FRY —I direct a question to the Minister for Territories and Local Government . In view of the serious unemployment problem which existed in Canberra when this Government took office, can he give an indication at all as to the impact this Government's policy has had on employment in the Australian Capital Territory? Mr UREN —This Government inherited in March 1983 an unemployment level of 9.2 per cent. The figures provided last week, the latest figures available, show that in this region unemployment fell to 4.1 per cent. The purpose of the policies carried out by this Government, based on a broad national approach, was to stimulate the housing and construction sector. We found that in the last year of the Fraser Government housing commencements in the Australian Capital Territory were down by 20 per cent. In our first year of government we were able to lift that figure by 37 per cent. This year housing commencements are up 50 per cent. On the question of land servicing, in the last year of the Fraser Government only 54 blocks were serviced by the Government. In our first year, we carried out the servicing of 2,200 blocks. This year 3,600 blocks will be serviced. On the question of construction, particularly office accommodation, there was a broad approach. We have had the complete co-operation of the private sector. Because the Government has had the support of the private sector in Canberra, it has been able to attack unemployment in the right places. We believe that unemployment will continue to fall in Canberra. We believe this Government is setting a sound economic base for a prosperous region for many years to come. Mr CADMAN —Does the Minister representing the Minister for Social Security read the Age newspaper? Did he read the Age newspaper this morning? Mr Goodluck —What paper? Mr CADMAN —The Age. If he read the Age-I know the Prime Minister does; he likes to catch up on the scandals-- Mr SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member will please get to his question. Mr CADMAN —Does the Minister recall an article on page 5 of that paper which reveals that 62 per cent of people believe that the Budget did not do enough for pensioners? The Prime Minister indicated in Question Time yesterday that he is a great-- Mr SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member for Mitchell should get to his question without including argument. Mr CADMAN —Do the results of the Age polls indicate how people feel about the assets test and the Government's attack on the elderly of Australia? Dr BLEWETT —I think the first thing to say about the poll generally is that that poll in relation to the Budget indicated overwhelming support amongst all the population for this Government's Budget. To take the specific point that has been raised by the honourable member for Mitchell, undoubtedly the point he made is correct that the poll did show that there were doubts about the Government's role in relation to the aged. I am not at all surprised, given the kind of terrorist campaign waged on this issue by members of the Opposition. One has only to read the debates in this House and the statements made outside, both by members of the Opposition and by their supporters in the Press, to notice the kinds of extraordinary and exaggerated stories that have been spread. So I have no doubt that those stories have had some effect. I have equally no doubt that, when the assets test is in operation and people can see that those fears and terror tactics are completely and totally exaggerated, this problem will disappear from the polls. But of course the most interesting aspect of the poll in relation to this very issue was that the pensioners themselves did not share that view anywhere near to the same extent as the rest of the population. They at least have been able to get the evidence. Mr BILNEY —I ask the Minister for Defence whether he has seen the exclusive report in this morning's Adelaide Advertiser newspaper that a major Swedish shipbuilding firm, by the name of Kochums, is intending to make a substantial investment in South Australia. Is he aware that that firm has commented very favourably on the technical and industrial advantages which South Australia offers as a site for the building of submarines to replace the present Australian fleet and, in particular, on the 'better organised' efforts that the Bannon Labor Government has made to secure this contract for South Australia? Mr SPEAKER —Order! Will the honourable member for Kingston proceed to his question? He is giving a lot of explanations. Mr BILNEY —Very well. Can the Minister outline to the House any information which would confirm the view of most informed observers that South Australia is the front-runner to secure the contract for this important national project? Mr SCHOLES —Mr Speaker, anything I could add to the question would almost be superfluous. The honourable gentleman has done an excellent job of advocacy for South Australia which is one of the contenders among the other States of Australia for the submarine program. I think I should inform the House that the submarine program is the subject of very detailed and competitive bidding by a number of areas in Australia. South Australia, through its Premier and its Government and with the combined support of the members from that State, especially Government members, has been bidding for this contract. Most other States have similar programs in place and they are being supported by their State governments. The position with the submarine program is that the definition of the final contenders will be determined towards the end of this year. The determination will depend on when the advice from the technical experts required is received and it will have nothing to do with political convenience. The program will then proceed to the selection of a final vessel, at which time we will proceed to what I think is the most competitive and the best supported Australian defence program to be announced and progressed in Australia. Mr CONNOLLY —Is it a fact that the Minister for Home Affairs and Environment has received the Australian Heritage Commission report on the conservation and significance of the wet tropics of north-east Queensland and associated referee reports? Do these referee reports recommend world heritage listing? If so, is he afraid to meet his earlier commitment to release the report so that this Parliament can be fully informed? Mr COHEN —The honourable member for Bradfield is as ill informed as the commentator on AM this morning. The history of the report is as follows: The original report commissioned by the Australian Heritage Commission was delivered on 2 July 1984. This was updated by a final report on 30 July 1984 and was given to international referees. The Commission has been waiting for the referees to deliver their final report. The report actually appeared on my desk yesterday at 9 a.m. Mr Connolly —When are you going to table it? Mr COHEN —When I have had a good look at it. Mr LEO McLEAY —Has the Minister for Housing and Construction noted a report in a Sydney newspaper headed 'Housing market slumps'? Can the Minister advise the House whether in fact this report is true? What has the Government done about it ? Mr HURFORD —I will respond to the last part of the honourable member's question first. The Government is doing something about it right now in responding to the honourable member for Grayndler's question. The information is quite untrue. The main claim of the article was that the housing industry was back in the doldrums . Heaven forbid that we should ever get back to the level of activity that obtained during the time when those honourable members, who are now on the Opposition benches, were in government. The truth is that there is no slump in any region of this country. Certainly there is a greater level of activity in some regions than there is in others. Responsible industry sources and, indeed, the Australian Bureau of Statistics tell the real story which is that the established home market-- Mr Cadman —You are three months out of date. Mr SPEAKER —Order! For the last time, I warn the honourable member for Mitchell to cease interjecting. Mr HURFORD —The established home market and new housing activity in this country are very stable. There was enormous activity during the March quarter. Thank goodness activity at that level did not continue. Thank goodness there has been some stabilising from that level. For instance, the number of housing loans made during the March quarter was the largest on record. We would certainly have got into an over-heated situation if that level of activity had continued. As you know, Mr Speaker, the figures of the Australian Bureau of Statistics are sometimes a few months behind, so we as a government go to those who are in the industry at the grass roots level. The New South Wales Multilist records show, for instance, that the number of houses sold in the three months to the end of July was 17 per cent higher than the number for the previous three months. But here is the significant figure: The number of houses sold during that period was 58 per cent higher than that for the corresponding period in 1983. I repeat: We do not want the industry to get over-heated, but let me tell honourable members what the dwelling approvals for July were as reported today by the Australian Bureau of Statistics. Total dwelling approvals, seasonally adjusted, strengthened in July to the highest level experienced since January 1974. That report was released today. Let me talk about the month of July on its own. Dwelling approvals during July totalled 13,830, which is 25.8 per cent Australia-wide above the July 1983 figure. The figure for the three months to July 1984 was 27.6 per cent above the level recorded in the three months to July 1983. I am happy to say that the best information coming to me and the Government is that the housing situation is not over-heated. There has not been a downturn. There is nothing like a slump. We are continuing to monitor the situation. The market is not over-heated, on the one hand, and we do not have a slump, on the other. The market is stabilising in between, and that is where it should be. Mr MACPHEE —I ask the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations: Does he agree that disputes such as those involving Continental Airlines and bans on 100 ships around Australia in July were resolved only because of the existence of sections 45D and 45E of the Trade Practices Act? How will the Minister satisfy the Japanese on his forthcoming visit to Japan that if these laws are repealed future disputes will be quickly resolved and long term mineral and other contracts honoured? In particular, how will he convince Japanese business leaders of this assertion, when he has so demonstrably failed to convince their Australian counterparts? Mr WILLIS —The disputes referred to by the honourable member are secondary boycott disputes. Of course, the Government has announced today that it will be taking action to repeal sections 45D and 45E of the Trade Practices Act and to expand considerably the provisions in the Conciliation and Arbitration Act to enable these disputes to be heard in the area where they should be heard, that is, in the industrial machinery area, and not dealt with under an Act which, on the face of it, has nothing to do with industrial disputation. The fact is that, despite the claim of the honourable member for Balaclava, there is no evidence at all to suggest that sections 45D and 45E have been effective in resolving industrial disputes. Indeed, there is strong evidence to show that in many cases the taking out of injunctions under section 45D or section 45E has led to an exacerbation of those disputes, by way of either extending bans or leading to an extension of an existing ban over time. We believe that the way to deal with these kinds of disputes is through the industrial dispute machinery and that, therefore, they should be dealt with by the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission and not under an Act which is to do with maintaining competition and not with resolving industrial disputes. The fact is, of course, that when section 45D was introduced the Fraser Government went far beyond what the Swanson Trade Practices Act Review Committee recommended, which was that something should be done to enable those affected by a secondary boycott to take that dispute somewhere. Mr Howard —And it has worked. Mr WILLIS —I ask the Deputy Leader of the Opposition to be quiet for a moment. That Committee did not say that it should be done under the Trade Practices Act. It said that it could be-- Mr Howard —It has worked. Mr SPEAKER —Order! The Deputy Leader of the Opposition has repeated the same interjection several times. I suggest that he desist. Mr WILLIS —The Committee said that such disputes could be dealt with under either the Trade Practices Act or the Conciliation and Arbitration Act. We believe that what was done was to put in the Trade Practices Act a provision which goes far beyond what that Act is about; it is inappropriately placed there . What we should be doing is dealing with these disputes with the industrial disputes settling machinery. That is what the legislation which will be introduced later this week will be about. I believe that these types of industrial disputes will be resolved in a better way by using that machinery than they have been by using sections 45D and 45E of the Trade Practices Act. Those who seek to criticise this Government's industrial relations record ought to look at that record because there is no doubt that under us the industrial disputes situation in this country has been massively improved. I remind the House again that the level of disputes was one-third less in 1983-84 than it was the previous year and two-thirds less than it was the year before, and the lowest for 16 years. Our record is there to be seen. We are not about undertaking action which will lead to an exacerbation of industrial disputation. We have shown that we can act in a way which resolves industrial disputes more effectively than any government over the previous 16 years and we will not upset that record with the legislation which we will introduce later this week. Mrs DARLING —Can the Prime Minister assure Australian women, and men where appropriate, balancing the household budget that the 1984-85 Budget will support and not hurt the family unit? Mr HAWKE —I am indebted to the honourable member for Lilley for her question and I can give her the assurance that she seeks. This Budget, which was brought down by the Treasurer, has, as is well known and documented now, been widely approved around Australia. One of the reasons for its very wide approval is that families , and particularly those who have the direct responsibility for budgeting for families, recognise that it will play an important part in continuing the process of gradually improving the real standards available to them. There are so many good things in the Budget relevant to the question asked that I cannot go to all of them, but let me go to those which are most important and most significant. First of all, the Budget plays its part in continuing the bringing down of the inflation rate which we inherited from our conservative predecessors. When we came to office the inflation rate was over 11 per cent per annum-a quite horrendous rate, particularly when it was associated with high and rising levels of unemployment. Already we have more than halved that rate of inflation. This Budget brought down by my colleague the Treasurer will continue that process of inflation reduction. Nothing can be more important for the people, the families and those budgeting than to know that we have got away from those horrendously high levels of inflation which were characteristic of the previous Government. I also refer to employment. What is very important for the families of Australia is that they have some hope about future employment prospects for their young people. In the last year of the conservative Government there was an increase in unemployment of a quarter of a million. Under this Government and its budgetary policy, which has been continued in the last Budget, there has been already an increase of a quarter of a million jobs. That is a half a million turnaround. Mr Goodluck —Not in Tasmania. Mr HAWKE —I cannot help it if the State Government of Tasmania is incompetent. I have talked about inflation, and I have talked about jobs which have been assisted by this Budget. I also refer the honourable member to interest rates. Under this Government and its budgetary policies there has been a reduction in interest rates and that is a very important component for average families. There has been a considerable reduction in the general level of interest rates. Home interest rates are down by one per cent and the strategy followed by my colleague the Treasurer, in implementing the policy of the Government, will ensure that there is further downward pressure on interest rates rather than the achievement of record high interest rates which occurred under the previous Government. Those are some of the basic areas of importance to the type of family about whom the honourable member was talking-inflation, interest rates and job opportunities. Let me go to the more specific details. The average tax cut of $7.60 will increase the disposable income available to those budgeting for families. That will ensure gradually increasing real standards of living for those families and the women of Australia who generally have the most significant role in that respect. Let me point out to the honourable member that, apart from that broad average picture which I properly paint, this Government, through the Treasurer's Budget, showed especial concern for the most needy. I suggest-I know that the honourable member recognises this from her work-that the greatest area of need lies with single parent families with children. I am very proud of the fact that in the Budget brought down by the Treasurer the greatest help was given in that area of need. I think the honourable member would know that a single parent with two children and paying rent will have an increase in her or his weekly income of $ 13.50, which is made up, as I think the honourable member will appreciate, of the basic pension increase of $2.50, the parent's allowance of $2, an amount of $2 for each child and $5 in additional rent assistance. The most needy single parent, male or female, with two children will receive an additional $13.50. Whether we look at the broad picture, taking account of the factors on which I have elaborated in this answer, or whether we look particularly at those most in need, people can look with confidence, as they have done, at the way in which this Budget has addressed itself to the needs of ordinary, everyday Australians. We are properly proud of the Budget that has been brought down by the Treasurer. Mr LIONEL BOWEN(Kingsford-Smith-Minister for Trade) —For the information of honourable members, I present a report on the Australian High-level Trade Mission which visited Japan from 1 to 11 July 1984 together with the text of a statement relating to the report. Mr LIONEL BOWEN(Kingsford-Smith-Minister for Trade) —Pursuant to section 20 (1) of the Special Prosecutors Act 1982, I present the annual and final report of former Special Prosecutor Redlich for the year ended 1983-84, together with the text of a statement by the Attorney-General (Senator Gareth Evans) relating to the report. Motion (by Mr Young) proposed: That the House take note of the papers. Debate (on motion by Mr Steele Hall) adjourned. Mr SCHOLES(Corio-Minister for Defence) —Pursuant to section 23E of the Army and Air Force Canteen Service Regulations 1981, I present the Army and Air Force Canteen Service Board of Management annual report for 1983, together with the Auditor-General's report and the audited financial statements and balance sheets . Mr BARRY JONES(Lalor-Minister for Science and Technology) —For the information of honourable members, I present the Science and Technology Statement 1983-84. The statement was made available to all honourable members during the adjournment. Mr UREN(Reid-Minister for Territories and Local Government) —Pursuant to section 10 of the Local Government (Personal Income Tax Sharing) Act 1976, I present the report of the Local Government Grants Commission, New South Wales, 1983-84 which contains the re- commendations for distribution of Commonwealth income tax funds to individual councils by the Local Government Grants Commission, New South Wales. In September 1983, I approved the recommendations of the Local Government Grants Commission of New South Wales and payments to New South Wales were made on 21 September 1983 by the Treasury. Mr HOWARD(Bennelong) —Madam Deputy Speaker, I seek leave to make a personal explanation. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER —Does the honourable member claim to have been misrepresented? Mr HOWARD —Yes, I do. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER —Please proceed. Mr HOWARD —Thank you. During Question Time, in a very lengthy answer on the subject of tax avoidance, the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) quite misleadingly and dishonestly sought to draw a conflict between the position that I took as Treasurer in the former Government-- Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member may not impugn the Prime Minister as dishonest. Mr HOWARD —Madam Deputy Speaker, if I am prevailed upon by your courtesy I will accede to that. The Prime Minister's statement quite incorrectly suggested that there was a conflict between the attitude I took as Treasurer in introducing the recoupment legislation in 1982 and the attitude I took as a member of the Opposition in voting against the Government's retrospective capital gains tax legislation when it was-- Mr Keating —I take a point of order. Mr HOWARD —Madam Deputy Speaker, we are either going to have some ground rules-- Mr Keating —Madam Deputy Speaker, this happens after every Question Time-- Mr HOWARD —Well, if you stopped telling lies-- Mr Keating —If it is too hot in the kitchen-- Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The Treasurer will resume his seat. Mr Keating —If it is too hot in the kitchen-- Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The Treasurer will resume his seat. Mr HOWARD —If anyone has no right to talk about heat in the kitchen, it is the Treasurer. He is the most sensitive member on the front bench. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The Deputy Leader of the Opposition will withdraw the word 'liar'. Mr HOWARD —I did not say that he was a liar. I said that if the Government stopped telling lies during Question Time we would not have to correct them, and the Prime Minister is the worst offender in the Parliament. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member will not cast imputations against the Prime Minister. Mr HOWARD —With respect, I am not. Mr Keating —Madam Deputy Speaker, each day after Question Time the Deputy Leader of the Opposition has his little go-- Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! There is no point of order. Mr Keating —No, the point of order is that he is not being personally misrepresented, but he is here every day doing this. Mr HOWARD —Perhaps the Treasurer would facilitate a debate with me on tax avoidance and then we could avoid-- Mr Keating —We have one in five minutes. Mr HOWARD —I would be delighted to have a debate with you on tax avoidance any day. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The Deputy Leader of the Opposition will resume his seat. I call the honourable member for Denison. Mr Hodgman —I seek leave to make a personal explanation. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER —Does the honourable member claim to have been misrepresented? Mr HOWARD —I have not finished yet. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER —I was under the impression that the Deputy Leader of the Opposition had completed. Mr HOWARD —The problem is that-- Mr Uren —Madam Deputy Speaker, I raise a point of order. The fact is that the Chair called the honourable member for Denison and therefore the Chair must-- Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The Chair was under the impression that the Deputy Leader of the Opposition had finished. I ask the Deputy Leader of the Opposition to wind up his personal explanation. Mr HOWARD —I think I ought to start again because everybody has lost the place. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER —The honourable member will concentrate on how he has been misrepresented. Mr Keating —On a point of order: He has not been personally misrepresented. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The Treasurer will resume his seat. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition will concentrate on how he has been personally misrepresented. Mr HOWARD —All right, as long as junior Marmaduke does not interrupt. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER —That is enough. Just get on with your personal explanation . Mr HOWARD —During Question Time, the Prime Minister incorrectly said that there was a conflict between the position I took as Treasurer in the former Government in introducing the 1982 recoupment legislation and the position I took as a member of the Opposition in opposing the retrospective capital gains tax legislation of this Government. There is no conflict because all the ingredients of the Government's legislation which we have voted against were introduced as amendments to our recoupment legislation in 1982 and in every respect we rejected those amendments in 1982. There is no inconsistency whatsoever. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member has made his point. He may now resume his seat. Mr Keating —Madam Deputy Speaker, I wish to raise a point of order about the whole procedure of personal explanations after Question Time. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition has his own reply by way of personal explanations after each Question Time because he is the most sensitive person in the House. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! Provided that honourable members stick to where they are personally misrepresented, the Chair will hear them. Mr Keating —The Deputy Leader of the Opposition never does that. He is just sensitive to all the charges thrown at him by the Government. Mr HODGMAN(Denison) —Madam Deputy Speaker, I seek leave to make a personal explanation. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER —Does the honourable member claim to have been misrepresented? Mr HODGMAN —I do. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER —The honourable member may proceed. Mr HODGMAN —I have again been disgracefully misrepresented by the Minister for Social Security (Senator Grimes), and on two separate occasions. In the Melbourne Sun of 8 September, Senator Grimes falsely accused me of conducting a campaign against pensioners because I dared to point out, as a matter of law, that gold dental fillings are assets under the Hawke assets test, whether the elderly person is alive or dead. In the Senate on 10 September, the Minister for Social Security again grossly misrepresented me, and his comments appear in the Senate Hansard. I reject Senator Grimes's misrepresentations. This is the third time he has done it in the past seven days, and I now call on Senator Grimes and the Government to amend the legislation-- Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member has made his personal explanation. He may not debate the issue. Mr HODGMAN —by excluding gold dental fillings from the Hawke assets test. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member for Denison, having completed his personal explanation, will resume his seat. Mr Young —On a point of order: I think that the honourable member for Denison must have been representing the right honourable member for New England when he found out about the gold dental fillings. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! No point of order is involved. Mr CONNOLLY(Bradfield) —Madam Deputy Speaker, I seek leave to make a personal explanation. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER —Does the honourable member claim to have been misrepresented? Mr CONNOLLY —Yes. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER —The honourable member may proceed. Mr CONNOLLY —The Minister for Home Affairs and Environment (Mr Cohen) claimed, in answering my question earlier today as to whether he had received a consultant's report on the north Queensland rainforests and their world heritage significance, that I was ill-informed, and he put me in the same category as the Australian Broadcasting Corporation PM program. I reject this because I know that he received a report yesterday-- Mr Cohen —This is not a personal explanation. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member for Bradfield will resume his seat. He has not been personally misrepresented. He should not have sought leave to make a personal explanation. The Clerk —Petitions have been lodged for presentation as follows and copies will be referred to the appropriate Ministers: To the Right 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. We are completely satisfied with the design of the existing Australian national flag. 2. We are aware it properly reflects the immutable characteristics of Australia , namely: The Union Jack-itself the creation of 3 Christian crosses-represents the nation 's historical origin, and the source of its language and law. The Southern Cross on an azure blue background signifying its place in space. The large star depicting the advent of Federation in 1901. 3. We know the flag has been a source of inspiration to generations of Australians in peace and war. 4. We 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. We are certain that any change to the flag will produce division in the Australian community. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that your honourable house will: Propose and pass a motion that 'the existing Australian national flag remains sacrosanct from change'. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Blunt,Mr Rocher and Mr Tuckey. 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 Dobie and Mr Lusher. 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 Chynoweth and 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: 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,Mr Lloyd and Mr Tuckey. 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 utilising 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. by Mr Cadman,Mr Hawker and Mr Rocher. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of citizens of Australia respectfully shows: We are concerned that- (a) the Report of the Interim National Occupational Health and Safety Commission fails to recognise the important role and contribution of Workers' Health Centres in providing occupational health and safety services and information and (b) fails to include those organisations in its proposed national strategy. Your petitioners therefore pray that in considering the recommendations of the Interim National Occupational Health and Safety Commission the Commonwealth Government commit itself to a strategy which includes the continuation of, and support for, existing Workers' Health Centres in recognition of their critical role in occupational health and safety. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Baldwin. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned respectfully showeth that we believe that there are unresolved economic, social, biological, genetic, environmental, technical and ethical problems associated with the mining of Uranium and the Development of Nuclear power, in particular: (a) to the proven contribution of the nuclear power industry to the proliferation of nuclear weapons and the increased risk of nuclear war; and (b) the absence of procedures for the storage and disposal of radioactive wastes to ensure that any danger posed by such wastes to human life and the environment is eliminated. Your petitions most humbly pray that: (1) No new Uranium mines be commenced; (2) No new contracts for the sale of Uranium be approved; (3) Uranium mines presently in production cease with the fulfilment of current contracts; (4) No new Uranium is supplied to countries making or testing nuclear weapons. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Blanchard. 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. We assert that TAFE, with over 1 million students, requires greatly improved resources if it is to continue to train Australia's skilled workforce effectively. 2. We call upon the Commonwealth Government to provide greatly increased funds to ensure that TAFE is accessible to all Australians, unlike the present time when thousands of people are turned away from TAFE colleges each year. 3. We urge the Commonwealth Government to equip TAFE workshops with the advanced technology used in modern Australian industries, and to expand TAFE's capital works program so that sufficient quality accommodation is available for TAFE teachers and students. 4. We ask that the Commonwealth Government greatly increase TAFE's recurrent expenditure, so that TAFE can respond quickly and flexibly to industry, Government and community demands. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Blunt. 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. The Federal Labor Government's retirement income policies are piecemeal, inconsistent and make no provision to encourage people to save towards their retirements; and 2. the Government's proposed assets test legislation is iniquitous and, if enacted, its effects would be discriminatory. Your petitioners humbly pray that the House of Representatives, in Parliament assembled, urge the Government to: 1. scrap its proposed assets test legislation; 2. either institute a broad inquiry into Australia's retirement income and taxation systems or await the outcome of the Senate Standing Committee on Social Welfare's work on this matter; and, 3. following the report of such a wide inquiry institute a retirement income policy which is fair and equitable, that encourages self-provision and which will be non-discriminatory. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Blunt. 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 for 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 Blunt. To the Honourable the Speaker and the Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully shows:- (1) That we unreservedly oppose the Federal Government's proposals in relation to the censorship laws designed for the Australian Capital Territory; and further we oppose any such proposal on censorship laws becoming law in any State in Australia. (2) That we consider it right and proper that the citizens of this nation be consulted, and their views and desires respected in the formulation of law in censorship and similar areas. (3) That it is with alarm the proposed censorship laws are regarded by citizens living in a society based on christian ethics. In essence Australia is a Christian nation and our nation's laws must reflect and uphold our established values. Legislation which sanctions behaviour repugnant to Christians, is legislation not appropriate to Australia. Moreover, it is legislation which condones the destruction of the very fabric of our society. Legislation which promotes the degradation, abasement and exploitation of people, both young and old, and of our nation, is unacceptable. (4) That we the undersigned request the Government to heed the points in this petition, and abandon its 1983 decision to alter the Australian Capital Territory Classification of Publications Ordinance forthwith. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Braithwaite. To the Honourable the Speaker, and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled: The humble petition of the undersigned electors of Australia respectfully shows that the Australian flag reflects Australia's membership of the Commonwealth of Nations, her position in the southern hemisphere and her federation of original colonies; recognises that the flag as a symbol of pride for most Australians, such that several organisations, including the ALP, incorporated the flag in their motifs. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Australian Government will resist moves to change the Australian flag, or if changes is contemplated that the question be put to the Australian people by referendum to seek their views. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Braithwaite. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. Your petitioners humbly pray that the House of Representatives should disallow the new Customs and Objectionable Publications Ordinance, and reject the Remuneration Tribunal's travel entitlement to de facto wives of Parliamentarians and the ABC's Commissioners decision to allow the de facto and homosexual partners of ABC staff to travel at public expense, and that the Government should introduce laws to: (1) Prevent the importation and sale of hard core pornography and grossly obscene publications, (2) Register imported pornographic video tapes for non-commercial use with the Film Censorship Board and require the Censor to more appropriately reflect responsible community attitudes, (3) Protect Australians and those who enter into de jure (legal) marriages, and their families, from exploitation and encroachment of immoral regulations and Acts into the traditional and Christian forms of life. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Braithwaite. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The Petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth that whereas the Government of Australia has signed the United Nations Covenant on Civil and Political Rights which in Article 23 (1) states that 'The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to the protection by society and the State'. And whereas the terms of the United Nations Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women would violate the above Article 23 (1). We humbly pray the Government to refrain from ratifying the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women; Believing that its implementation would result in: (1) Undue cost to the Nation at this time. (2) 'The elimination of any stereotyped concept of roles of men and women at all levels' as described in Part 3 Article 10 (c), being a disruption of traditional parental roles, is likely to result in emotional disturbances of childhood. (3) The strong encouragements to mothers to join the workforce, with the provision of networks of creches and child care centres as outlined in Article 11 of the convention is likely to result in maternal deprivation and psychological disturbances among children with an increase in childhood psychiatric illnesses. (4) The sexual role changing as recommended in Part 3 Article 10 (c) is likely to contribute to further marriage insecurity and breakdown. And we pray you may be conscious of God's sovereign purpose for our Nation and your petitioners 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 citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: 1. That an airport in the north-western region (commonly called Scheyville) imposes disastrous economic, environmental and social costs on our community. 2. An airport would destroy 2,000 households and impose upheaval, noise and pollution on one million people presently unaffected. 3. The cost of an airport in the north-western region is greater than the alternatives, whilst fog and close proximity to RAAF Base Richmond would make operations impractical. 4. It would destroy the historic village of Pitt Town, environmentally important wetlands, and their unique adherent wildlife. 5. 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 'ACT 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, and in particular the citizens of the Manning Valley, respectfully showeth: That we, the loyal citizens of Australia and in particular the citizens of the Manning Valley, firmly express our strong opposition to the classification of the Taree Open Cadet Unit as a unit to receive limited support only under the restructured Army Cadet Scheme. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Minister for Defence direct the Australian Army to re-classify the Taree Open Cadet Unit as an open, community- based, regional cadet unit (R.C.U.). And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Cowan. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled: The petition of the undersigned respectfully showeth: 1. That governments have a responsibility to maintain standards acceptable to society's wishes. 2. It cannot be guaranteed that X-rated video material will not be viewed by children. Your petitioners most humbly pray that the House of Representatives assembled should: Not adopt the X Classification for Films and Video Tapes, nor Category 2 for Printed Material. Further, that tighter restrictions be applied to R rated Films and Video Tapes and Category 1 Printed Material. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Fry. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the Legislative Assembly of the Commonwealth Government of Australia in Parliament of Australia. The petition of the undersigned citizens of the Country of Australia, respectively ask: 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 assembled. The 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 and the House assembled will close Omega. by Mr Kent. 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: The Labor Government's policy of automatically increasing the excise applying to beer- increases the price of beer, eliminates the opportunity for public or parliamentary debate on a tax increase , perpetuates inflation, reduces job opportunities in the hotel and brewing industries. Your petitioners therefore urge the Government to immediately repeal those laws which automatically increase the excise on beer when the C.P.I. increases. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Lusher. 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/discs 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 O'Neil. To the Right Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled. Your petitioners humbly pray that the House of Representatives, in Parliament assembled; should disallow the new Customs and Objectionable Publications Ordinance and that: The Attorney-General enforce laws 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 importation and sale of grossly obscene publications, including those associated with blasphemy be prevented; Imported video tapes/discs for non-commercial use to be registered by the Films Censorship Board; Censors more appropriately reflect responsible attitudes; Further measures be taken in association with 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 Blunt. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. Your petitioners humbly pray that the House of Representatives should disallow the new Customs and Objectionable Publications Ordinance and that the Attorney-General should introduce laws to: 1. Prevent the importation and sale of hard-core pornography 2. Prevent the importation and sale of grossly obscene publications 3. Register imported pornographic video tapes for non-commercial use with the Film Censorship Board 4. Require the Censor to more appropriately reflect responsible community attitudes 5. Protect Australians, particularly women and children from exploitation; and Your petitioners also request 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 Lusher. 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 victimised by the Department of Health and 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 petition of certain citizens of Australia shows that the current discriminatory application of sales tax on confectionery at the rate of 20% 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. 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 petitioner 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 Mr Drummond. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of certain electors of the Division of Forrest respectfully showeth that the Australian Citizenship Act contains provision for the Oath of Allegiance to Her Majesty Elizabeth II Queen of Australia, her heirs and successors, and an Affirmation of Allegiance to Her Majesty Elizabeth II Queen of Australia, her heirs and successors: That the said Oath and Affirmation of Allegiance are supported by the overwhelming majority of Australians. Your petitioners humbly pray that members of the House of Representatives in Parliament Assembled will ensure that the present Oath and Affirmation of Allegiance are retained; and would strongly oppose any attempt to remove all reference to God and the Queen from the Oath of Allegiance, and any attempt to remove all reference to the Queen from the Affirmation of Allegiance. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Drummond. Petitions received. Bill returned from the Senate without amendment. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mrs Child) —Mr Speaker has received a letter from the Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard) proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion, namely: The major budgetary problems for 1985 created by this year's pre-election Budget. I call upon those members who approve of the proposed discussion to rise in their places. More than the number of members required by the Standing Orders having risen in their places- Mr HOWARD(Bennelong)(3.18) —One thing is absolutely crystal clear about this Government and this Treasurer (Mr Keating). That is that this Budget is designed solely to give the Australian electorate some kind of warm inner glow until about 15 December. 'Hear, hear!' says the Treasurer. That is a very instructive interjection. The good old junior Marmaduke has walked into it again. Mr Keating —Madam Deputy Speaker, I raise a point of order. I made no such interjection. Mr HOWARD —He talks about the heat in the kitchen! Mr Keating —Madam Deputy Speaker, the Deputy Leader of the Opposition imputes to me a remark that I did not make. I said nothing. Mr HOWARD —No, it was not a remark; it was an indication of support. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER —There is no point of order. The Treasurer will resume his seat. Mr HOWARD —It is even more clear from that very sensitive interruption that the sole purpose of this Budget is to give the Australian electorate some kind of warm inner glow. It is then meant to self-destruct at about the middle of December. The one thing that this Government does not want this Parliament or this nation to focus on, particularly over the next couple of months, is the disastrous effect that this Budget will have upon the economic management of this country next year. What this Government has done through this Budget, in the name of purchasing what it sees as cheap political advantage, is to create an horrendous problem for the Budget makers of next year. This Government has forsaken any kind of long term planning in the preparation of this Budget. This Government and this Treasurer in particular have been pathologically determined to avoid any kind of look at next year. What has the Government done in response to every question that has been raised by the Opposition about the revenue situation next year, every time the Opposition has asked where the money is to come from next year and every time the Opposition has drawn attention to the exceptional circumstances that gave rise to a revenue surge this year that cannot possibly be repeated next year? It has run away from those questions. It has talked in general terms about the current economic situation. It has engaged in an economic history lesson about the last 18 months and, consistent with the approach that it has taken to the economy over the last 18 months, it has looked to avoid completely any examination of the longer term situation. The truth is that this year's Budget has been built upon an exceptional, unusual, once-only situation so far as revenue collections are concerned. Mr Keating —Nonsense. Mr HOWARD —We will see at the end of this debate whether, on the record and on the facts, that interjection is justified. Yesterday I put to the honourable gentleman a series of questions that were based on some comments contained in Syntec. Of course, the honourable gentleman sneeringly said: 'We are not run by Syntec'. I will not rely on Syntec. I shall remind him of a couple of things that have come out of the Sydney Morning Herald about his economic management. I shall remind him of the article written by Maximilian Walsh a couple of weeks ago, in which he said that this Budget was the beginning of the end of the Hawke Government. Maximilian Walsh, along with Syntec and along with many other people , made exactly the same comment about the strategy upon which this year's Budget was based. The Government's strategy has been: Take a once only, never to be repeated, surge in revenue receipts, provide a modest reduction in the deficit, and spend the rest. The Treasurer has run around the country beating his breast and saying: 'Look how terrific I am. I have reduced the deficit, and I have given you all a tax cut. Am I not terrific?' He does not tell people that this is the biggest spending Budget since the end of World War II. He does not tell people that it claims 31.1 per cent of gross domestic product for expenditure. He does not tell people that it is the largest taxing Budget since the end of World War II. He does not tell people that it claims 27.9 per cent of gross domestic product in taxation collections. Above all, he certainly does not tell people what will happen next year. But there is one person on the Government front bench who has been honest enough to say something about what will happen next year-the good old friendly Minister for Science and Technology (Mr Barry Jones). Mr Rocher —He is honest. Mr HOWARD —He ought to be called Honest Barry, because three days after the Budget he went on the World Today program and, in words which I promise he will never be allowed to forget, he said: 'The problem is that three months before an election you are never game to put up taxation'. But it got even better as he waxed even more lyrical in answer to questions. He said: 'If we get back and if we have three years in front of us in government, we will then be game to put up taxation and to find new sources of revenue'-and everyone believes that there ought to be new sources of revenue-'and then we will be able to spend a great deal more money'. It is little wonder that he was immediately dragged into the corner office by the Prime Minister's minders and called to account and asked to explain why he had engaged in that remarkable piece of breast-baring, that remarkable piece of economic candour. The Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) undoubtedly said: 'You have no right to tell the truth to the Australian public about this issue before the election. How dare you say that? Don't you know that the only people who are authorised to make economic statements on behalf of the Government are the Prime Minister, the Treasurer and the Minister for Finance? Don't you know that the strategy of the Budget is to give everyone a warm inner glow until about 15 December, in the hope that we can beguile them into supporting us again? What happens after that does not really matter'. The Opposition will be telling the people in very direct and lucid terms over the next few weeks what will happen to Australia's budgetary position if this Government is re-elected. We will be telling them that there will be three options facing them next year: First, whoever is in power will have to slash expenditure dramatically, in a way that this Government has demonstrated it has no stomach to do; or, secondly, the government will have to live with a deficit of uncontrollable proportions; or, thirdly-and more likely were a Labor government to be re-elected, in that unlikely event, at the end of this year-a Labor government would jack up taxation. That, of course, was what the Minister for Science and Technology was on about. The reason that will become unavoidable if this Government is re-elected is that the surge in revenue collections this year simply cannot be repeated next year. In answer to my question yesterday the Treasurer sought to throw scorn on what I had said. Let me repeat the comment because it gives a clue to the Treasurer's utter misunderstanding not only of the observation that I had made but also of the situation that will arise next year. He said: The other great lie parroted by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition is that for some reason, having come from depression levels of receipts and got to this point, we shall in some way relapse into a depression level of receipts. That is not going to happen. That is why talk by the former Treasurer about next year's Budget is bunkum. I tell the Treasurer and the House that in order for my prophecy about the problem next year to be fulfilled we do not have to lapse back into depression levels of receipts. What I am saying is that when we come out of a recessed economy receipts obviously climb at a very spectacular level. But once we have climbed out of the recession they start to flatten out. In order for my prophecy to be fulfilled and that gap to be opened up between expenditure and receipts it is not necessary for receipts to go back, as the Treasurer so falsely believes, to recession levels; all they need to do is flatten out and go back to the levels averaged over the last five or 10 years. If they go back to that there will be a gigantic revenue hole next year. There is no way in the world that it can be avoided. There is nothing that the Treasurer has said to refute this claim, and all the yapping at the table does not constitute a rational response. I know that he is very touchy not only about this but also about lots of other things. He is touchy about the political position of all his mates in Sydney. He knows that some of them are under the hammer. He knows that the sands are fast running out for the Labor Government in New South Wales. He knows that that sort of rot might start to spread. That is why he is so jumpy. That is why he gets up at the drop of a hat and demonstrates that, if ever there was anybody in the House who cannot stand the heat, it is the Treasurer. If ever there was a person who proclaimed his sensitivity not only about economic criticism but also about any other kind of criticism, it is the Treasurer of this country at the present time . If he really wants to have a dinky di debate with me on tax avoidance or, indeed, any other aspect of the economy, we on this side of the House will be delighted to debate it not only in the Parliament but also in the media of Australia in the months that lead up to the election. Our record in the tax avoidance area stands without challenge and without parallel amongst the governments of this country. My only word on tax avoidance, of course, is that I agree with the Minister for Finance (Mr Dawkins). In April this year the Minister for Finance said, with unsurpassed candour for him, that tax avoidance in Australia is dead. That reduces to nought the credibility of the absurd attacks of the Treasurer and the Prime Minister on the Opposition. I return now to next year's budgetary problem, and I am very happy to return to it. What the Government has done, in the name of short term political expediency and in the name of purchasing some transient warm inner glow for itself with the Australian electorate until about the middle of December, is to create an enormous problem for the next year. Next year the then Government will not have a 44.7 per cent rise in provisional tax collections. The Treasurer knows that next year he will not have a rise of 10.5 per cent in real revenue collections. The Treasurer knows that next year, if he is still the Treasurer and if his Government is lucky enough to be re-elected, he will have to look around to find alternative sources of revenue. I predict now that if this Government is returned at the polls at the end of the year it will have a mini-Budget in March or April next year that will impose very savage increases in taxation. It will include a capital gains tax and a wealth tax. The Government will find that the prophecy of the Minister for Science and Technology, who has been reprimanded for his candour and honesty, will come back to haunt the Government. The honesty of the Minister for Science and Technology and the misleading nature of what the Treasurer and the Prime Minister are representing to this House and the nation will be revealed. I believe that this Budget marks the turning point in the political and economic fortunes of this Government. The Government may think it has performed the clever Houdini trick but that will fall apart on it. This Government has been remarkably lucky with the economy. Nobody could have put it better than the editorial in the Sydney Morning Herald on 7 August. We hear a great deal of dishonest nonsense from the Treasurer and the Prime Minister about terrible fiscal inheritances that they received from the last Government. Let me remind honourable members of what the Sydney Morning Herald said about this Government's inheritance from the Fraser Government. This is what it said about the Prime Minister: He inherited an economy about to recover. The drought was about to break, the rewards of a 9 per cent cut in real wages were about to be reaped and the fiscal stimulus of the Fraser Government's last Budget was about to bite. But if honourable members do not think that is a good enough categorisation of the fiscal inheritance of this Government let me remind them of what the Sydney Morning Herald said on 22 August 1984, a bare two weeks later. It said: Had a drover's dog actually won the 1983 election, the economy would be roughly where it is now. That is not a bad commentary on the contribution of the policies of this Government. It has been one of the luckiest governments in this country's history so far as economic management is concerned. But I believe that its luck has started to run out. The short-sighted expedient nature of this year's Budget , the politically-oriented and sensitive nature of this year's Budget and the mad, indecent rush of this Government to the polls, will catch up with it. What it has constructed for whoever has the responsibility of putting together next year's Budget is a monumental budgetary problem where one of three unpalatable options will be faced. Ultimately, if a Labor government is elected, we can be certain that it will have no stomach for expenditure restraint. Surely it would not live with a deficit $4 billion or $5 billion higher than this year's deficit which is the second largest in the last 10 years, being exceeded only by the first Budget that was brought down by this Treasurer. The largest Budget deficit in this country in the last 10 years has been given to the Australian people by the Treasurer who now sits at the dispatch box. Surely a Labor government would not live with that. The only alternative, the Labor alternative, the one in which this Government really believes, will be a March or April mini-Budget with massive increases in all forms of direct and indirect taxation. Mr KEATING(Blaxland-Treasurer)(3.34) —That speech of the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, the honourable member for Bennelong (Mr Howard), just proves, as it has over and over again in this Parliament, that members of the Liberal Party of Australia have no shame whatsoever. The man who has just made that speech is the former Treasurer of Australia, the man who delivered the greatest depression to Australia since the Great Depression. The former Treasurer, the greatest ministerial failure in the Parliament, is now lecturing this Government about economic policy after he raised unemployment by a quarter of a million in one year, after he drove inflation back to double digits and after he gave the Australian economy the first year of negative growth in 30 years. But, no, there is no hide thicker than that of the honourable member for Bennelong, the former Treasurer. He now gets up in this House and tells us about economic policy. He gets up and tells us about how we ought to run the economy. The sheer dishonesty of it, talking about large deficits. The large deficit was left by him to this Government. This Government inherited the large deficit, the fiscal deterioration, under his last Budget in 1982-83 and the Budget in prospect for 1983-84. In two years under his stewardship, between 1981 and 1983, the deficit went from $1 billion to $9.6 billion in prospect. That is where the big deficit has come from. He is the big deficit, the high unemployment and the high interest rate expert. He produced the highest interest rates-around 20 per cent-the highest unemployment, the lowest growth and the highest deficits in terms of the fiscal inheritance that this Government received. That is his shameful record. He comes into this House and talks about honesty and about fiscal prudence. He does not have a leg to stand on. He is also obsessed about next year's Budget. That is because he approves of this year's Budget. He has said barely nothing in genuine criticism of it because it has already been well received by the Australian electorate. He comes into this chamber-I understand what he is doing-and he is getting ready for the Budget reply of the Leader of the Opposition for next year. I do not mind letting him take the Thursday slot on television behind me on the Tuesday. That is what he is about. Every time he stands up in this chamber he tries to embarrass his Leader to demonstrate further his Leader's incompetence. But fancy trying to do it on the basis of the economy, where demonstrably he was the most incompetent Minister that this Parliament has seen in recent memory. Let me just deal with a couple of the points the former Treasurer made. He talked about next year's Budget. The first point I want to make is that he will not be in government to worry about next year's Budget; that will be our concern . He is delighted with this year's Budget. In fact, the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Peacock), in his Liberal Party fund-raising competition, invited everybody to involve themselves in 'a truly unique experience at its most exciting time'. That is what members of the Liberal Party thought of the Budget. In fact, the Leader of the Opposition was inviting Liberals to hear a Labor Budget 'at a most exciting time'; 'a truly unique experience'. It is unique. It is a unique experience when people are used to the sorts of Budgets which the former Treasurer handed up. But of course the thing about the former Treasurer is that he is so embarrassed about the state of his own Budgets over the years. Not once in five Budgets was the former Treasurer's spending under target. The 1983-84 Budget came in $20m under target. The former Treasurer never brought outlays in under target once in his five Budgets. The overshoot in outlays in the five Budgets of the former Treasurer was $2.8 billion or about $560m per Budget. That is what we call fiscal incompetence. He now gets up in this chamber and lectures me about what next year's Budget ought to be. Let me talk about the deficit. In the period of the former Treasurer's tenure the cumulative deficit blowout in his Budgets was $3.3 billion; an average of $600m a year per deficit in blowout over the Budget deficit target. Talk about a billion dollar credibility gap. As I have said, the thing about the Liberals is that they have no shame. Of course the former Treasurer, as soon as the heat is on him, gets up every day from Question Time and tries to fabricate personal explanations to get in his puny, weak little answer to some remark which is made by the Government each Question Time. So it goes on. I can assure honourable members that there will not be too much more of it. If there is anything of a sensitive nature he gets up. If we mention tax he gets up. If we mention tax avoidance he gets up. If we mention fiscal policy he gets up. If we mention deficits he gets up. He is up and down like a jack-in-the-box all the time because he simply cannot tolerate the fact that he is incompetent. Once we expose his incompetence, which we do regularly, he is back trying to justify and vindicate himself by this attempt at misusing the Standing Orders each day after Question Time. Mr Lusher —It is obviously working. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mrs Child) —Order! The honourable member for Hume is listed to speak in the debate. I suggest that he wait until it is his turn. Mr KEATING —Madam Deputy Speaker, let him interject. Let him go for his life. That does not worry me. The honourable member for Bennelong is yapping there at the table. What he does not understand is the state of fiscal policy now, coming out of a recession to a period of high prosperity. As well as that, he has used, as he often does, raw and unadjusted figures in presenting arguments in the Parliament. He does it quite often with the labour force statistics and he has done it again today with Budget outlays and receipts. Let me just make the point -a point which I have made before and which is made, of course, upon advice from the Department of the Treasury-that the receipts for this year are adjusted for Medicare. Let me make this point: Medicare was formerly a private charge. Members of the community used to pay for health insurance. I thought even the honourable member for Mackellar (Mr Carlton) would start to understand. He is supposed to be an economic literate. He strikes me as being an economic illiterate. Everyone knows that people used to go to a health insurance fund to pay for their health insurance. Now it is paid through the Budget. It is not a discretionary increase in tax by the Government for the purposes of outlays. The fact is that Medicare adjusted receipts this year were 27 per cent of gross domestic product. Last year they were 26 per cent. But in the former Treasurer's last two Budgets they were 27.2 per cent and 27.3 per cent. So in terms of what he calls the great revenue surge, the great surge in receipts-this is the whole hypothesis of his argument-the fact is that Budget receipts to GDP are lower this year than in the last two Howard Budgets. That is a fact. I said yesterday that the former Treasurer had misunderstood the whole fiscal concept about coming from a depression-type level of receipts to a period of prosperity and then lapsing back into it. The only way the Budget problems he envisages will come about next year is if we lapse back into depression-type receipts. That will not happen. What we will have is the normal sort of growth in receipts. In fact, with receipts this year lower than in the last two years of the last two Howard Budgets this Government will have a normal increment to receipts, as governments have had over the years. That is why the Budget deficit and budgetary policy for next year assumes a much more orderly and systematic approach to budgets rather than simply coming out of these depression or recession levels of activity induced by the policies of the former Treasurer. The fact is that the former Treasurer is wrong about the level of receipts. He made the claim that Commonwealth receipts under this Budget are the highest since the Second World War. That is simply untrue. What is true is that his last two Budgets were the highest in terms of receipts to GDP of any in recent memory and probably the highest since the war. On that point in terms of the statistics he is just simply wrong. One can extrapolate from that his more general point that now the economy is growing we are dealing with a growth economy. I do not know whether the former Treasurer has ever thought about this, but a growth economy produces a growth in receipts. The former Treasurer never had a growth economy; he was always destroying the economy. He is now running around telling me that we should have had a lower Budget deficit this year. Yet if we had had a lower Budget deficit this year we would have had lower growth and lower receipts for next year. But the former Treasurer wants to have his cake and eat it. He says: 'We will have a lower Budget deficit this year, and we will try to overcome the problem next year'. The fact is that the only sensible remark which the Deputy Leader made was his commentary about fiscal policy this year. What he made clear-this is a view I absolutely reject-is that there should have been no tax cut this year. He said that, given a choice between a lower Budget deficit and tax cuts, he would have taken the lower Budget deficit. Left to the former Treasurer not only would every member of the community be back in another depression, but they would also have had no tax cuts this year and no wage indexation; the $25 a week increase from wage indexation would also be denied the work force because the former Treasurer opposes wage indexation as well. So there is no $7.60 tax cut and no $ 25 a week since wage indexation started in March 1983. That is what the former Treasurer is all about. He is just another miserable Liberal arguing the stuff which was argued back in the 1930s by the Premiers Plan brigade and all the other economists. The Liberals would have people working for nothing if they could have their way. As well as that, they would be running policies which failed in the 1930s and which were failing absolutely under the former Treasurer in the last year or two. Opposition members should not come into this House lecturing us. How dare they lecture us with 10 per cent growth in the economy, inflation at 5 per cent and strong growth in employment. After having failed for five years the former Treasurer stands up here and tells me how to run the economy. He says: 'Avoid the hard debate this year, talk about next year because no one knows the Budget figures for next year, no one knows what the receipts and outlays are likely to be a year away'. The former Treasurer wants to talk about next year. That is the sort of hard economic debate we are getting from the Deputy Leader of the Opposition. He wants to talk about a set of figures that nobody knows about. He wants to talk about next year; he will not talk about this year because he knows that the Australian public have simply rejected his view. Let me take on another simple Simon concept he puts up. He talks about the $8.5 billion growth in receipts this year. What he fails to understand is the growth- - Mr Carlton —Next year's receipts? Next year's deficit forecast? Mr KEATING —Oh, just be quiet for a minute. The growth in outlays is part and parcel of receipts. For instance, this year inflation on outlays represented about $3.4 billion. The former Treasurer wants to ignore that fact. He wants to ignore the $1.4 billion for Medicare and the $1.3 billion for public debt interest. What he is saying is: 'You have only reduced the Budget deficit by $1. 2 billion, but you had a deficit of $8.5 billion'. What he is really saying is that there should be no increase for pensions, defence, or public debt interest. We have $8.5 billion to play with and the former Treasurer only managed to pull out $1.2 billion. The stupidity and simplicity of it is such that Opposition members should be ashamed even to propose it as an argument. No wonder the former Treasurer is where he is as a failed Treasurer, and that is where he will stay. He could not cut the mustard when he was Treasurer and he did not have the guts to get on top of Malcolm Fraser who walked all over him for years. He could not deregulate the financial system, he could not float the dollar-he could not do a damn thing. He sat there useless, as he does now. The fact is that we got financial deregulation to float through the Australian Labor Party and the former Treasurer could not get it through a Liberal Cabinet. Yet he comes in here and tells us about how he is the great white hope, the great deregulator, the market forces man. The fact is that he is a failure and was a failure. It takes a while in Parliament to find one's feet in public policy. After 10 years the former Treasurer found his feet-the immigration policy. He found his feet-he has finally landed on his feet. The fact is that I wish it had been five years ago. The Australian public would have been much better off had he not been appointed Treasurer in 1977. We reject out of hand the nonsense that Opposition members have put up here today as they did yesterday. They are talking about numbers and concepts which they know nothing about. The further the former Treasurer is away from a Treasury minute the more mute and dumb he becomes. That becomes obvious as the weeks go on. As far as we are concerned, next year's Budget will be a pleasure for this Government to put together. It will continue growth in the economy as this year's Budget does. The former Treasurer need not worry about tax increases ; the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) has made it clear that any reform of the tax system will be without any increase in the overall level of taxation receipts. We reject out of hand the views of the former Treasurer for the nonsense which they are. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Keogh) —Order! The Minister's time has expired. Mr LUSHER(Hume)(3.47) —The Treasurer (Mr Keating) in this discredited Government ought to lift his game. He is having increasing difficulty convincing people out in the real world about what is going on. Despite all the ranting and raving and the rhetoric we have seen here this afternoon there was no denial of the mini- Budget early next year from the biggest spending, biggest taxing Treasurer that the Australian economy has ever seen. Yet he comes in here and makes a statement , which I think is probably one of the quotes of the week, if not one of the quotes of the year. He stated that no one knows what next year's figures will be ; they do not mean anything. This Goverment's whole economic policy has been built around one thing and one thing only; that is, the figures that were supposed to have been inherited from the previous Government, figures that, out of his own mouth, do not mean anything. Nobody knows what the figures will be. Yet he was able to walk away from a whole litany of election promises in the light of what those figures might have been. The deficit spending policies of this Government are causing increasing concern amongst responsible Australians, commentators and people who are concerned about the future directions of this country. In 1983-84, receipts under this Government increased by 9.3 per cent, an amount of $4 billion. In this year's Budget there is an increase of 17.7 per cent, an amount of $8.6 billion. If the Government had chosen not to increase its discretionary expenditure, last year's deficit could have been less than $5 billion. If it had chosen to be responsible this year it could have had the deficit down to probably less than $1 billion. Yet next year, simply as a result of the Government building into the expenditure patterns of this country, the ongoing expenditure will start from a deficit of $6 billion. It could have been closer to $1 billion. This Government and Australians in the real world need to understand just what this big spending, big deficit budgeting of this Government means. What it means is that if the Treasurer had sought to balance his Budget this year he would have needed to raise an additional $1,400 from every Australian household. If there had been no tax cut the Treasurer would have needed to raise $1,000 from each Australian household. Yet the Treasurer has given an average $400 tax cut to Australian households which increased the deficit on a per household basis to $1,400. If that is not like paying a dividend out of borrowings, I do not know what is. The deficit adds to the public debt, the national debt of this country. We have seen that debt rise by 50 per cent in two years of Labor governments across this country. All in, Australian governments at a Federal, State and local level and their authorities owed of the order of $60 billion two years ago. At the end of this financial year all governments and their authorities in this country will owe of the order of $90 billion. That is more, by probably something like 50 per cent, than the entire expenditure of the Government in a financial year and something approaching half of what this economy produces in a full year. That is what has happened with Australian Labor Party governments all around the country . It represents the public debt. The public debt in this country represents $5,000 per Australia, $12,000 per Australian taxpayer and $16,000 per householder, and it is rising fast. People ought to understand what it means. The interest on the Federal Government's debt this year is $5.6 billion. It is 30 per cent up on what it was last year, the biggest increasing component in the Government's Budget altogether. Last year it was up 29 per cent on that for the previous year. This Government is spending as much on paying the interest on the public debt as on defence. Next year it will be spending more on interest than it is spending on defence. The public debt interest is exceeded only by outlays for social security and health. It would have exceeded outlays for health if, in fact, it had not been for the Medicare- induced expenditure increases. Australians need to understand that this Government is borrowing against the credit of future generations of Australian taxpayers. It is our children who will pay for the excesses of this Government and for the excesses of those Australians who continually clamour for the Government to provide more and more. We have a weak Treasurer and a weak government which, as the Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard) says, is concerned only about electoral success and giving people a warm internal feeling over the next couple of months. This Government has overspent in two Budgets by more than the previous Government did in its six or seven Budgets. That needs to be understood by Australians. It needs to be understood by those good, honest, hard-working Australians who go out every day to earn a quid, trying to keep their families together and to provide the taxes that this country needs in order to keep going. That is the irresponsible attitude that this Government is taking. Australians also need to understand that the deficit affects interest rates. If mortgage rates in this country were 3 per cent lower-they could very well be three points lower if it were not for the expenditure policies of this Government-interest on the average $35,000 mortgage would be $1,000 a year less than it is. That would be two and a half times better than the phoney tax cuts of $400 a year that the Treasurer introduced with this Budget. Australians are starting to understand that interest rates are costing them $1,000 more than they should be and that the phoney tax cuts are putting $400 back into their pockets. The Treasurer would have needed to tax, and should have taxed, Australian households by $1,400 a year more if he sought to balance this irresponsible Budget. Real interest rates in this country are rising; they are not falling. The prime rate at the moment is 13.75 per cent, or about 8 per cent in real terms. A year ago it was 14.5 per cent or 6 per cent in real terms. It is continuing to squeeze the private sector as public sector growth continues to expand in this country. We need to understand that Budget receipts have now reached 27, almost 28, per cent of gross domestic product, which is the highest they have ever been in this country. We have to look at what will happen next year because what we are concerned about in this matter of public importance is the effect on next year's Budget and the economy. The revenue upturn that we are experiencing this year will not be repeated. This year the pay as you earn taxation figures are up by 14 per cent, provisional tax is up by 45 per cent, company tax is up by 23 per cent-- Mr Fisher —Thank God for the farmers. Mr LUSHER —As the honourable member for Mallee says, thank God for the rural recovery. Total tax collections are up by 23 per cent. Is the Treasurer prepared to come in here and say that that will be repeated next year? Of course he is not. He comes in here and says: 'Nobody knows what is going to happen next year' . Yet he was prepared to say what was going to happen when he came into government with his so-called inherited deficit from the previous Government. Everybody needs to understand that the deficit next year must rise dramatically . The structural problems that this Government has introduced into spending in Australia are immense-largely, singularly because of the blown opportunities in the 1983-84 Budget and again this year. This Government has stamped itself as a short term, opportunistic government with no more claim to economic rectitude, restraint and credibility than its predecessor had between 1972 and 1975. As the chickens come home to roost the results will be the same, if the Australian people are fooled to the extent that they return this Government to office. We will see a mini-Budget if this Government comes back. The Treasurer did not deny it. New taxes are inevitable. There is no preparedness on the part of this Government to review functions; therefore there must be new taxes. The Government ought to deny now that there will be a capital gains tax, a wealth tax and a gift tax. As far as the Opposition is concerned, there is no alternative. The fact is that there must be increased taxes and increased deficits if the Australian people are fooled to the extent that they return this Government after the next election. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Keogh) —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mrs KELLY(Canberra)(3.57) —During this debate we have witnessed an enormous performance of hypocrisy on the part of the Opposition. During the three weeks since the Budget was brought down in this House we have heard very little constructive comment about this Budget from the Opposition. Very few questions about this Budget have been asked of the Treasurer (Mr Keating) or of the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) at Question Time. No alternative policy has been presented to the Parliament and the people of Australia, unless one counts things such as the headline in the Age of 24 August: Peacock pledges jobs for all by 1988. That is the sort of alternative the Opposition is proposing. The article reads: If elected, the Opposition would scrap the assets test on pensions, and the 31 per cent lump sum superannuation tax. Opposition members do not say where they will get the money from. All they do is come into this House and criticise the Government. They do not criticise this Budget; they criticise what will happen after the Opposition loses the next election, as it presumes it will. That is what the basis of its attacks has been . There has been nothing constructive at all. What an act of hypocrisy. The facts speak for themselves. One only has to walk out into the streets of any electorate in Australia and the people will tell one what the reputations of the members of the Opposition, including the honourable member for Bennelong (Mr Howard), are as economic managers. When we came to government-let us remember that it was only 18 months ago-we were confronted with huge deficits. The Opposition will say: 'That doesn't matter. Forget about that'. The Opposition was in government for seven years. The ex-Treasurer presided over the biggest increase in a deficit in Australian history. When we came to government, just 18 months ago, we were confronted with a shrinking economy. I take the figures for June 1982 to June 1983. During that period total gross domestic product contracted by 2.9 per cent. There was a devastating effect on unemployment. Everyone in Australia knows the impact on unemployment of the seven years of the Fraser Government. Inflation climbed to 11.5 per cent. I notice that members of the Opposition do not want to hear these facts but the statistics speak for themselves. These are the facts; this is the legacy of the seven years of the previous Government. The honourable member for Hume (Mr Lusher) discussed interest rates. Honourable members opposite should ask any home buyers in the electorates of Australia about the interest rates on their home. What were they during the years of the previous Government? Interest rates climbed to astronomical levels-18 per cent, 19 per cent and up to 20 per cent. The housing industry was crippled. That is the legacy of the previous Government and the people in the electorates are not fooled. They know the facts; they know them because they experienced those years of economic mismanagement. What we have seen in this Budget is not an election Budget; it is a Budget with a long term strategy, something that the previous Government never had, much to its shame. What we have is a long term strategy with a view to keeping on the path of non-inflationary growth in the economy. We can afford to have a long term strategy because the people in the electorates will return this Government to office whenever the election is. There are three components of that long term strategy. One is tax cuts, the second is the major structural adjustment to the corporate tax area and the third is concentration on the poorest members of our community. That is where we see the expenditure on this Budget outlayed. I ask members of the Opposition which of those three components they want to cut out. I think the honourable member for Bennelong has already answered that question. He said that he would cut out the tax cuts, that he would keep the deficit down by keeping out the tax cuts. Mr Hand —No pension increases. Mrs KELLY —There would be no pension increases. Members of the Opposition care very little at all about the people who are unemployed and the pensioners in our community. Those are the sorts of harsh decisions that the Opposition would impose on the Australian electorate if it got into government. What would happen to the prices and incomes accord? It would collapse because members of the Opposition are the only members of the community who do not support the accord. What do they want? They want industrial disharmony. They have no alternative economic strategy at all. Part of the strategy of this Budget is to keep down the deficit; it is a deficit of $1.2 billion less than that of previous years. All honourable members have been quoting newspaper articles during this debate. I refer to a report by Kenneth Davidson published in the Age of 22 August. He stated: This is a very deflationary budget. The public-sector engine which has driven the economy for the past two years has been stopped. He included a table and he went on to state: The table shows that the last Howard Budget injected a net $3400 million into the domestic income-expenditure stream-which was equal to 2.2 per cent of non- farm GDP. The first Keating Budget injected $3000 million into the domestic income- expenditure stream, equal to 1.7 per cent of non-farm GDP in 1983-84. This financial year, the Budget deficit is to be reduced by $1600 million, which is a subtraction from the domestic income-expenditure stream and is equal to a reduction of nearly 1 per cent of non-farm GDP. For the interest of the honourable member for Bennelong, he may like to refer to the article by Kenneth Davidson of 22 August from which I have just quoted. Mr Howard —I read him every day. Mrs KELLY —The honourable member ought to take a bit more notice then. Honourable members can quite clearly see that this Budget is part of a strategy, a strategy with a long term view, a long term aim of increasing the standard of living by having non-inflationary growth. We have made some tough decisions in this Budget. For example, we have imposed a wine tax. Honourable members on the other side laugh but they knew it was a great inequity in the economy that there was no tax on wine. What did they do about it? They did nothing. They knew that there should have been a wine tax. There is a 20 per cent tax on soft drink and on beer the tax is between 80 and 100 per cent. But what did the former Government do about wine? It did nothing. The reason it did nothing was that it was not prepared to make any harsh decisions. Honourable members opposite have the great hypocrisy to come into this House and tell us what we should be doing to run an economy when they failed in seven years of government and cannot even present an alternative economic package to this House or to this country. This Budget has been well received by everyone, it seems, except members of the Opposition who obviously have no real understanding of it. The opinion polls illustrate that fact. I think that is worrying them and why this issue has come up again. After it had been forgotten by the Opposition and it had discussed everything else, it has now come back to the Budget because it can see that the people of Australia have responded very positively to it. We can see from the survey in yesterday's Sydney Morning Herald that the Budget was extremely well received, which is in great contrast to the reception that the Budgets of the previous Government received. Two years ago, 62 per cent of voters thought that the present Deputy Leader of the Opposition's final Budget, also seen as an election Budget, would leave them worse off. In 1981, 73 per cent of voters gave a negative reaction to that year's Budget. This year, some 24 per cent of voters think that the Budget will make them better off, while only 19 per cent expect to be worse off. Mr Carlton —You are 24 per cent over. Mrs KELLY —They are much better figures than those of the honourable member's Government. This Budget has been much better received in the electorate than any of the previous Government's Budgets. It can be seen how desperate Opposition members are when they come into this House, present no alternative policy at all , and simply criticise not this Budget but what will happen in the next Budget. That is how desperate they are because they know that they cannot win the next election. They are even admitting it today in this House in this debate. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Keogh) —Order! The discussion is concluded. Mr HOWARD(Bennelong) —Mr Deputy Speaker, I wish to make a personal explanation. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Does the honourable member claim to have been misrepresented? Mr HOWARD —I do. Mr Duffy —Does this go on all day? Mr HOWARD —As long as the Government keeps displaying the behaviour it did at Question Time, it will go on every day. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —The honourable member may proceed. Mr HOWARD —The Treasurer (Mr Keating), in the course of his speech, made the statement that I had misled the House in making the claim that this year's Budget claimed a larger proportion of receipts as a percentage of gross domestic product than any other Budget since the end of World War II. He said that I was wrong in making that statement. He also went on to say that the Budget receipts of the last two Budgets that I brought down were a higher proportion of GDP than was the proportion of GDP claimed by Budget receipts in this year's Budget. A simple reference to page-- Mr Keating —Mr Deputy Speaker, I raise a point of order. This goes on with the honourable member for Bennelong every day. These are debating points. Mr HOWARD —Because you cannot say anything without telling lies. Mr Keating —No, they are a matter of record. Mr HOWARD —It is your record; that is what I am saying. Mr Keating —They are debating points. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The Treasurer will resume his seat. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition has sought to make a personal explanation. On the basis of the Deputy Leader being misrepresented, I allowed him to proceed with his personal explanation. He is now getting very close to the point where he is introducing debating points. I suggest to him that he explain concisely where he has been misrepresented. Mr HOWARD —I have been misrepresented to the extent that the Treasurer has said that I have misled the House in claiming that his Budget had a higher proportion of Budget receipts as a percentage of GDP. He is proved to be wrong by his own Budget Papers. I refer him to page 364 of Budget Paper No. l. At page 364, under the heading 'Budget Receipts' it is recorded that in 1984-85 it is estimated that Budget receipts as a proportion of gross domestic product-these are the Treasurer's figures; they are not mine-will be 27.9 per cent. The Treasurer further claimed that this year's Budget receipts as a proportion of GDP were lower than the receipts of my last two Budgets. That, too, has been demonstrated to be wrong by his own table which records that in 1982-83 the figure was 27.2 per cent and in 1981-82 it was 27.3 per cent. When I went to Canterbury High School, 27.9 per cent was higher than 27.2 per cent or 27.3 per cent, and I think it still is. The Treasurer would have been so instructed at his school. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The Deputy Leader of the Opposition has made his point . Mr HOWARD —The Treasurer's papers disprove his statement. Mr KEATING(Blaxland-Treasurer) —Mr Deputy Speaker, I seek leave to make a personal explanation. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Does the Treasurer claim to have been misrepresented? Mr KEATING —I do. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —He may proceed. Mr Howard —How have you been misrepresented? Mr KEATING —I shall tell the honourable member, if he will wait. I listened to him. The figures for Budget receipts as a proportion of GDP-27.2 per cent for 1982-83 and 27.3 per cent for 1981-82-to which the former Treasurer, the honourable member for Bennelong (Mr Howard) referred, are correct. They are a matter of record. The point that I made in my speech was that for 1984-85, adjusted for Medicare, the figure is 27 per cent. Opposition members interjecting- Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The Deputy Leader of the Opposition was heard in relative silence. Mr KEATING —He was. This point must be well and truly understood: One cannot take a $2 billion private health insurance system, run it through the Budget accounts and then claim, dishonestly, as the Opposition does-- Mr Lusher —It is a Clayton's tax. Mr KEATING —The honourable member for Bennelong was heard in silence. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member for Hume continues to interject, whatever his position in the House. The honourable member for Hume will remain silent. Mr KEATING —That $2 billion Medicare program is funded by a specific levy; it is not a discretionary tax increase. It takes the place of what were formerly private payments to the health insurance funds. The Department of the Treasury- this is a very important aspect for the former Treasurer to consider-has cited a figure of 27 per cent for the Medicare adjusted level of receipts as a proportion of this year's GDP. Mr Howard —Why is it in the Budget? Mr KEATING —I shall give the honourable member a note on it from the Treasury. That figure of 27 per cent for receipts to GDP is lower than the figure for receipts in the last two Budgets of the former Treasurer. The claim I made is correct. None of the matters to which the former Treasurer now alludes can diminish the facts. The receipts picture shows that this year's Budget receipts as a proportion of GDP are lower than in the last two Howard Budgets. Mr FRY(Fraser) —On behalf of the Joint Committee on the Australian Capital Territory, I present the Committee's report on the Murrumbidgee River in the Australian Capital Territory region, together with the transcript of evidence and minutes of proceedings. Ordered that the report be printed. Mr FRY —by leave-The report I have just tabled is the result of a long period of detailed investigation by the Committee. The inquiry into the Murrumbidgee River was referred to the Committee at a time when there was great concern about the extent of pollution in the river as a result of teething problems following the commissioning of the Lower Molonglo Water Quality Control Centre-in other words, the sewerage works. The gross pollution problems were largely resolved as a result of these teething problems being overcome. Water quality in the Murrumbidgee is now quite satisfactory. As these immediate problems were overcome, the Committee addressed itself to the long term problems which could affect water quality in the river and to issues concerned with the wider environmental protection of the river and its surrounds. A way of conserving and protecting the river from development pressures is through the delineation of an environmental corridor along the river. Suggestions as to the extent of the river corridor and the kind of protection necessary for it varied. However, it is clear that most people want some recognition of the river and its environs as being special, with its recreational, natural and aesthetic features being maintained or enhanced. The name Murrumbidgee is associated by most Australians with one of our largest rivers, yet in the Australian Capital Territory region the upper part of that river does not have the size, permanency or resilience that it has further downstream. The river and its tributaries are subject to marked variations between and within seasons. We even saw the river stop flowing for a period early last year. It is within the concept of a fragile river ecosystem that the corridor must be viewed. It is a comparatively small water system to which we look for increasing water recreation facilities. There are increasing, and sometimes conflicting pressures for other uses such as passive recreation, undisturbed natural areas, fishing, canoeing, horse riding, grazing, forestry, urban development, sand and gravel extraction and water supply. Therefore, careful planning of the river's resources is essential. The Committee supports the concept of a river corridor. It concludes that the boundaries of the corridor should not be of a fixed width but be delineated following careful consideration of the visual, topographic, ecological, water quality and recreational factors affecting each section of the river along the length of the corridor. Users upstream and downstream of the Australian Capital Territory also need to be considered. While the corridor will be a multiple use area, with different parts of the corridor having different planning and management policies, the Committee recommends that developments within the corridor should be compatible with the primary purposes of the corridor which are the preservation of the natural environment and heritage elements together with the provision of compatible recreational facilities. In order to achieve these primary aims, the Committee recommends that development proposals in the corridor should be the subject of environmental impact statements, that the corridor be widened in the Lanyon River-Lambrigg area to provide a suitable rural landscape setting for the Lanyon and Lambrigg homesteads, that the nature conservation areas of the corridor be gazetted under the Nature Conservation Ordinance and that the corridor be placed on the Register of the National Estate . While the concept of a river corridor is a useful one for some purposes, such as aesthetic considerations, planning recreational facilities and developing buffer areas, it can be a limitation in assessing the total environmental impacts made on the river. The Murrumbidgee drains the whole of the Australian Capital Territory and, consequently, activities throughout the Territory could potentially affect the river. The Murrumbidgee River catchment within the Australian Capital Territory should be seen as a single system such that its use and management should be considered as a whole. Options for the use of water and land resources should be determined in relation to the present and future needs within the community, including environmental considerations, so as to maintain their long term capabilities. Water and land management therefore need to be closely co-ordinated. To achieve this close co-ordination of water and land management, the Committee has recommended that the water use plan for the whole of the Australian Capital Territory be completed without delay. The water usage plan will need to be integrated with land use policy and development plans to ensure that objectives in terms of standards, monitoring procedures, definition of responsibilities and regulatory mechanisms are achieved. As the Murrumbidgee passes through the Australian Capital Territory for only a small section of its length, it is essential that there be close co-operation with the New South Wales Government in ensuring the environmental protection of the river and that adequate water supplies are available to the Australian Capital Territory and downstream users. The report makes recommendations about these. Basic environmental protection legislation is still not in place in the Australian Capital Territory. Water, air and noise pollution ordinances are yet to come into effect. Hazardous chemical control in the Territory, including agricultural chemicals such as pesticides, remains minimal. The House of Representatives Standing Committee on Environment and Conservation regarded the situation in the Australian Capital Territory in December 1982 as deplorable and sought urgent action to rectify these legislative deficiencies. The Committee recommends that this legislation be implemented within three months, and it has made it clear that any delay in implementing the legislation in this time would constitute negligence on the part of those involved. The heritage aspects of the Murrumbidgee Valley require particular attention. While the region has been long settled by Europeans, and much, much longer by Aboriginals, most of Canberra is quite new by comparison and its growth inevitably threatens heritage sites. These could be Aboriginal camp sites used for many centuries, or the remains of buildings of the first European settlers. Preservation and access to heritage sites is important to any community but more so to the children of Canberra growing up in a comparatively new city. The Australian Capital Territory does not have the kind of heritage legislation that exists in several States to protect and promote important heritage elements within the Territory and the Committee recommends that a heritage ordinance be completed and implemented. While this legislation is being prepared the Committee recommends that the Department of Territories and Local Government act to preserve historic sites on leasehold land. One of the most significant long term impacts on the river will come from future urban development in the Australian Capital Territory. It will affect both water quality, as a result of the effects of urban runoff, and the aesthetic appearance of the river and its setting through the visual impact of urban development. To protect the river from the effects of urban runoff, the Committee recommends that the use of sediment and oil traps prior to stormwater entering lakes and streams be maximised and that the use of biological filters be further investigated. These are particularly necessary for stormwater from Tuggeranong which will directly discharge into the river rather than through Lake Tuggeranong. The Committee also believes it is essential that construction work on the Tuggeranong Town Centre not commence unless special measures are in place to protect the river from urban runoff until Tuggeranong Lake is completed . To protect the aesthetic appearance of the river the Committee believes it is crucial that no urban development take place on the western side of the river. The Committee therefore welcomes the decision of the Minister for Territories and Local Government that there will be no urban development on the west bank of the Murrumbidgee, but recommends that the Minister formalise his decision so that it cannot be arbitrarily changed at a later date. The rural settings of Lanyon Homestead and Tharwa Village also lend a visually attractive setting to the Murrumbidgee River which the Committee is anxious to see retained. The Minister for Territories and Local Government has stated that there will be no urban development visible from the Lanyon Homestead. The Committee believes that this definition is subject to a range of interpretations and, as interpreted by the National Capital Development Commission, is too restrictive. The NCDC is proposing to develop an urban area south of Lanyon which would be visible from many parts of the Lanyon Homestead and which would effectively destroy the rural setting of Lanyon. The Committee has recommended that this proposed area of urban development not proceed. As this urban area would have proceeded to the limit of Tharwa Village, a decision not to develop it will also allow the rural setting of Tharwa to be retained. Finally, as part of this inquiry the Minister for Territories and Local Government asked the Committee to report on the environmental impact of the Murrumbidgee Country Club proposal on the river corridor. The major environmental concerns about the proposal related to its visual impact on the Murrumbidgee corridor, especially in the Red Rocks area and the protection of water quality as a result of the effects of stormwater runoff and possible sewage spillage into the river. The Committee believes that the visual impact of the proposed development will be minimal from the Red Rocks Gorge area of the river and has recommended that housing in the Country Club Estate which may be visible from the Red Rocks area be restricted by siting and design controls to single storey level. The stormwater centre and sewage proposals are acceptable. The Committee has therefore recommended that the Murrumbidgee Country Club proposal proceed but with adequate guarantees being made that each stage of the development can be completed. The proposal should also be subject to the provisions of the Environmental Protection (Impact of Proposals) Act 1974. Canberra is the largest inland urban area in Australia. Lower rainfall than the coastal areas where the majority of our urban population lives means that per capita water consumption in Canberra is higher than the Australian average but similar to that of other inland centres in Australia. The volume of water in our river system is ultimately limited. While it appears adequate to supply our short-to medium-term needs, there must come a point where quantity and/or quality will be inadequate. It is clear that we have to start looking at our own water usage patterns now, with a view to conservation if we are to avert or even delay future supply problems. There are increasing and conflicting demands being placed on the Murrumbidgee River and its corridor. Developments to satisfy these demands must be compatible with the primary purposes of the corridor. But while the corridor is a focus for our attention in addressing the problems which will affect the river, it does not exist in isolation and must be considered in a wider environmental context for its proper management. Measures to achieve adequate co-ordination of water resources, the implementation of vital environmental and heritage legislation and the elimination of the harmful effects of urban development are the important wider environmental issues affecting the river which this report has addressed. I believe that this report will assist in a better understanding of the Murrumbidgee River in the Australian Capital Territory and its future management. Mrs KELLY(Canberra) —by leave-I want to take a few seconds of the time of the House to point out that the previous speaker, the honourable member for Fraser ( Mr Fry), who is Chairman of the Joint Committee on the Australian Capital Territory, may well have made his last address to this House. As honourable members know, he is retiring at the end of this Parliament and is about to go overseas to represent the Australian Government at the United Nations. If by any chance at all there is a election which would prorogue the House between now and , say, March next year, I would say that the honourable member for Fraser has just given his last address. On behalf of the people of Canberra I thank him not just for his contribution to the Australian Capital Territory Committee but for all the work he has done in this Parliament on behalf of his constituents and his electorate throughout his years as the honourable member for Fraser. Mr FRY(Fraser) —by leave-I am leaving tomorrow to be the Government delegate to the United Nations for three months. I believe there is some possibility of an election before I come back, so I take the opportunity to express through you, Mr Deputy Speaker, my warm appreciation to all officers of the House, including the Clerks, and the Serjeant-at-Arms and his staff, for the very helpful co- operation that they have given me in ten years in this House. To all the people who work in the Parliament and make life much easier for the members, including those people in the Library and in the dining rooms, our attendants, the cleaners, the Commonwealth car drivers and the security people, I express my very warm appreciation for the support they have given me over the years. I consider it a great privilege to have served in this House for 10 years and certainly a very rewarding experience to represent the electors of Fraser. I express my appreciation to all the people in the electorate who have supported and helped me over the years. Finally, in case that election does eventuate, I say good luck to all honourable members on both sides, but especially to honourable members on this side of the House. I am sure that they will all have a very good election result and I wish them great success in their political careers in the future. Mr HOWARD(Bennelong) —by leave-I have a faint suspicion that there is a tiny possibility that the expectation of the honourable member for Canberra (Mrs Kelly) may be fulfilled and that the House may be prorogued during the absence overseas of the honourable member for Fraser (Mr Fry). I think I speak on behalf of all honourable members on this side of the House when I wish him well in the future. We have not always on every occasion agreed with every detail of everything he has said, but it is the nature of politics in this House in particular for that to arise. I think everybody has respected the integrity with which he has held his views. Within his own party and within this Parliament he has been a conspicuous fighter for the causes he believes in, particularly relating to the Timorese people and others. Whilst I would have to say that I have some disagreement with him on some of his stances on those issues in particular, I have always respected his basic decency and honesty, and all on this side of the House wish him well. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Keogh) —I indicate to the honourable member for Fraser that I will be very happy to pass on his appreciative remarks to Mr Speaker. I am sure that Mr Speaker would want me to convey to the honourable member for Fraser his very best wishes for his future. Mr FIFE(Farrer) —On behalf of the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works, I present the seventeenth report for 1984 of the Committee, relating to the construction of Australian Embassy complex at Beijing, People's Republic of China, together with the minutes of evidence. Ordered that the report be printed. [COGNATE BILLS: INCOME TAX (COMPANIES, CORPORATE UNIT TRUSTS AND SUPERANNUATION FUNDS) BILL 1984 INCOME TAX (RATES) AMENDMENT BILL 1984 MEDICARE LEVY BILL 1984 BANK ACCOUNT DEBITS TAX ADMINISTRATION AMENDMENT BILL 1984 BANK ACCOUNT DEBITS TAX AMENDMENT BILL 1984] Debate resumed from 7 September, on motion by Mr Keating: That the Bill be now read a second time. Mr BARRY JONES(Lalor-Minister for Science and Technology) —May I have your indulgence, Mr Deputy Speaker, to suggest that the House have a general debate covering this Bill, the Income Tax (Companies, Corporate Unit Trusts and Superannuation Funds) Bill 1984, the Income Tax (Rates) Amendment Bill 1984, the Medicare Levy Bill 1984, the Bank Account Debits Tax Administration Amendment Bill 1984 and the Bank Account Debits Tax Amendment Bill 1984, as they are related measures. Separate questions will, of course, be put on each of the Bills at the conclusion of the debate. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Keogh) —Is it the wish of the House to have a general debate covering the six measures? If there is no objection, I will allow that course to be followed. Mr HOWARD(Bennelong)(4.31) —This debate, which covers a large number of the Government's taxation measures, affords the House an opportunity of a fairly general debate on the taxation policies not only contained in this Budget but also of the Government in general. I indicate to the House at the outset that as these Bills form an integral part of this year's Budget it will not be the Opposition's intention to vote against them, because they are a basic part of the Budget package of legislation. They do, however, cover a wide range of areas and there are a number of specific things which I and my colleagues would like to say on behalf of the Opposition. I start my contribution to this debate by returning to an exchange I had with the Treasurer during the debate on the matter of public importance. It relates to the question of Budget receipts. Ever since the Budget was brought down we have had advanced by the Treasurer-this is very relevant to levels of taxation in Australia at present-the curious notion that a tax is not really a tax if it is raised in the name of paying, in part, the cost of financing Medicare. All of us as taxpayers at the moment are receiving taxation assessments, on which we find a one per cent Medicare levy. I think all of us feel, when we write out our cheque if we have a debit assessment, that in paying the one per cent Medicare levy we are actually paying taxation. If one is lucky enough to have a refund- and there are not too many of those this year because most of the rebates have been knocked off in the last two Budgets-one still finds on the assessment the provision for the one per cent Medicare levy. The Treasurer could have fooled me and other taxpayers of Australia if he is suggesting that we should forget about the one per cent as it is not really part of the taxation we pay. That is what the Treasurer is inviting this House and the Australian public to believe. He is saying that because the Medicare levy is used to pay for part of the cost of running Medicare, although it is a tax and paid by people as part of their tax, it is not really a tax and therefore should be totally disregarded. Somehow or other the Treasurer wants us in examining the Budget Papers totally to ignore the $1200m tax that one pays through the Medicare levy as though it has never existed. That is the equivalent of the Government saying: 'We want you to forget about a whole lot of other components of the Budget because we find it politically uncomfortable'. It is a nonsense argument. The truth is that total taxation collections under this Budget amount to 27.9 per cent of gross domestic product. As Budget Paper No. 1 records on page 364, the ratio of Budget receipts to GDP-that is the most honest measure of the total volume of taxation the Australian community pays-is the 'highest ratio in the post-World War II period'. Even after the $7.60 a week taxation cut, even after all we have been told at Question Time by the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) and the Treasurer (Mr Keating), the plain, unassailable, unvarnished truth, according to the Treasurer's own papers, is that taxation this year is higher than in any Budget since the end of World War II. The Treasurer is asking us to forget about part of the taxation because it is uncomfortable. I suppose I could come into this House and say that in 1976 we abolished the concessional deductions and rebates for children and introduced a family allowance system. I could say: 'We would like you to forget about that fact, and we would like people when they go back over the receipts when we were in office to make allowance as if the old system had continued'. If one made that allowance, then the taxation collections under us would have been lower than they were. In that way we could claim in some funny, convoluted way that taxation when we were in office was lower than in reality it was. Mental gymnastics of that sort, that kind of playing with figures, does not wash. One cannot dodge the facts, and the plain fact is that this year taxation receipts are higher than they have been in any Budget brought down by any government-including the seven Budgets that we brought down in the time we were in office-since the end of World War II. People can argue about the issue, they can look at it under a microscope, they can adjust the figures, they can photostat the pages and wave them around, but that does not alter the fact that it is still there. It is odd that the Treasurer told the House that the Treasury had told him separately that if one does this or does that one will end up with a different result. The interesting thing is that the Treasury did not do that when these documents were put together. It operates in a professional manner and is not too much interested in underwriting political point scoring and political nonsense. It is interested in producing a few statistical facts. The statistical fact is that this is the biggest taxing Budget we have had in Australia since the end of World War II. I know that the Treasurer finds that very uncomfortable , as do his colleagues. That is why the Treasurer comes into the chamber and makes his explanations longer and longer each time. All that does is to encourage me to repeat it more and more often, because I know quite well that he is getting extraordinarily sensitive about it. The first point I make in my comments about taxation and the taxation measures that are before us is that this is the biggest taxing Budget since the end of World War II-bar none. Nothing the Treasurer or anybody else can say alters what is on page 364 of the Budget Papers. There it is in black and white written by the Treasury for all the world to see. The other interesting thing is that this is also the biggest spending Budget since World War II, because it claims 31.1 per cent of gross domestic product so far as Budget expenditures are concerned. The other interesting factor is that, as a result of the combination of those two things, one also has the second largest deficit in nominal terms that this country has had in the last 10 years and since the end of World War II. At 6.7 per cent it is exceeded only by the first Budget brought down by the Labor Government last year which had a deficit of $8,000m-almost $4,000m bigger than the largest deficit for which I was ever responsible. I will go on repeating that figure, too, because the Treasurer is finding that little truth, which can be gleaned from his own papers, a little uncomfortable. He likes to peddle the lie, which he has done repeatedly, that he inherited a $9 .6 billion deficit and he said that when he came in he found this dreadful fiscal inheritance. But when he was asked to tell us at the beginning of this year what his deficit projection was to be-that is this year's equivalent of last year's $9.6 billion figure-what did he and the Prime Minister say? They said, 'One cannot put that out. It does not mean anything. It is nonsense. It is illusory'. The Treasurer even refused a freedom of information request for that figure to be released. It shows the dishonest use of that figure that was employed by the Treasurer and how fragile has been that piece of economic propaganda that the Treasurer has tried to peddle at every available opportunity . It is one of the greatest pieces of propaganda ever inflicted on the Australian public in recent years in economic debate. I refer to the claim that the Government inherited some monstrous deficit. The deficit it inherited from us was $4.3 billion. It was the biggest I ever produced. Government members were responsible for the $8 billion and they know darned well that if we had remained in office-Mr Keating was honest enough in one interview he did in July of last year to admit it-we would have had a deficit of $6.5m. So much for the way in which the Government has endeavoured to play with statistics, to distort the economic debate in Australia. We had another demonstration of it today, when somehow or other the Treasurer was trying to prove that, even though his own papers show that this year's Budget has the biggest proportion of receipts relative to gross domestic product-27.9 per cent- we ought to forget about that and, for the purposes of the election, accept his word that the figure really is much lower than that. That is all part of what the Government is trying to do; that is, to create a nice warm inner glow for the Australian people between now and about the middle of December. The Government says that we will have a $7.60 a week tax cut. It does not tell us that next year, because of the fiscal imprudence of this year's Budget, an enormous revenue problem will be created. I have said this before and I know that honourable members have heard it before. They will hear it again. They will hear a lot more of it between now and the election because it is very important that the Australian people understand the problem that is being created for the making of next year's Budget by the nature of the decisions that have been taken in this year's Budget. This year provisional tax collections will rise by 44.7 per cent. That is the biggest rise in provisional tax collections in Australia since the end of World War II. That is in the Budget Papers too. Do honourable members know why it has happened? It has happened because the drought has ended and, for the first time in a couple of years, many farmers are paying tax again. It is good that the drought has ended and it is good that farm incomes are on the rise again. We on this side of the House welcome that occurrence just as warmly as do members of the Government, but the significance of that is that it will not happen again next year. Next year the revenue, having risen very sharply from last year, will flatten out. Of course, the expenditure pattern will continue to rise very sharply and that is how the great big hole, the great big gap, will open up. Nothing the Treasurer has said in the House today, nothing he has said anywhere around the country over the last two weeks, has gone remotely near to answering the problem that has been highlighted not only by me in comments that I have made from the time the Budget was brought down, not only by respected political economic commentators such as Maximilian Walsh, who wrote so disapprovingly of the political expedience of this Budget in the Sydney Morning Herald a couple of weeks ago, but also, as I indicated during Question Time yesterday, by that respected economic commentary, Syntec, in its issue of 3 September 1984. This is what Syntec said: Because of its over-riding concern with the election- that is the warm inner glow bit about which I was talking- the Government has chosen to take advantage of a distinctly cyclical surge in its revenues to add to the structural . . . element of the Federal Budget deficit. In other words, stripped of its technicalities, Syntec is saying that the Government has an unexpected once-off revenue surge and has spent it rather than conserving it. That is why the Government has landed us in a very difficult position for next year. That is why next year whoever has the responsibility of making the Budget will have a very difficult problem. That is why it is essential, in the interests of the Australian people understanding what will happen if this Government is re-elected, that we know what the Government will do on the taxation front next year. How marvellously fortuitous it is that the Minister for Science and Technology (Mr Barry Jones) is at the table. He has already told us the facts. He said in a moment of very great candour-- Mr Barry Jones —No, you have misquoted. You have taken it out of context, and you know that very well. Mr HOWARD —I respect him because he is a very candid, honest, honourable person. Two or three days after the Budget was introduced he said words to this effect: 'We are not really game to put up taxes three months before an election'. That is what he said. That is the plain, ordinary English meaning of what he said. Mr Barry Jones —Yes, go on. Mr HOWARD —He said that the Government was not game to put up taxes before an election. He said: 'After the election, if we win it, we will be able to find new sources of revenue to fund the additional spending'. Now, if that is not so- - Mr Barry Jones —No, that is not correct. Mr HOWARD —The Minister will have an opportunity-- Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Keogh) —Order! The Minister may believe that he has been misrepresented. The appropriate forms of the House will be available to him in due course. I suggest that for the moment he cease interjecting and allow the Deputy Leader of the Opposition to continue his remarks. Mr HOWARD —I will be very happy to facilitate later on, if necessary, the Minister's making a personal explanation because I believe that in his characteristically honest way he will state the facts as he did then, as they fall. The Minister, as I was saying, really let the cat out of the bag. He came clean and said: 'Look, ladies and gentlemen, we all know that we cannot put taxes up three months before an election-that would make us dreadfully unpopular -but if we are re-elected we can really play merry hell. We will be able to spend a lot more money and we will be able to raise a lot more taxation'. Not surprisingly, we will not hear many more economic pronouncements from the Minister for Science and Technology. I notice the honourable member for Bendigo (Mr Brumby) shaking his head and saying: 'No, we will not'. He has a pretty marginal seat and he knows quite well that if we get any more of that economic candour from the Minister for Science and Technology between now and the election his seat will be distinctly at risk. It was readily apparent from Question Time today that the Prime Minister has got back to that old furphy of his, the tax avoidance industry. I say to the Prime Minister and to all honourable members opposite that if they want to make tax avoidance a big issue in this election campaign we will quite literally rub our hands together with glee. We will be absolutely delighted to have a debate on tax avoidance. Nothing would please me more than to have a debate with that bottom of the harbour socialist from Western Australia, the Minister for Finance (Mr Dawkins). He would be a marvellous person for us to have a debate with about tax avoidance. We all know what happened to him when he started to throw mud around in this House about other people. We all know how mortally embarrassed he was last year when it was found out that his company had an involvement with a bottom of the harbour arrangement. We all know that that Minister has no credibility at all in this House, that in opposition he was the arch character assassin, under parliamentary privilege, of other people. Now he has been rendered absolutely speechless on the subject of tax avoidance because of the double standards that he was exposed to have in this House last year. If the Prime Minister wants to take us on on the subject of tax avoidance, we will be more than delighted. We will throw back at him not only the performance and the double standards of the Minister for Finance but also these remarks that the Minister for Finance was reported on an Australian Broadcasting Corporation program to have made in April this year when addressing a group of accountants in Sydney: 'Frankly, gentlemen, tax avoidance in Australia is dead as an issue'. On that occasion I agreed with the Minister for Finance. Tax avoidance is dead in Australia as an issue. It is dead because of the legislative action taken by the Fraser Government. It is dead because in the years that we were in government we tackled the problem and effectively got on top of it. We passed legislation that effectively recouped all of the evaded tax under bottom of the harbour schemes, we brought in the new general anti-avoidance section and we passed 25 or 30 other pieces of specific legislation proscribing the tax avoidance industry in this country. In the five years that I was Treasurer I did more to destroy the tax avoidance industry than did the rest of Australia's Treasurers put together. If honourable members on the other side of the House reckon they can take me on on the question of taking apart the tax avoidance industry in Australia, I can show them a drawer full of abusive letters that I have received from members of the tax avoidance industry reacting very violently against the legislation that I brought down. I remind the House that if ever we wanted proof that this Government lacks credibility on the tax avoidance issue it is in the fact that during the last election campaign honourable members opposite were breathing hell-fire and damnation about what they were going to do when they got into office and about all the legislation they would bring in to proscribe tax avoidance and to kill the tax avoidance industry, yet since they have been in power they have not passed any legislation designed to stamp out tax avoidance totally on their own initiative. The reason is very simple. The reason is that the job had been done by the former Government. The cupboard was bare: There was really nothing left to be done by the Hawke Government when it came to power. As Mr O'Reilly, the former Commissioner of Taxation, reported to me only three days before the change of government, as far as he was concerned as the person principally charged with the administration of taxation in this country, because of Part IVA of the Income Tax Assessment Act, blatant artificial tax avoidance arrangements had been effectively brought to an end in this country. The Government has put up only two pieces of legislation on tax avoidance. The first was the retrospective capital gains tax legislation, which it paraded under the description of bottom of the harbour legislation but which, in reality , does not seek, as our legislation did, to recoup unpaid tax that was always due and payable, but seeks retrospectively to impose a totally new penal taxation liability, a vastly different consideration and a vastly different form of taxation. Quite properly, we have voted against that legislation because it does not seek to recover evaded tax. The Government has not been able to produce one accountant, one lawyer or one recognised taxation expert in Australia who will support its definition of that legislation. The second piece of legislation that the Government brought into the Parliament is the so-called cherry-pickers legislation, dealing with small business superannuation. It involves only $16m. But, worse than that, I have in my files, and I have produced in this Parliament, a minute that I had from the then Commissioner of Taxation in February 1980, telling me that it was unwise of me to bring in legislation to prospectively prohibit those schemes. Yet the Government's legislation has a retrospective operation from the middle of July 1977, which is two and a half years before Mr O'Reilly said: 'Do not even bring it in prospectively'. No wonder we have voted against that legislation; so would any self-respecting opposition, so would any self-respecting group of parliamentarians who were interested in stopping a government introducing legislation which would hamstring legitimate small business operation. That is the sum total of this Government's offering-- Mr Gear —No, it is not; what about the withholding tax? Mr HOWARD —The idea of the withholding tax was announced in my 1982 Budget, so the honourable member should not talk to us about the withholding tax. It was going to be implemented. Naturally, the present Government brought it in, because, unfortunately, the Australian Labor Party won the election, and it is very hard to get legislation through this Parliament from this side of the House , as honourable members opposite will find out after the next election. So let them not talk to us about the withholding tax legislation. The only two offerings of this Government on tax avoidance have not legitimately qualified as tax avoidance legislation. If the Prime Minister wants to fight an election campaign on the issue of tax avoidance, I am more than delighted, because the Fraser Government's record in that area is outstanding. We smashed the tax avoidance industry. We brought it to its knees. The huffing and puffing of the Treasurer will cut no ice. We will be delighted if he strays on to that ground, because we have the evidence; we have the runs on the board; we have the credit; and we have the understanding and the respect of the Australian community in that area. I can only say to the Prime Minister that I welcome this very warmly. I remind him and the Treasurer, who is so close to things in Sydney and who is so dear to the heart of the New South Wales Labor Party, about those 4,000 companies, the names of which the New South Wales Labor Government was going to make public in the New South Wales Parliament at the height of the tax avoidance debate in 1982 . I might ask a few questions of the Treasurer. Why is it that the names of those 4,000 companies were never made public? Why is it that the New South Wales Government, which was going to reveal this great tax avoidance rip-off in 1982, suddenly went quiet after the election of this Labor Government in 1983? Had it fabricated the existence of those 4,000 companies, or did it find, on close examination, that the identity of some of the people involved was a little close to the heart of the New South Wales Labor Party? We know how tremendously sensitive the Government and the Prime Minister are to anything related to the present New South Wales Labor Government. Well they may be, because if ever there was a discredited government in this country and if ever there was a discredited State Premier it is the New South Wales Government and the New South Wales Premier. So I do not think that we will hear too much more about those 4,000 companies. However, we might ask a few questions. I have a rough idea why the names of those 4,000 companies were not made public. I have a rough idea of why, when the present Prime Minister got into power, he said: ' Whoa there, chaps. We have had our penn'orth of fun. We are in now. Don't rock the boat. Don't reveal any of those names'. If the Government wants to run that one during the election campaign, we will be more than ready. I repeat that what we will be voting on in relation to these Bills is a Budget which provides the largest taxation take of any Budget produced by any government in Australia since the end of World War II. It produces the second largest deficit since the end of World War II, exceeded only by the present Treasurer's first deficit of last year. It produces the largest spending Budget since the end of World War II, with 31.1 per cent of taxation collections as a proportion of gross domestic product. But, worst of all, it is a Budget and it is a taxation policy within a Budget which are totally short-sighted. It may give us all a small taxation cut over the next few months; it may be designed to give people a warm inner glow until about the middle of December; but it will then really fall apart. No matter how the Treasurer bobs and weaves and twists and wriggles at Question Time and in personal explanations, he cannot explain away the fact that next year he will not have the tremendous acceleration of revenue collections that he has had this year. Next year he will not have a 44 per cent rise in provisional tax collections or a 10.5 per cent overall rise in collections, after allowing for inflation. Next year it will be back to normal. But, of course, expenditure will not be back to normal; it will still be on a very steep growth path, and that is where the problem is. Whoever has the responsibility of framing taxation policy next year, we will face a very difficult choice. It will be between either cutting expenditure in a way that this Government has had no stomach for, or living with an unmanageably large deficit, even much bigger than the present Treasurer's biggest ever deficit of $8 billion-perhaps $11 billion or $12 billion, because the full year effect of the revenue and spending decisions this year is about $4,000m; so, if one just crudely adds that to his record deficit of $8 billion, one gets about $ 12 billion. Surely no government would live with a deficit of that size. So one is left with the unavoidable conclusion that, if this Government is returned at the election at the end of this year, and given the problems that it has unavoidably created by the nature of this year's Budget, we will be faced, as I said earlier in the House-and the Treasurer did not deny it-with the Government' s bringing in a March or April mini-Budget which will more than take away the nominal taxation cuts that were provided in the Budget of a few weeks ago. In all probability, as forecast by the Minister for Science and Technology in his moment of candour, it will contain very significant taxation increases. That is the real message of this Budget. The message that needs to be got across and will be got across to the Australian people in the months ahead is that on top of the biggest taxing Budget that we have had in Australia since the end of World War II, if this Government is returned, we will, unavoidably and inevitably, in March or April, have a mini-Budget which will provide for even greater increases in taxation on the ordinary Australian taxpayers. Mr BARRY JONES(Lalor-Minister for Science and Technology) —Mr Deputy Speaker, I wish to make a personal explanation. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Keogh) —Does the Minister claim to have been misrepresented? Mr BARRY JONES —I do. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard) persists in his assertions that I have claimed that after re-election the Hawke Government plans what the honourable member said just a few minutes ago, 'very, very significant tax increases', and, as he said earlier, 'to go on a spending spree'. He bases this allegation on remarks that I made on the Australian Broadcasting Corporation's World Today program on 24 August. When the Deputy Leader of the Opposition has quoted me in, for example, his Press release of 26 August-the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Peacock) did the same thing in his Press releases of 24 August and 26 August-and in his National Press Club speech and several times in the House, he has quoted me selectively. In particular, he has left out this vital sentence: That has always been the case in the past. I was not making a prediction about the future budgetary policy of the Hawke Government, which I was in no position to do. I was making a general observation about the activities of past governments. The essence of what I meant to say-I agree it was not very felicitously put on the program-was repeated later that day in an answer to a question without notice from the honourable member for Berowra (Dr Harry Edwards). I said: The difficulty that I face in my portfolio is that we are dealing with a longer timeframe. In a Budget we are dealing with matters that can be dealt with within a 12-month period. I am concerned about the things for which we make plans for 10, 15 or 20 years ahead, to the year 2000 and beyond. In a democratic society-- Mr Hodgman —You are debating. Mr BARRY JONES —I am clarifying the situation. I continued: It is inequitable, especially in an election year, that the immediate demands will always win out over long term ones. However in the long term we will all be disadvantaged unless we undertake that long term planning. I believe that that aspect of our Budget processes is seriously defective and I hope it will be redressed in 1985. When I said that my words were greeted without comment. I hope that this puts an end to the matter. Mr HOWARD(Bennelong) —Mr Deputy Speaker, I claim to have been misrepresented. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Keogh) —Does the Deputy Leader of the Opposition wish to make a personal explanation? Mr HOWARD —Mr Deputy Speaker, I do. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —The Deputy Leader of the Opposition may proceed. Mr HOWARD —I do not believe that I have unfairly represented the remarks of the Minister for Science and Technology (Mr Barry Jones). I say at the outset that I agree with a number of the things he said about the budgetary process. I think the Minister was speaking honestly in that part of his personal explanation. I do not take any issue on that. I simply remind the honourable gentleman that on 4 August 1984 he said, although he did not acknowledge this in the explanation he has just made: Well, we have clearly got to look for alternative sources of revenue. There was no qualification. He continued: That is common ground. That is common ground within the Government; it cannot be common ground with us because we have not discussed it. He continued: Not been decided what they will be. I suppose it is expedient not to decide them precisely before the election. He continued: But a number of Ministers have said we have got to face up to the fact that we need more revenue. That is a euphemism for saying we need higher taxes. He further said: As Senator Robert Ray often says we have got a Party policy that has got 195 pages-- Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —The Deputy Leader of the Opposition is proceeding further now than is necessary to explain where he has been misrepresented. Mr HOWARD —Mr Deputy Speaker, I did not want to be unfair. Mr Barry Jones —You left out the key words 'That has always been the case in the past'. Mr HOWARD —I conclude by saying to the honourable gentleman that I am happy to have the text of what he said tabled. I think it supports what I have said. Finally, I make the observation to him that I do not think his explanation is the end of the matter. Mr Barry Jones —But do you concede that you left out the words 'That has always been the case in the past'? Mr HOWARD —I concede that those words were used by the Minister but I do not concede that that alters the construction I have consistently put on words the Minister has used. The sentence I was reading out and prevented from finishing supports that. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —The Deputy Leader of the Opposition has completed his personal explanation. Mr BRUMBY(Bendigo)(5.05) —In supporting the Income Tax (Individuals) Bill 1984 and cognate Bills, I intend to address some of the rather loose claims made by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard) in relation to income tax. First , I will give a little of the background to the Budget and the income tax Bills before us which form part of that. When the Hawke Government was elected 18 months ago, we promised to improve the Australian economy. Not only has our Government kept that promise but also have we succeeded so well that our economic growth is seen, by world standards, as a remarkable achievement. Over 1983-84, our economy grew by an extraordinary 10 per cent in real terms. In June this year, it was predicted that, over the next 18 months, Australia would have the strongest economic growth of any Western country. Some 258,000 new jobs have been created. As a consequence, our unemployment rate has fallen from more than 10 per cent to its present level of 9.3 per cent. Also, inflation is at its lowest level for 12 years; it is now running at 3.9 per cent. We should compare that with the whopping 11.5 per cent inflation rate under the previous Government. Clearly our record is not one of empty promises; it is one of promises kept. The net effect of that healthier and stronger economy is that our Government has been able to produce a Budget that is good for all Australians. It is a Budget that encourages consumer confidence and spending as a result of tax cuts in the Bills before the House. Yet it does not forget people on fixed incomes. It is a Budget that gives incentives to business to help promote employment and general economic recovery. It is a Budget which encourages a further downward trend in inflation, at the same time significantly decreasing the size of the deficit. As I have said, that healthier economy has allowed us to produce a Budget that is good for all Australians. Part of that is the significant tax cuts in the Bills at present before the House. As I have said, the major Bills give effect to these Budget tax measures. At a cost of some $2.1 billion over a full year, all taxpayers will receive a reduction in income tax, with the biggest percentage going to lower income earners. The Bills also introduce a new five- step tax scale which replaces the old three-step scale in order to make the system much more progressive and much fairer. At the lower end of the tax scale, the tax on incomes between the threshold and $12,500 a year will be reduced from 30c in the dollar to 25c in the dollar. That will mean that taxpayers earning less than $240 a week will enjoy a tax reduction of a very significant 17 per cent. I add that all taxpayers earning between $240 a week and $538 a week will have a tax cut of almost $8 a week. As the majority of Australian employees earn between those two amounts, it can be said that the large majority of taxpayers will receive a $7.60 a week tax cut. In general terms, the tax will assist in the quest for continuing income restraint. It will underpin what has already been the very successful prices and incomes accord. But the cuts will also boost family incomes. They will improve living standards and help stimulate consumer spending. Of course, the tax cuts take effect from 1 November. At this stage, I think it is appropriate to make a few further pertinent comments in relation to these tax cuts. Over the past weeks, the Opposition-the totally discredited Opposition-has been running what can be described only as spurious advertisements claiming that the Budget tax cuts are not real tax cuts. That claim certainly astounds me because, in every sense, the tax cuts are real. They are very visible and they will be effective. The cost of the tax cuts in a full year will be a sizable $2.1 billion. Full tax indexation, which is the course so frequently advocated by the Opposition, would cost only $1.2 billion in a full year. So it is clear that these cuts are real and substantial. In fact , they are almost twice the level of cuts that would be available under a system of full tax indexation. Not only will the vast majority of taxpayers receive a tax reduction of $7.60 but also will they be substantially better off than they would have been under full tax indexation. By way of example, I will take someone on an income of $13, 000 per annum. Under the Budget tax cuts, that income earner will receive an annual reduction in income tax of $395.25. Had the Government proceeded with full indexation, the course so frequently advocated by the Opposition, that same taxpayer on $13,000 per annum would have received a tax cut of only $96.60 over the full year. The net effect of course-the benefit of our Budget tax rates over indexation-is almost $300 per annum. A similar situation applies to someone on $ 19,000 per annum. The Budget tax cuts are worth $395.25 per annum. However, had we introduced full tax indexation such an income earner would have received $96. 60 in tax cuts. Again, the benefit to that taxpayer as a result of our Budget tax cuts amounts to almost $300 per annum. Another claim which is made by the Opposition suggests that our Budget tax cuts have slugged pensioner recipients. That claim astounds me. In a Press release dated 9 September 1984 the Opposition spokesman on social security, Senator Messner, claimed: The worsening tax situation of pensioners has been caused by the failure of the Government to adjust the tax threshold to take account of inflation. This has resulted in more of a pensioner's income becoming taxable. To claim that more of a pensioner's income will become taxable because of our changes is simply totally false. Under the existing taxation arrangements the effective tax threshold for a single social security pensioner is $5,428 per annum. Under the full year effect of the proposed Budget tax changes the effective tax free threshold for that same single pensioner will be $5,595. That is clearly an increase. It is clearly false for members of the Opposition to claim that more of a pensioner's income will become taxable. I should add that, in addition to the tax cuts which I have described, all social security beneficiaries have benefited significantly, as I am sure all honourable members are aware, under the policies of our Government. Let us look briefly at some of the facts of the matter as opposed to the untruths which are peddled by the Opposition. If we look at the standard rate of pension and benefit we see that since March 1983 we have increased that by 19 per cent. If we look at the rate for a mother's or guardian's allowance we see that we have increased that by a massive 66.7 per cent in just 18 months. If we look at supplementary rental assistance we see that we have increased that by 50 per cent in just 18 months. If we look at the family income supplement we see that we have increased that by 40 per cent in just 18 months. I hope that puts to rest the myth that the Opposition peddled that this Government has been harsh on pensioners or social security recipients. One of the very pleasing aspects of the Government's tax cuts policy is that an additional 85,000 needy Australians will now be fully relieved from paying any tax liability at all. This aspect of our tax changes, which involves the combined effect of the various rebates and the lower marginal tax rate of 25 per cent, has received little publicity. It should receive more publicity because it is freeing 85,000 needy taxpayers from paying any tax at all. Again, by way of example, let us look at the situation of a single taxpayer with a dependent child. The effective tax free threshold at the moment for that taxpayer is $7, 195. As a result of our Budget changes to tax rates the full year effect will mean that that single taxpayer with a dependent child can now earn $7,715 before starting to pay tax. For a married social security beneficiary with a dependent spouse the effective tax free threshold at the moment is $7,361. After the full year effect of our Budget tax cuts is taken into account that threshold will increase substantially, in fact by almost $1,000 over the full year, to $8,215. As I have said, that will free 85,000 needy Australians from paying any tax at all. Briefly, in conclusion, I want to make some points about the policy of the Opposition in relation to these tax cuts. I have already mentioned the Opposition's favourite policy of tax indexation. It is a policy which would result in a tax cut, over a full year, of $96.60 for someone on an income of $15 ,000 per annum as against the Government's tax cut of $395.25. Our Budget, our tax cuts, will make that taxpayer better off by $300 per annum. I leave it to the Australian taxpayer and to the Australian community to make their own judgment on that issue. Perhaps in saying that and in saying that the Opposition supports tax indexation I am being a little generous and a little kind. It was only back in March, when the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, the honourable member for Bennelong (Mr Howard), was asked for his view on the tax cuts, that he stated: I think if a government is faced with a choice between giving a tax cut of, say , $1 billion and having a deficit that is $1 billion lower than it otherwise might be I think it should choose the latter. So the Deputy Leader of the Opposition would not be giving any tax cuts at all. But perhaps for an even fairer representation of Opposition policy on tax cuts we should look at what the Opposition actually did when in government. The former Government was the greatest phoney of all time. I am sure we all remember 1977 when the Opposition went into that election promising everyone a fistful of tax cuts. It was only just after the 1977 election when the Government introduced a tax surcharge. In effect it said: 'Thank you, voters, for your support before the last election. We have given you the tax cuts for the election. Now we are taking them away. We are grabbing the money back. Goodbye electorate'. That is what the former Government did. Finally, let us look at the 1982-83 election income tax cuts that the last Fraser Government brought down. There is no doubt that those income tax cuts were substantial-$2.35 billion over a full year. But where did the money come from to finance those tax cuts? Certainly pay as you earn income tax was cut, but at what cost? As I have just said, the cost of the income tax cuts was $2.4 billion. Let us see how the Australian taxpayer paid to make it up. There was an increase in existing sales tax rates by 2.5 per cent with a revenue cost of $ 500m. Taxation at 7.5 per cent was put on certain goods previously exempt, with a revenue effect of $150m. The Fraser Government removed the excise exemption on off-road distillate at a revenue gain of $304m. The former Government increased excise on motor spirit and distillate-$214m. It put more on tobacco-$125m-and more on beer-$135m. When we add up all those sales tax increases we see that they come to $1.6 billion. That was some tax cut. We got $2.4 billion on the one hand and, on the other hand, the Fraser Government, the now discredited Liberal Opposition, took $1.6 back in indirect taxes. The final point I wish to make very briefly relates to the claim made by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition that this Government is a high taxing Government . I challenge any member of the Opposition to dispute the claim that, in 1981-82 , under the Liberal Government, pay as you earn income tax earners contributed 11.7 per cent of gross domestic product. In 1982-83, again under the Liberal Government, they contributed 11.5 per cent of GDP in personal income tax. That was under the Liberals. Under the Hawke Labor Government's measures in the two years 1983 and 1984, personal income tax was 10.6 per cent of GDP and for this year it is estimated at 10.9 per cent. It is a total, fictitious myth to claim that this Government is a high taxing Government. The simple fact is that Australian pay as you earn taxpayers paid considerably more tax under the last two Budgets of the Fraser Government than they do now. I challenge any member of the Opposition to dispute that fact. Members of the Opposition ought, if they cannot dispute that fact, to stop peddling the lie that this Government is a high taxing Government. Mr TUCKEY(O'Connor)(5.16) —I would like to correct the statement of a previous speaker where he said it would appear that the Government is confusing its own legislation on pensioner tax rebates with the tax threshold. Of course, the two work quite differently. I have been advised by the shadow Treasurer, the honourable member for Bennelong (Mr Howard), that we stick by our original claims. The purpose of my rising is to address the House on this income tax legislation. We are debating cognately a number of Bills that cover the income tax on individuals and companies as well as the tax rate. They also correct a ludicrous situation that has arisen in the bank account debits tax and, of course, they cover the Medicare levy which is that nationalised health scheme for all Australians which in fact covers only some, in fact very few in the electorate of O'Connor. The Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) in recent times, in addressing the tax debate and tax on individuals and others, has continually raised the issue of tax avoidance -avoidance of the taxes that are involved in this legislation. In particular, the Prime Minister has returned to making references to the report of the Costigan Royal Commission on the Activities of the Federated Ship Painters and Dockers Union and his coverage of bottom of the harbour schemes. I will refer to that report with some reference to chronological order. It is interesting to note that Costigan, referring to the issue of bottom of the harbour matters in his interim report No. 4, Volume 1, page 33, states: . . . the Australian Taxation Office in Perth detected the operation of these schemes as early as 1973. We might remember who was in government in 1973. Let me tell honourable members who the Treasurers were, because John Howard was not one of them. For the two years following that detection the Treasurers were: Mr Frank Crean to 11 December 1974, about a year after the original detection; Dr Cairns to 6 June 1975; and, of course, the present Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr Hayden), until 11 November 1975. So in two years, although these things were going on-the Taxation Office was aware of them and was seeking legal opinions and other information-nothing was done by the then Government. I am not one to say that things did not grow from there on. But, had the government of the day nipped the process in the bud, it could be clearly argued that these things would never have proceeded to become what they are. The fact of life is that other interesting situations arise. The nationalised legal services that governments have provided create more problems than anything else. In eight years they failed to come to a conclusion on the matter. By going to the private sector- namely, Mr Brinsden, QC, on two occasions-governments were able to get information at the drop of a hat, once in two weeks and another time in three or four weeks, and there were recommendations to proceed. Had the Taxation Office been able to deal with Mr Brinsden, the private enterprise operator, again I believe without the help of governments of either persuasion it would have been able to resolve the matter internally. The many innocent people who were eventually caught up in what they believed to be a legal practice would not have suffered as they did. It is amazing who some of these people, who call themselves innocent, are. Nevertheless, with all the embarrassment that Mr Costigan caused the then Government, at no time was there a suggestion that he should curtail his activities and in fact-- Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mrs Child) —Order! Could the honourable member for O' Connor inform the Chair which Bill is relevant to the bottom of the harbour schemes and the Costigan report? Mr TUCKEY —To date I have not heard one speaker questioned on where he might be leading, provided he kept the matters relevant to taxation. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! I suggest to the honourable member that he be relevant to the six Bills. He has a pretty wide area to cover. Mr TUCKEY —For the information of the House, I wish to touch on a particular company structure. No doubt, this Bill also deals with companies, and their formation and taxation. I am interested in a company by the name of Knowles Investments Pty Ltd that was incorporated on 29 June 1973. The application was lodged by Kott, Wallace and Gunning, solicitors in Perth, on 28 June 1973 and has a company number of 914/73. Such a company would have been formed in the very critical period which I mentioned in my opening remarks. This company eventually had some difficulties with its taxation. But on 27 June, it is interesting to note, the people who consented to be directors were Brian Thomas Burke and Susanne May Burke. At that time Allan William Bradshaw was appointed the secretary. A little further in the document we find that on 30 June 1973 Brian Thomas Burke and Susanne May Burke were appointed as directors. On 2 July 1973 Allan William Bradshaw resigned as secretary and Susanne May Burke was appointed. On 16 July 1973 Susanne May Burke resigned as secretary and Allan William Bradshaw was appointed as secretary. Mr Gear —Madam Deputy Speaker, I raise a point of order. This has got absolutely nothing to do with the Bills before us unless the honourable member for O'Connor can show that, in some way, the company has something to do with the superannuation funds for the current year. Mr TUCKEY —Madam Deputy Speaker-- Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! I am ruling on a point of order. I suggest to the honourable member for O'Connor that he is way outside the six Bills that are before the House and that he come back to the six Bills we are considering. Mr TUCKEY —Madam Deputy Speaker, I can only give honourable members this information for the purpose of developing that argument. If I am denied that opportunity I cannot continue. The information relates to circumstances of various directors at various times. I am pointing that out. If I cannot continue in that way, I cannot develop my argument. My argument is that that company was eventually vacated by Brian Thomas Burke when he resigned as a director on 16 July 1973. That may relax the honourable member who has just taken a point of order. It is interesting to note that on 28 July 1973, a very short period after that, Brian Thomas Burke became a member of the State Parliament. Mr Barry Jones —Madam Deputy Speaker, I raise a point of order. This is a cognate debate. While there is some breadth allowed in cognate debates, the implication is that it must fall broadly within one of the subjects of the six Bills before the House. Perhaps the honourable member for O'Connor could indicate, through you, Madam Deputy Speaker, which of the six he relates to and, specifically, which part of the Bill. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER —I thank the Minister for his intervention. I have been looking at the second reading speeches on the Bills. We have the Income Tax ( Individuals) Bill, the Income Tax (Companies, Corporate Unit Trusts and Superannuation Funds) Bill which is more of a machinery Bill, and the Income Tax (Rates) Amendment Bill which amends the Income Tax Rates Act. I suggest to the honourable member that his remarks are not relevant to the three income tax Bills before the House; he might like now to speak to one of the six Bills before the House. Mr TUCKEY —It is quite clear that when someone sets out on a 20-minute debate he develops an argument. In giving honourable members this information I am sure I can convince you, Madam Deputy Speaker, that the matter relates to the Income Tax (Rates) Amendment Bill and the Income Tax (Individuals) Bill. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The Chair requires the honourable member to speak to one of the six Bills that are before the House. Mr TUCKEY —Madam Deputy Speaker, I can only give you my assurance that I am doing exactly that. I will very shortly refer back to the Bills. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER —To date the honourable member has not convinced the Chair that he is doing that. Mr TUCKEY —Madam Deputy Speaker, I do not know what else I am able to do to convince you. The point is that everybody else has talked about the economy. The honourable member for Bennelong (Mr Howard), the shadow Treasurer, never touched on one of these Bills. The previous speaker, the honourable member for Bendigo ( Mr Brumby), talked about-- Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! I was not in the Chair while previous honourable members spoke. I require the honourable member, as I will require future speakers, to be relevant to the six Bills. Mr TUCKEY —Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I will be relevant. The company to which I have referred and of which Brian Burke, the Premier of Western Australia , was a director went to the bottom of the harbour. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! Will the honourable member please take heed of the Chair and make his remarks relevant to the six Bills, or I will require him to resume his seat. Mr TUCKEY —Yes. These Bills alter the income tax rates. They bring in a five- scale charge which has further advantaged people who are not known as a single income family. A single income family is a family where one member works and the other stays at home. As such, they are unable to enjoy the benefits that two income earners enjoy, whether it be in the form of splitting an income or in saying that both of them earn an income. On average weekly earnings that will cost a single income family as much as $140 a year. I am very disappointed that the Government has chosen to do that as compared to giving some assistance to that particular sector. I am not saying that the single income family has never been well looked after, but at least the spouse rebate has contributed significantly as a tax rebate for previous families in that regard. Of course now people are no longer able to get an additional spouse rebate because the Government did not want that. It did not want to go down that track because of pressure from feminist groups. Single families are now further disadvantaged. As I recollect, as average annual incomes rise to about the $25, 000 mark, the increased advantage to people able to split their incomes will be of the order of $400 a year. So it is significant. These are but some of the many matters which concern us. Of course we are attending to the Medicare levy. According to the Budget Papers, as I remember, the Medicare levy is raising some $700,000 short of the Government's expenditure in that area. Anybody who deluded himself and believed that the taxpayers do not pay the bill would, of course, be quite foolish. They even pay the bill when we get these massive deficits because a deficit is only deferred tax. It is tax that must be paid at some time in the future. So many governments overlook the fact that taxation is only involuntary payments made by members of the community to government for the provision of services that they often neither desire nor use. Medicare is a classic example of people who are not able to share in the wonderful benefits the Government provides-for example, people who live in the country-having to pay an additional tax, in this case an insurance levy. All of these matters come together. I am particularly sorry, Madam Deputy Speaker, that you do not believe that some of the other matters I wanted to bring to the attention of this Parliament are of significance. The amount of effort that has been made in recent days to raise an issue which even the Minister for Finance (Mr Dawkins)-who I believe has a few questions to answer in regard to personal, individual and company taxation-has said is a dead issue is of concern to me. Clearly, the Prime Minister wants to raise the matter again. The point I wanted to make during this debate-I thought it was quite relevant in the light of these fairly broad discussions-is that one can set out to denigrate people and then find that people very close to one's own side of politics are caught up in the net, sometimes quite innocently. I mentioned the name of a Premier of Western Australia. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mrs Child) —I suggest that the honourable member do not return to that subject. Mr TUCKEY —It is up to other people, Madam Deputy Speaker, to decide the guilt of individuals. It is a question that can be decided. Nevertheless, taxation avoidance legislation has been brought into this place. Government members have criticised us during this debate for rejecting the other legislation brought in by this Government to introduce more retrospectivity into this area. Let me put my position clearly. I opposed the retrospective legislation of the honourable member for Bennelong (Mr Howard). I voted against it and I have not changed my view. Yet I supported him wholeheartedly in 1980 when he brought in legislation to stop a practice that he had discovered. The legislation stopped it but it did not, in fact, do what the later retrospective legislation did. It can affect many innocent people. I mention the granddaughter of the founder of a large company in Western Australia who has received tax accounts but who probably has never taken the shares out of her bottom drawer. I ask: What is the difference between that lady and the Premier of a State-if you like me to put it that way, Madam Deputy Speaker-who, in fact, was once removed from a bottom of the harbour transaction? If I had been able to read the names of all the people in that company it would have been interesting to note how, all of a sudden, in a matter of weeks, the directors started to wander all over Australia and how the registered office jumped from Brisbane to Melbourne to Wedge Point and to Port Hedland. As I said, I am no skindiver-- Mr Barry Jones —But you plunge to some pretty murky depths. Mr TUCKEY —No, I am putting an argument that there could be innocents in this case. One does not know whom one will catch with retrospective legislation. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member is returning to the argument that the Chair has already asked him to leave. Mr TUCKEY —Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I will not continue to do that. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER —The Chair is here not to decide whether or not an honourable member speaks on significant issues but to ensure that he speaks to the matter before the House. Mr TUCKEY —Yes, Madam Deputy Speaker; nevertheless you can see that when governments set out-- Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER —I can see that it is difficult, but I am not going to make it any easier. Mr TUCKEY —When governments set out to raise income tax, to alter income tax rates and to do things of that nature they are not always sure of where they might go. I think that had I had more opportunity to speak on these matters honourable members opposite might have been quite interested to hear the types of accusations that might have been able to be levelled against certain people because of their association with bottom of the harbour companies when, in fact, those people were innocent. I cannot say whether the Premier of Western Australia was innocent or guilty. However, I can say that Knowles Investments Pty Ltd was his company and that it went to the bottom of the harbour. That is something for which he should now answer. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member is once again moving outside the Chair's instructions. Mr TUCKEY —Madam Deputy Speaker, I have only two minutes left. It is still a matter of concern to the Opposition that the Government has spent such a large amount of money when it could have used quite a bit of its revenue to keep Australia on a normal course. The fact is that the Budget Papers show us that public debt servicing now is only approximately $1 billion below the present deficit. In business terms that means borrowing to pay the interest bill, and we all know what that means in business terms. It means that the receivers will be around tomorrow. That has been achieved in two years. We know very well that public debt servicing costs have increased during the life of this Government to an amount that is, in fact, equal to the total of what they were during the entire seven years of the Fraser Government. Earlier today I heard the Treasurer (Mr Keating) telling us how all that has been structured to create growth. If it is growth in government, and all the figures tend to support that, I am of the opinion that Australia will be in the same sort of trouble as are the countries of Central and South America which I had the privilege to visit recently as a member of a parliamentary delegation. Those countries tried to spend their way out of trouble. Of course they are now in deep trouble. So that is no recommendation for Australia. Australians are self-sufficient people. I am sure that at any time they would prefer to see government expenditure contained-I do not say 'taxes increased'- wherever possible so that Australia pays its way year by year. Probably the large deficit of the previous year was designed to get us out of the terrible drought. However, if we can believe the Government, things are so good now that we as a nation should not be borrowing money to carry on government affairs. I reject the Government's argument. I am disappointed, Madam Deputy Speaker, because I am sure that Mr Burke would have liked the opportunity to explain why he was the director of a bottom of the harbour company at one stage. Mr GEAR(Tangney)(5.37) —In addressing the Income Tax (Individuals) Bill 1984, the Income Tax (Companies, Corporate Unit Trusts and Superannuation Funds) Bill 1984, the Income Tax (Rates) Amendment Bill 1984, the Medicare Levy Bill 1984, the Bank Account Debits Tax Administration Amendment Bill 1984 and the Bank Account Debits Tax Amendment Bill 1984, I recognise that the honourable member for Bendigo (Mr Brumby) has adequately covered the provisions of the income tax Bills before us today. I comment briefly on these Bills and take up the challenge delivered by the honourable member for Bennelong (Mr Howard) in a general way on the tax avoidance industry as it relates to tax collections. Before I turn to those matters, I briefly mention the bank account debits tax and, in particular, the provisions within the legislation to exempt parents and citizens associations and also the minor activities of local councils. I am sure that in a general way this has overcome many of the objections that were put up before the original legislation was passed by the previous Government. Certainly organisations such as parents and citizens groups and local councils need that relief. I turn to the Income Tax (Individuals) Bill. I think we can say in a general sense that the provision of two more tax scales has made taxation more progressive. As the honourable member for Bendigo pointed out, the tax cuts went to those who really needed them. Parliamentarians received about a one per cent tax cut. But for those earning the average wage the tax cut was more like 16 to 17 per cent. They are the people who needed a tax cut. They are the people for whom it will do the most good because they will go out and spend the money in the shops and create consumer spending. It is also a recognition by the Government of the contribution these people have made over the last year and a half that we have been in power and certainly for the seven years during which they had to endure the previous Government. It is small compensation for the hardships they have had to endure during that time . We can see it as another instalment of the recovery we have instituted since we have been in power. I could talk in a general sense about the lower housing interest rates we have been able to achieve, the lower inflation rate which brings down prices and the more jobs we have been able to create so that those people who do have jobs can pay their income tax and are not a drain on the social security bill, and in those two ways help to pay the income tax that will result in an increased revenue collection next year. One of the misconceptions put about by the Opposition is that next year we will collect much more tax. The Treasurer (Mr Keating) has adequately explained this. He said that with a growing economy and more taxpayers it is possible to collect more tax and at the same time to grant the taxation cuts that we are granting in this Bill. Therefore the individual, while paying less, is contributing to a larger take by the Government. I will look at the public's perception of the Budget because, quite obviously, the Opposition will say that these are not real tax cuts and we will say that they are real tax cuts. The real judges are the people in the street. I refer to a poll which was reported in yesterday's Age. People were asked whether the Budget would leave them in about the same position, or worse off. In 1982, the year of the last Liberal Budget, the famous-or infamous, depending on how one looks at it-family Budget, 20 per cent of the people questioned about the Budget thought they would stay in about the same position and 60 per cent thought they would be worse off. Honourable members will remember that that Budget was the one that gave everything away. It was followed up by a very extensive advertising campaign. Notwithstanding that, 60 per cent of the people interviewed thought that they would be worse off as a result of that Budget. After this Budget, the 1984 Budget, the same poll revealed that the number of people who thought that they would be in about the same position was 53 per cent , compared with 20 per cent after the last Liberal Budget, and only 19 per cent, compared with 60 per cent, thought that they would be worse off. For a vote of confidence in this Budget we need look only to that poll. One final point I would like to make about income tax collections, in a very general way, relates to the income tax we pay as individuals. I will quote from a document 'Revenue Statistics of OECD Member Countries' put out by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. The contribution by pay as you earn taxpayers to total tax receipts, as a percentage of total taxation, in 1965 was 34.24 per cent but had risen in 1982 to 45.26 per cent. That is a dramatic increase of income tax paid by PAYE taxpayers. The taxes on companies in the same period is down from 16.14 per cent to only 9.95 per cent. Taxes collected from property also declined in the same period, from 11.71 per cent to 7.94 per cent. Honourable members can see the general trend. Income tax has been putting much greater stress on PAYE taxpayers. They are the honest people; they are the people who cannot arrange their finances in such a way as to make use of the artificial schemes that the honourable member for O'Connor (Mr Tuckey) spoke about. I pick up one point he made about the equity of allowances. Certainly it is comforting for someone on my income to be able to claim a spouse rebate but I do not really need it. I think we could look at redirecting that allowance to people who could more readily do with the money. I hope that we take up that matter when we are returned to government. I turn briefly to the general thrust of what the honourable member for Bennelong and also the honourable member for O'Connor said as it relates to income tax collection. One of the schemes brought up by the honourable member for Bennelong is the cherry-picking scheme. It relates in a way to a Bill that is before us today, the Income Tax (Companies, Corporate Unit Trusts and Superannuation Funds) Bill. This scheme must have been the shabbiest tax avoidance scheme that has ever been seen in Australia because it relied on the fact that the Government gave a tax rebate for superannuation funds. I will refer to two of the principal people involved in one of the judgments handed down by the New South Wales court, the Kelly brothers. Mr Justice Wootten said this about their motives, when looking at superannuation schemes: Despite the disagreements of the two brothers they shared one consuming passion , a desire to pay as little tax as possible. It is apparent that the problem of avoiding taxation occupied many of their waking hours, and dictated many of their actions. All I can say about the Kelly brothers is that if they were in Western Australia they would be the President and the Secretary of the Liberal Party of Western Australia. We have a paddock full of tax avoiders in Western Australia and most of them belong to the Liberal Party. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mrs Child) —Order! I remind the honourable member of the reminder I gave to the honourable member for O'Connor that he be relevant to the Bills before the House. Mr GEAR —Thank you for your guidance, Madam Deputy Speaker. I will refer to an example whereby if we do not bring in legislation such as the Income Tax ( Companies, Corporate Unit Trusts and Superannuation Funds) Bill we will get tax evasion such as this. I was talking about the ways in which ordinary taxpayers can be cheated out of benefits. Here is an example. Mr Justice Wootten stated: Mrs Lowndes was due to reach retiring age on 15 July 1980. At the end of June her employment was terminated on a Friday on the pretext that staff had to be kept down, and that as a married woman she was the obvious person to go. Nevertheless she was re-employed as a casual on the following Monday and was still working when the case came on for hearing before me. By this simple manoeuvre she was deprived of $53,639 which, unknown to her, had been credited to her account in the superannuation fund in pursuit of the group's taxation advantages. The judge was commenting on the shabby treatment whereby companies could use the tax provisions of superannuation funds to evade tax and therefore make our collection of taxes that much harder. We have to raise taxes paid by individuals and, as I have said, they are primarily the PAYE taxpayers. As I have pointed out, the escalation of the amount of tax they have been paying from 1965 to 1982 , under mainly conservative governments, has been a direct result, in the later years anyway, of the way in which companies and smart tax evaders have been able to shift that burden from themselves to the honest taxpayers, the PAYE taxpayers . It is up to this Government to rectify this situation as only this Government will act when it is returned to power to make sure that that situation is reversed and that we start getting the taxes from those people who have been able to take advantage of tax avoidance schemes under the previous Government. I remind the people of Australia that the Opposition is still supporting tax evaders. The honourable member for Bennelong indicated that the Opposition will block the legislation relating to the cherry-picking scheme when it comes before the Senate, as it will shortly. All I can say to the honest taxpayers of Australia is this: What you have to realise is that there is only one party which is really concerned with stamping out tax avoidance and collecting the money which has been stolen from you, and that is the Australian Labor Party. The Liberal Party will not do it; the National Party of Australia will not do it and neither will the Australian Democrats. They have ganged up with Brian Harradine, the Independent from Tasmania, to defeat these Bills in the Senate and thereby put a very much higher burden on the PAYE taxpayer. This is reflected in the figures which I gave earlier. I would like to say one final thing on this matter. On winning the seat of Tangney I displaced a person who, like the honourable member for O'Connor, had voted against the tax avoidance legislation. The previous honourable member for Tangney is parading again as the candidate for Tangney and all I would like the people of Tangney to know is that, if he gets back, they can be assured that he will come into this Parliament and support the tax evaders, just as he did before. In conclusion, I wish the passage of these Bills well. I say to the people of Canning whom I hope to represent after the next election that I make only one promise on taxation: If I am elected to represent the people of Canning, I will come back here and support a government that will bring in a progressive taxation system and get rid once and for all of the tax rorts that have for too long been a feature of past governments' taxation measures. Mr BRAITHWAITE(Dawson)(5.50) —In speaking to the Income Tax (Individuals) Bill and cognate Bills which are a package associated with the 1984-85 Budget, I should like to make a few comments on the Budget and its effects. Earlier today, we discussed a matter of public importance. Comments were made about various figures, particularly budgetary receipts as a percentage of gross domestic product. There has been some conflict about those figures. We should understand that, unassociated with particular legislation, the Budget creates additional taxation through the deficit. Whatever one says about a deficit and whichever government brings down a Budget that creates a deficit, one must realise that the Government is deferring payment until some future time . The deferment of payment in this Budget represents 8.8 per cent of total outlays in the form of public debt servicing. If we add to receipts $6.745 billion in deferred taxation, we come up with a record figure-this is indisputable-of $63.948 billion, which is 31.2 per cent of GDP. If we correct the budgetary figures, allowing for the influence of the deficit, this year's deficit would stand head and shoulders over any other yearly deficit during the past 10 years or, I understand, any other yearly deficit since Budgets were first effected. If last year's figures were corrected, receipts as a proportion of GDP would total 30 per cent. If the 1982-83 figures were corrected, receipts as a proportion of GDP would total about 28 per cent. The Treasurer (Mr Keating) cannot claim that this is not a record revenue collecting Budget because when deferred taxation, in the form of the deficit, is added it amounts to 31.2 per cent, which is almost one-third of total GDP. I should not like the Treasurer to think he can continue to argue that, because of a manipulation in regard to Medicare, the figure is not 31.2 per cent. The Medicare Levy Bill is now before the House, and I think we should correct the impression that the Treasurer was trying to give. Even the Medicare levy falls short of providing the actual amount that is required. I understand that not one cent in the dollar under the different formula for levying income tax but 1.8c in the dollar is required to cover the cost of Medicare during the next 12 months. Already, the Bill contains a component that is not realistic, fair or true. It understates the actual position. No facts given by the Treasurer or the Minister for Health (Dr Blewett) can disguise the reality of the Budget figures. The Budget and this legislation do not reveal the cost above that one cent levy that must be met. I have just mentioned 1.8c. No associated cost is borne by the community. In this respect many notices of motion have been given in the House complaining about Medicare offices. I do not know what happens in the average electorate, but in the electorate of Dawson there are two Medicare offices for a population of 160,000 people in an area of 67,000 square kilometres. So the community incurs a cost so far as Medicare is concerned for those people who live some distance from a Medicare office and cannot get the same treatment as people in metropolitan areas. That is the first cost. The second cost borne by the community involves longer queues in public hospitals. Unfortunately, all these costs cannot be associated with a rate of tax in the dollar but they are borne by the community. What is the cost to the community of the deferred operations and treatment of medical complaints? That is also an additional cost to the community. There are others. One associated cost is the cost of the hounding of practitioners, particularly in New South Wales. That is an effect of Medicare. That is the proper situation as far as Medicare is concerned. The honourable member for Bendigo (Mr Brumby) mentioned that the Budget and these Bills were in conformity with promises made during the election campaign in March last year and the promises that had been kept. I should not like that statement to go unchallenged. I have a list of the promises that were made and not kept by the Labor Government. First of all the Australian Labor Party promised that there would be income tax cuts for six million workers. In actual fact the figures prove that there has been an increase in taxation of over $20 a week as a result of last year's mini-Budget and main Budget. The best that the Government can say is that there has been a cut in taxation of almost $8. The Government does not say that the cut is $8; it says that the cut is almost $8. That is the first example of a promise that has not been kept that I can bring home to the honourable member for Bendigo. The Labor Party promised that the tax threshold would be increased to $5,000, but it remains at $4,595. A promise was made to increase the pensioners' tax threshold to $5,893. As far as I know, that tax threshold is $5,533, an amount unaltered since the term of the previous Government. The Labor Party promised also an increase in the spouse rebate and the sole parent rebate to help the family. There has been no increase in the spouse rebate. Far from having that increase, we have heard statements from the honourable member for Tangney (Mr Gear) that the spouse rebates were not necessary. He said that he had suffered embarrassment in getting that rebate on behalf of his dependent wife. That might be the case in his situation, but the spouse rebate is an essential factor in the efforts to equalise the tax for a one-income, as opposed to a two-income, family whose income does not reach the great heights of the honourable member's salary but is in the range of $15,000 to $20,000 a year. I should hate any member of the Government to suggest that the sooner the spouse rebate is cleared out, the better it will be. Members of the Government do not know where the tax equity lies in that spouse rebate. On many occasions I have suggested that the spouse rebate should be $1,400 or $1,500 to match the lower tax rates for a single income family as opposed to a dual income family. This Budget, although not these Bills, seeks to extend that-- Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Keogh) —Order! The honourable member for Dawson said that certain of his remarks were not related to the Bills we are discussing. I remind the honourable member that, while a cognate debate is taking place on six Bills, it might be appropriate if he were to return fairly soon to one of those Bills. I appreciate that he is using examples. Mr BRAITHWAITE —Mr Deputy Speaker, I am merely replying to a comment made by the honourable member for Tangney and to an untrue assertion by the honourable member for Bendigo. This Budget puts a spouse rebate into the hands of those in a de facto relationship. I have put a question on notice asking the Treasurer ( Mr Keating) whether the spouse rebate will go to those involved in homosexual relationships. I think that the people of Australia want to know whether that extension of the spouse rebate is contemplated by the Government. The Government promised also that it would impose no new capital gains tax. The Income Tax (Companies, Corporate Unit Trusts and Superannuation Funds) Bill imposes a capital tax on lump sum payments. There are other broken promises. The Government promised that there would be no superannuation changes, but now there will be changes with regard to lump sums. The Labor Government gave a categorical undertaking to remove sales tax on retreaded tyres, but that action has not eventuated. Many other promises have been broken. For instance, the Government promised that it would increase growth through public capital works. In fact, last year's mini-Budget wiped out a major capital works project that was then contemplated, the Darwin to Alice Springs railway line. The honourable member for Bendigo incorrectly stated the effects of taxation on pensioners. He suggested that this Government's treatment of the taxation of pensioners differed in some way from that of the previous Government. As I understand it, he cannot even understand the actual calculations because he believes that, once the ceiling of $5,533 is reached, everything above that is taxable, whereas in fact it is a rebating factor stemming I believe from the figure of $4,595 at 12.5 per cent. I suggest that he check his figures and I am sure that he will find that the calculation he arrived at is incorrect and has no association with this Bill. I turn now from the general comments made previously and from Medicare to the rates of taxation. As I mentioned, the Government would have us and the people of Australia believe that there is a tax rebate of almost $8 a week for people within a certain income range. Of course, as I said before, it can be proven without much problem at all that for an average family the tax has previously increased considerably beyond that figure of almost $8. I cannot say that I am very happy about going back to the progression method of taxation with five steps instead of the previous three. When I look at progression in the rates of taxation it always appears to me that somebody is trying to fiddle and fudge but that eventually somebody will pay more tax than they were paying previously. I believe that somehow the pay as you earn tax system has had this effect because pay as you earn tax collections are now up by over $6 billion. I want to bring out another factor. I am not sure whether it is economic theory or Parkinson's law or something like that, but the more those on higher rates of income are penalised with higher rates of taxes the more a disincentive will automatically be caused. I can recall that in my days as a public accountant in the early 1970s clients asked me what the effect would be after taxation on their take home pay if they worked four or four and a half days a week instead of five. The difference was so small even at that time that people were opting for a shorter working week, less productivity and less encouragement for the country. We now have a five-step progressive taxation system with a new 48c scale and the retention of the 60c scale plus the Medicare levy. If we are to encourage people to get out and earn, nobody should be asked to pay more than 50c in the dollar. If we look back over the last decade we will find that people on the higher rates of income and thus on the higher rates of tax were opting out. They were not necessarily involved in bottom of the harbour schemes, as somebody suggested; they were opting out because they were not going to share more of their incomes with the Commissioner of Taxation than they took home to their families. Until somebody in this country comes to the realisation that there is an income curve above which taxation should not be imposed, there will be a declining effect on productivity in this country. These rates of tax, far from doing that, sweep the progression further. Progression has also been included in the bank account debits tax. Whereas cheques of over $10,000 used to attract a fee of $1 per cheque, they will now attract a fee of $1.50. In the space of a short 12 months, this Government could not keep its hands off another form of tax just to increase its own revenue. Mr Ronald Edwards —You brought it in. Mr BRAITHWAITE —No, we did not. The Government brought it in. That is the mischief those on the Government side have been trying to create. Certainly it was mentioned in the Budget. It was brought in by the Government in about April last year. Mr Wells —It came in automatically. You know that. Mr BRAITHWAITE —That is absolutely right. If honourable members opposite do not know that, they should not try in this House to talk on a Bill or a Budget, because they would be so far short on facts that they would not add anything to the debate. I just mention in connection with these rates that there was a promise to increase the tax ceiling. This was not done. Had it been done, people at the lower end of the scale, about whom the Labor Government is so worried and who would not be paying any tax, now will be paying tax. Even though the rate has been decreased from 30c to 26.7c in the dollar for those on incomes over $4, 595, had the Government increased the ceiling no tax would have been paid on incomes of $500 to $600 above that figure. I suggest to members of the Government and to those on the back bench that, instead of suggesting that this scale of taxation gives justice to the small income earners, they look very closely at the taxation benefit that indexation of the ceiling could have effected for those on lower incomes. These tax Bills mean that the Labor Party can survive only until Christmas when it is freely admitted that, if the Labor Government is returned, there will be a following Budget. Mr Wells —It is not. Mr BRAITHWAITE —Of course it is. If the honourable member looks at the Government's figures he will find that out. The Government has closed off all its options. The Budget is predicated on an election between 1 November and 1 December so that these cuts can come into operation and be felt and so that the Government can get in and get out quickly. But we should bear this in mind: Time will tell; if the Government is re-elected there will be a mini-Budget in which, because the Government has cut off its options in other regards, there will be taxes on wealth and capital as well as the de facto tax of the pensions assets test, which we already have. Before I move on, I would like to mention that all taxpayers are supposed to be treated equally under the law. As I understand it, the primary producers of Australia are not being treated correctly or fairly under the new averaging arrangements. A primary producer who has not the opportunity of opting out of his average, who now earns an income of under the ceiling of $4,595 but who has an average income which will take him over that figure, will be assessable. I do not think that is right. As this Government has cut off all the other avenues, particularly on the income equalisation deposits, I believe that in all fairness primary producers should not be treated in this manner with respect to taxation. They should not be treated as the underdogs in this society. They are the ones who are still producing the national income, and I believe this situation should be corrected. This is only one of the many pieces of legislation to come to this House which have had this effect on primary producers. The Government has put sales tax on lubricating oil. It has also increased the excise on fuel and has not rebated it. Depreciation write-offs have been lengthened instead of accelerated. Capital improvement outlays are not being treated as taxation deductions. Now in this Budget, because of the new stock values, a primary producer will be asked to make a contribution to taxation out of profits which will not be realised until a sale is made many years later. Mr Lusher —Why do they hate farmers? Mr BRAITHWAITE —One must ask: Why does the Government have to keep on penalising the farmers who, with the miners, are the people producing our basic export income. The amendments to the Bank Account Debits Tax Act have been delayed for 12 months. I was given assurances 18 months ago that, after six months of operation, the Act would be reviewed and alterations would be made. I am very happy to see that parents and citizens associations will now be exempt, but the legislation is 12 months late. I have received representations from State local government organisations. When I was in Western Australia at the beginning of the year I was asked what the interpretation was. At last we have it in the Bank Account Debits Tax Amendment Bill. I hope that the explanation given in the second reading speech and in the explanatory memorandum properly indicates what insignificant activities will be, because local government organisations will be very disappointed with this Bill if they do not get the exemptions they feel they are entitled to. One must look at the cost to local government of government on-costs. The bank account debits tax was one. I have mentioned the fuel excise. I also mention the contributions to Commonwealth programs and, more than that, the taxes that local government has to absorb from the States, which have been withdrawing from their commitments, particularly the pensioners' rates rebate, of which they now take a half, and payroll tax. I was given to understand by the New South Wales delegation last week that 40 per cent of personal income tax sharing is now taken up in government on-costs both from the Commonwealth and from the State. There must be a wider recognition of the relevance of local government to our total sphere of government-- Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr RONALD EDWARDS(Stirling)(6.12) —In my remarks in the next few minutes I shall deal with the bank account debits tax, examine the lump sum tax on superannuation and severance arrangements covered by this legislation, look at the question of the Budget deficit and then deal with the issue of taxpayers and the impact on them of this Budget. I would like to close with some observations about the whole impact of tax administration, looking at such issues as tax evasion. It is important to begin by making a couple of preliminary remarks on the comments by Opposition speakers on the whole area of tax administration and the question of the deficit. The first observation I wish to make is that I am sure people listening to these broadcasts will have the impression that members of the Opposition have never been in government. One gets the clear feeling from listening to those honourable members now that they had no responsibility for any of the economic circumstances which Australia has to face. The honourable member for Dawson (Mr Braithwaite) spoke of the bank account debits tax and gave the impression that he and his side had nothing to do with it. However, if one checks the Bill itself one sees that the Bank Account Debits Tax Administration Act was drawn up in 1982-and we all know who was in government in that year. The Government was composed of the now discredited Liberal and National parties. The bank account debits tax was drawn up in terms of administration in 1982, and it is not good enough for the honourable member for Dawson to imagine that it did not happen then, because it did. We have faced up to the realities. I join with the honourable member for Dawson in saying that since Labor has been in office from March 1983 we have received numbers of representations from parents and citizens associations and parents and friends associations. I particularly commend the administration of one of the schools in my electorate, Servite College, which made representations through its principal, Mr Grenville Murray, and indicated that there were some severe problems. In effect, in this legislation we are providing three areas of exemption from the bank account debits tax. The one that is most relevant to those listening and to the Australian community is in general that the Government is now to exempt parents and citizens associations and parents and friends associations from the impact of the bank account debit tax. This legislation which the Government seeks to amend was drawn up in 1982 under the then Liberal-National Party Government. This Government is amending that legislation in order to introduce a degree of social equity, because we believe that what the previous Government did was wrong and the community knew it was wrong. The Government is now redressing that situation. The second matter with which I wish to deal and which I foreshadowed earlier is the subject of lump sum taxes. One area that applies relates to the Bill dealing with superannuation funds. There is a matter of particular concern for some constituents in Western Australia. People who have been working on the Dampier natural gas pipeline are now finding that their severance pay is not being treated as a bona fide redundancy payment. This means that, instead of their paying tax of 5 per cent under the previous arrangement, they are now being asked to pay 30 per cent tax rate on severance pay. It is not being treated as a bona fide redundancy payment. It is causing considerable concern because some people, instead of paying sums of the order of $400, are now being asked to pay $4,000. Members of the Electrical Trades Union, the Australian Workers Union and the Amalgamated Metals Foundry and Shipwrights Union are covered by this arrangement. In fact, they finished the job 90 days ahead of schedule. I know that this is a matter of concern to other members, such as the honourable member for Tangney (Mr Gear) who is present for this debate, and it is a point we wish to emphasise. There is a great deal of concern at the high rate of tax being paid by those who had been working on the project. The third matter I referred to in my introductory remarks is the Budget deficit . Opposition members in the last day or two have been making great play of the deficit. It is interesting that, as we begin to talk about accountability to the electorate in terms of some such thing as an election, the Opposition's claims become more extravagant, its ideas become more illusory, and its capacity to remember history becomes much reduced. In effect, it is trying to escape its past. It forgets that Labor inherited an indicated Budget deficit of $9.6 billion. The Opposition embraced its prophet at the time, Mr John Stone, who was the architect of the demolition of this economy in respect of its administration , along with the honourable member for Bennelong (Mr Howard). In terms of the performance of the economy, we had high rates of inflation and low rates of economic growth. In fact, that factor got down to minus 2.5 per cent. It is not good enough in this debate about tax to say that people in Australia are paying higher rates of tax under the present Government. In fact, under the wage pause operated by the previous Government, combined with inflation of the order of 11 per cent, people were being put further and further into difficulties and those people recognise that. It is not possible to avoid that history. The interest rates at that time were so high that it was not worthwhile many people investing their money. We often hear Opposition members talk about disincentives to investment. However, in their time in government the interest rates got so high that the return on capital was lower than the interest being charged on the capital borrowed. Clearly, investment went into a negative stage. The investment multiplier went into reverse. The Australian community remembers that because of the enormous shakeout in manufacturing industry. In the previous Government's last year of office some 250,000 jobs were lost. One cannot avoid those pieces of history. One knows that the Opposition will seek to avoid those matters in the next couple of months, but the Australian electorate is anticipating those deceptions because it has learned to live with them under governments composed of the Liberal and National parties. However, under Labor they have learned to live with a better form of economic management. It needs to be reiterated that there have been changes to tax arrangements in this Budget. In effect, those changes bring in a five-step tax scale-in other words, it has been made more progressive. The Budget has also reduced the burden on lower income earners, which is a policy to which the present Government is committed. The Opposition constantly jumps up and down on that score, but the previous Government in its term of office avoided doing anything about that factor. It took no action of any great magnitude. The next point to emphasise-it has been made by the honourable member for Tangney, and we shall make it many times-is that on the subject of equity the present Government has made great strides. The honourable member for Bennelong ( Mr Howard) said that he sought to pursue tax avoiders and tax evaders, but in 1978, in a speech delivered on his behalf by the honourable member for Balaclava (Mr Macphee) in Perth to the Institute of Chartered Accountants, he identified many schemes. If he was able to identify those schemes in 1978, why did he take so long to act on that information? The reason was that there was a reluctance within the government administration at that time to act. I do not rule out the fact that the honourable member for Bennelong moved that way, but he moved far too late. Many of those practices became entrenched and have become more difficult to weed out. Clearly, the recognition was there in June 1978, but the then Government did not move on it until 1982 when what amounted to a disease inside the organisation, which was called the Liberal Party, and the Government of Australia at that stage, began to grow. The former Government did not act to bring about equity with any degree of conviction and the Australian community understands that. I reiterate some of the points I have made. I have talked about the bank account debits tax, which is clearly a measure to remove some burden from parents and citizens associations and parents and friends associations. I have referred to those organisations in my electorate which made representations to me. I commend them for doing that because I believe that we have been successful , not only in respect of the electorate of Stirling but also in respect of the community as a whole, in removing that burden-not a great burden but an unnecessary burden-from organisations of that kind. The second thing is that I have made the observation that what I believe is a lump sum tax on people working on the Dampier natural gas pipeline ought not to apply. It is something that we ought to pursue with a degree of vigour because these people put in a good job of work. They completed a project 90 days ahead of time and we ought not be treating them at the rate of tax at which we are treating them. I then referred to the questions of the Budget deficit and the whole issue. I say again that in this place we must remember that people opposite who talk about public sector deficits and who now latterly embrace Mr John Stone and forget his failures have not had their failures forgotten by the Australian community. They must not forget their failures because if they do they will not learn from them. They need to go back and recognise that they did participate in a major demolition of the Australian economy. We had very high rates of inflation and negative economic growth. In fact, our economy was ailing badly. We have done something to restore the economy to a state of health. I know that a lot of hysterical claims will be made by honourable members opposite. The electorate and the people listening to this debate should understand that those claims are all conditioned by the need of those opposite somehow to escape their past and to present a decent face to the electorate. The only problem is that, like one of those Greek monsters, when we lop off one of their heads we know that they will come back in another form but they will still be the same monster. Mr DONALD CAMERON(Moreton)(6.22) —In listening to the last few minutes of the speech of the honourable member for Stirling (Mr Ronald Edwards) I turned to someone and asked: 'Was he a schoolteacher prior to coming here?'. He spoke to the Parliament as though he were lecturing us back in the classroom. Someone said: 'Yes, he was'. One recalls that Pickering cartoon in the mid-1970s in which Gough and Margaret Whitlam were sitting together and Gough said to Margaret: 'I feel an election coming on'. I suppose that everything that is said in this place now and in the weeks ahead will be almost circumspect and that it is for the listening public, including those who sit in the public galleries, to make their own value judgments on everything that is said. When I say ' everything', I mean everything. Each day in Question Time we have a pantomime by the self-styled, self-cast Colonel Gaddafi of Australian politics, the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke), playing with words. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Keogh) —Order! I remind the honourable member for Moreton at the outset that this is a cognate debate on six different Bills. I am sure there is ample scope for him to range fairly widely, but perhaps not as widely as he is ranging at the commencement of his speech. Mr DONALD CAMERON —I am just endeavouring, Mr Deputy Speaker, to underline how the listening public is entitled to listen to everything said in this place in a circumspect way. I was just citing the example of the Prime Minister telling this House today how under the Liberals unemployment rose by 250,000, during the period of recession and world downturn-- Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member for Moreton will resume his seat . Obviously the remarks that I made have been completely ignored by him. I now remind him that this is a cognate debate. Six Bills are before us. He may proceed with his remarks to the House but I ask him to keep to one of the six Bills which are the subject of the cognate debate. Mr DONALD CAMERON —I will, Mr Deputy Speaker, and I will endeavour to finish what I was trying to say, if I am able to do so. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! I have asked the honourable member for Moreton to return to the Bills and not to endeavour to finish what he was saying. He will speak to one of the six Bills. Mr DONALD CAMERON —Right. The honourable member for Stirling, who preceded me, mentioned tax avoidance schemes. We have heard these mentioned several times during this afternoon's debate. The Government tries to suggest that Opposition members are trying to protect the interests of a selected, special handful of people out there but it does not refer as frequently to the fact that in the Senate the Australian Democrats and Senator Harradine time and again have blocked the Government's legislation-- Mr Rocher —Retrospective legislation. Mr DONALD CAMERON —It has been retrospective legislation which I believe is simply posturing by this Government in an endeavour to throw a smokescreen over some of the problems from which this country continues to suffer. In regard to personal income tax, I hope that all members of the listening public will put themselves into the position that I am trying to explain when I suggest that, contrary to everything that is being said in this place, the restructuring of the tax scale has not been the great boon for the Australian public, the working people of Australia, that it has been presented to be. I take the threshold figure at which tax is applied. I have made the point before-I made it only today in this Parliament-that only five years ago brickies , carpenters, nursing sisters and motor mechanics were exactly $4,600 below the threshold at which people started to pay 46c in the dollar. Those people are in the group that we call the average weekly income earners. Those people today are $300 to $400 above the 46c in the dollar threshold of $19,500. They are paying tax at the rate that only three years ago applied to people such as you, Mr Deputy Speaker, when as a Federal politician you were paying 46c in the dollar, before you were moved into the 60c in the dollar bracket by this present Government. I can understand your playing with your tie at this time because now it costs a lot more, you have to earn many more dollars to actually buy that $3 or $13 tie. The point I am making is that many occupations have been rocketed into the higher tax scales. This is the way in which the Government is doing it: It is fiddling around in the lower income area. Thankfully, some relief has been given to many of the lower income earners, but the Government is redefining who are the wealthy people of this country and they now include the motor mechanic, the brickie, the carpenter and the nursing sister. I take another classification. The young, pimply police constable, hardly out on the beat, is now at the income level that attracts this 46c in the dollar. The young policeman-- Mr Hodgman —Or woman. Mr DONALD CAMERON —Or woman, as the non-sexist member for Denison reminds me-is now a high flyer. Honourable members opposite are redefining occupations. I would be less than honest if I did not say that some of this erosion happened in the few years prior to the advent of this Government, but at least the Liberals under Malcolm Fraser indulged in the indexation of the threshold. Honourable members opposite are simply freezing thresholds not just for the $19,500 level income earner but also at the basic point, the starting point of $4,500. We have only to look at the Public Service and at Canberra, this great town which looks like Toorak and votes like Cessnock, to see the need to awaken those people out there to how they are being treated. We now have a situation in which those in the Class 4 range of the Third Division, which is common in big departments such as the Department of Veterans' Affairs and the Department of Social Security, are in the 46c in the dollar income tax range. Further, those in Class 5 of the Fourth Division are knocking on the door of paying 46c in the dollar. I know that people have often argued 'Why work overtime if the Government is going to take back half?', but a few years ago people knew that on 30 June they would get their money back. Sitting suspended from 6.30 to 8.00 p.m. Mr DONALD CAMERON —I continue the comments that I was making before the suspension of the sitting and repeat them for the benefit of some honourable members present. I was endeavouring to highlight the way that the Australian worker was slowly being strangled as a result of high taxation, which is a complete contrast to the scenario being presented by Government members. I mentioned the fact that five years ago the carpenter, the brickie, the nursing sister, some levels of the Public Service, electricians and plumbers were $4,600 below the income level at which one commenced paying tax at the rate of 46c in the dollar. I said at that time that it would not be fair to attribute all that to the present Government's performance, and that there was a degree of erosion under the previous Government; but it has escalated in the last 18 to 20 months, and particularly so in the last two Budgets, in that no recognition has been paid to the threshold figure of $19,500 a year, which is now below the income level of the average income earner. In presenting this picture of the destruction of Australia, I expressed the view that, if we are to care for our unemployed, the aged, the invalid, and those in unfortunate circumstances, Australia must provide an incentive for the six million-odd people in the work force to make a great contribution and to work in the belief that they will receive a personal reward in terms of their own living standard. The lot of the less fortunate is tied in with the lot of the work force. We are seeing a slow strangulation or a gradual lowering of the living standards available to the middle income groups. Who would have thought five years ago that those who were then $4,600 below the 46c in the dollar threshold would be regarded by a Labor government as being the tall poppies? It is true to say that, in former years when people did a lot of overtime, the taxation extracted from their pay packets was such that they were jettisoned into the higher tax ranges. Understandably, people complained about that. But one of the realities was that those people would get a refund come 30 June the following year. But we have now reached the stage at which people in the average weekly income occupations can no longer look forward to a refund, because taxation has reached the point at which out of every dollar they earn, when one includes the one per cent Medicare levy, it is 47c for Bob and 53c for them. They are now permanently fixed in that state. If the figure of $16,500 that applied five years ago as the threshold had been adjusted, today it would be $26,500, reflecting inflation over the last few years. So, if those people on $19,500 or $20,000 a year think that they are well off under a Labor government, just let them contemplate that figure of $26,500, which, if full indexation had occurred, would be the figure which they would have to exceed before they paid 46c in the dollar. Mr Mountford —Did your Government do it? Mr DONALD CAMERON —That is a fair question. It was done, but not done enough. That is why many people became dissatisfied with the previous Government. People were saying: 'We have had enough of taxes'. People believe that they themselves have a greater ability to determine how to spend their dollars than governments here in Canberra have. That is one of the differences between the socialists and the people on the Opposition side of the House. All that Government members believe in doing is getting their hands on as much money as possible and telling people: 'We know best how to spend your money'. Honourable members opposite invent all these airy-fairy programs and set about financing them. We see the daily pantomime of the Prime Minister with his chest-beating performances, telling people that he is doing this and doing that, but all that he is doing is ripping money out of their pockets, putting it in his pocket, and spending it, and then saying: 'What a good bloke I am'. In spite of the Prime Minister's personal popularity, and although when people are asked what kind of a job they think Bob Hawke is doing, the majority say ' Not a bad job', in regard to this Parliament and the Government of Australia I think that we have reached the stage at which people find it difficult to believe any of us in terms of what we promise at election time. The degree of cynicism sweeping this country has never been seen to this extent. People believe that one is worse than the other, but the other, the alternative, has yet to perform as they wish. I think that we all misread it. We boost our own egos by talking about what we are doing for the people, but half the time we are ripping money out of their pockets to do it for them. All that people are saying is: 'Give me a break. I want to go to work, to get a reward. I want to build my own home. I do not want to spend my entire life paying it off. I want to send my kids to school and on to higher education. I want to provide for my old age'. Talking about old age and the way in which honourable members opposite say that they know how best to control people's money, I point out that they want to introduce a scheme which will cost $55m a year to police, to get into the pensioners' pockets, and they will rip out $45m. They are spending $55m to get $ 45m. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mrs Child) —Order! The honourable member will stick to the Bills under debate. Mr DONALD CAMERON —That is another form of taxation, and I will not talk about death duties and capital gains taxes which the present Government will introduce if re-elected. What I am trying to say, Madam Deputy Speaker, is that the present Government is so committed to high spending that it must resort to these additional tax measures. That is a warning for every person in the community, for every working Australian and every person who is not working but who is dependent upon the productivity of those who are working. If we strangle those who are working, there will be a diminishing amount to hand out to those who are dependent on welfare-the unemployed and the host of other people who, through circumstances mostly beyond their control, are dependent on the support of government or, more appropriately, those in the work force. I conclude my comments by highlighting one or two truths, which are all to do with tax. I am happy to see that the media representatives from the gallery are one group that is well and truly in the 46c, 48c and 60c in the dollar tax brackets. They take so little interest in what goes on in here unless it comes from the Prime Minister's lips. During the 1983 election campaign a great song and dance was made about a supposed deficit of $9.6 billion. It was said that John Howard and Mr Stone had so ruined everything that Australia would be plunged into debt to the extent of nearly $10 billion. Those were the headlines at the beginning of March 1983. By the next Budget it turned out that the deficit was $5 billion. Mr Hodgman —Four billion. Mr DONALD CAMERON —I will stick to $5 billion so no one can accuse me of exaggerating. The deficit was down. This was not because of the great managerial skills of the new Government but because that original figure was fictitious. When that same high figure started to emerge earlier this year, the Treasurer ( Mr Keating) jumped up and said that he would not release the figure because it was not a true figure. In one year it was good enough to use as a battering ram in an election campaign but a year later it was a figure that we were told should be disregarded. This is the double side of politics. I think that a lot of people outside understand more now than they did when a man of supposed vision promised them consensus and to bring Australia together. The deficit or overspending of that 1983 Budget was about $5 billion. However, the Government added new expenditure to the tune of $2.5 billion. To this year's Budget the Government has added new programs costing $3 billion. Therefore, in a matter of two Budgets, or 12 months and two days, the Government has added new expenditure of $5.5 billion on programs that never previously existed. It is no wonder that the Government has to increase tax and that Government members stand up in this place and try to justify the Budget as they have. Certainly, a number of little people have been given a little bit back. On the other side, the Government has taken away so many of the rebates which previously existed and which it promised not to remove. My time in this debate is running out. I notice that the honourable member for Petrie (Mr Wells) is about to speak. I hope that the honourable member tries to steer his own course and not swallow some of the lines fed to him by his own Party Ministers and the Prime Minister. Let us hope that, with his university background, he will at least have not only the honesty and integrity but also the ability to recognise the truth of so much of what has been said by the member for Moreton in this debate this evening. Mr WELLS(Petrie)(8.12) —I thank the honourable member for Moreton (Mr Donald Cameron) for his closing remark. I draw his attention to the fact that one does not need a university education to know what the Australian people want. All that one needs is a certain amount of common sense which the honourable member opposite seems to lack. Tonight we are debating a number of Bills relating to the Budget. One would have thought that this would be a great opportunity for the Opposition to make incisive criticisms of the Government's performance. However, from the Opposition's point of view, this debate will go down as one of the great missed opportunities in parliamentary history. Firstly we heard the honourable member for Bennelong (Mr Howard), the former Treasurer, telling us that the economy really was not terribly healthy while he was the Treasurer but insisting that if only we had gone on doing the same things for a few more years things might eventually have got better. We have heard that before. The Australian people know that within one year of more sensible economic management the economy has improved rapidly, unemployment and inflation have gone down, the number of jobs created has increased dramatically, interest rates are down, manufacturing output is up, capital investment is up, consumer confidence is at its highest since figures have been kept and Australia has the highest rate of growth of any industrial economy. Mr Robert Brown —A magnificent achievement. Mr WELLS —As the honourable member for Hunter said, it is a magnificent achievement. The Australian people know that the prescriptions of the honourable member for Bennelong do not work. When he was Treasurer he presided over chaos and disaster and now as Opposition spokesman for the economy he has the effrontery to criticise success. The next speaker on the Opposition side was the honourable member for O'Connor (Mr Tuckey). He gave a very interesting speech, consisting as it did mainly of points of order as to whether he was speaking to the Bills. The honourable member typifies the second approach of the Opposition to economic debate. The first approach, typified by the honourable member for Bennelong, is to go on making prescriptions which the Australian people have seen do not work. The second approach, typified by the honourable member for O'Connor, is to try to avoid talking about the economy altogether, even when that is the specific subject of a debate before the House. The third speaker for the Opposition side was the honourable member for Dawson (Mr Braithwaite). It was not always easy to follow what the honourable member was saying. The profundity of his thought processes did not seem to be matched by his capacity to articulate his ideas into intelligible prose. However, he made an attempt to refute my colleague the honourable member for Bendigo (Mr Brumby) who pointed out that the restructuring of the taxation system in the Budget would benefit pensioners. The honourable member for Dawson said that there was in fact no change in the threshold at which pensioners would begin to pay tax. This is simply not true. I have often said in this place that we should be doing more for pensioners, especially those on the lowest incomes. I have also said that we should have at the earliest opportunity a further increase above the level of CPI adjustments for pensioners. The Opposition has failed even to recognise what has been done. As a result of the 17 per cent cut in tax for those on the lowest incomes, the pensioner tax rebate will go further, so the threshold at which pensioners will begin to pay taxes will increase from $5,428 to $5,534. The purpose of this is to protect pensioners who have no other private income. In fact, it goes further than that and protects and excludes who are in receipt of up to nearly $17 a week from the category of taxpayer pensioners. This is an increase over the previous level of $14 a week. The honourable member for Dawson simply got his facts wrong. The honourable member then continued with an exercise which in National Party circles would probably count as a piece of higher mathematics. He added the total sum of the national deficit to some other figure which he pulled out of the air and told us that this was 31.2 percent of domestic gross product. He then told us that 31.2 percent was the same as one-third. In the honourable member's mind it somehow followed from this that the budgetary situation was worse than it had previously been. In fact, the truth of this matter can be worked out by addition and subtraction rather than by percentages. Budget receipts are up from $48,000m to $57,000m. Budget outlays are up from $57,000m to $63,000m. Obviously, revenues have gone up by more than outlays and consequently the deficit has gone down. This Government has reduced the deficit. All the Opposition did when it was in government was to increase the deficit. The next stunning piece of intellectual activity from the honourable member for Dawson was to argue that, because Budget receipts had gone up, it follows that Australian taxpayers are not getting real tax cuts. It has probably not occurred to the honourable member for Dawson, as he sits here now, that the reason for the big increase in government revenue is the fact that there are more taxpayers . Not only are people who had been forced on to the dole by the policies of the previous Government now working and paying taxes but also a number of friends of the Opposition parties who had plenty of money but who were able to avoid paying taxes under the previous Government are now having to contribute a little to the running costs of the Australian community. It is precisely because of these facts that this Government has been able to provide a tax reduction, which would never have been possible under the contractionary policies of the Fraser Government. We were next treated to a speech by the honourable member for Moreton who, in his own dogged way, delivered most of his speech with his left leg raised up on the bench which the taxpayers provide for his colleagues to sit on. His main point was that various categories of employees previously below the 46 per cent tax threshold had now reached the status of average weekly income earners and were consequently paying more tax. What the honourable member failed to grasp was that a category of employees previously receiving less than the average weekly income pay tax as a result of having gone above the average weekly income because they are now doing better than they were previously. The honourable member for Moreton might regret this fact but such people do not regret it. Although they may find the extra tax an irritation, they are very glad of the increases in income which necessitated those extra tax payments. Mr McGauran —Go faster. Hansard can't keep up with you! Mr WELLS —The honourable member for Gippsland has interjected. The last time I heard him talking he spoke about the dairy industry. The honourable member knows nothing at all about cows, although he has, I imagine, in his legal firm had a deal of experience with a great deal of bull. The honourable member for Moreton admits that there was a degree of erosion of living standards of middle income earners under the Fraser Government. That erosion was caused by inflation and by soaring interest rates. Under the Hawke Labor Government, those interest rates and the level of inflation have gone down. Taxes have been cut by $7.60 for all middle income earners on taxable incomes below $28,000. The honourable member for Moreton previously was a supporter of the Fraser Government and all its policies. Now he is born again; now he is the friend of the low and middle income earners. I think that this conversion is just a little bit spurious. I turn now to the bank account debits tax which was introduced in the last Fraser-Howard Budget in 1982 and which, as a result of administrative procedures set in train by the previous Government, commenced operation in April 1983. From the moment it began, large numbers of backbenchers, including me, received numerous representations from community groups, especially parents and citizens and parents and friends groups, working within the schools systems complaining justly of the fact that these non-profit community organisations were having their hard-earned funds taxed through their cheque accounts. Mrs Darling —Very hard. Mr WELLS —The honourable member for Lilley says that they were very hard earned. Indeed they were. Like a number of Government back benchers, I made numerous representations to the Treasurer (Mr Keating) to have such charitable groups excluded from the ambit of the tax. In response to these representations, the Treasurer informed us that the tax would be reviewed. This Bill is the result of that review. It exempts debits made to the account of an organisation whose sole function is support of a specified public benevolent or religious institution, hospital, school, college or university. It also exempts debits of less than $1. This amendment to the bank accounts debit tax is a triumph for community action concerted with local members. It testifies to the fact that the Hawke Labor Government is responsive to community feeling. It is fair to say that a just grievance fully expressed to local Federal members and supported by community feeling will always be redressed by this Government. Mrs Darling —Good lobbying, Deane. Mr WELLS —The honourable member for Lilley and the honorable member for Hunter ( Mr Robert Brown) were particularly articulate on this matter and I would like that to be recorded. I turn now to the Medicare Levy Bill. This Bill imposes a one per cent levy for the years 1984-85 and 1985-86. This fact alone gives the lie to hysterical Opposition claims that there is going to be an increase in the levy. The Minister for Health (Dr Blewett) has stated frequently and explicitly that there is no planned increase in the levy and here are the Budget Bills which prove it. The Opposition is prone to this sort of argument. Since it really cannot criticise what this Government has done, it instead argues: But what if they did something else instead? The former Treasurer admits that the deficit is down but he asks: 'What if it went up?' The honourable member for Dawson says things of this nature so often that he tends to believe them. Mr Braithwaite —Like what? Mr WELLS —The honourable member for Dawson has asked what he said. If he cannot remember what he said I will tell him. He said: 'It is freely admitted that there will be a mini-Budget to take back what was given in this Budget'. He obviously thinks his side is still in government. What he is doing is freely admitting that the Opposition did it before and it will do it again if it has half a chance. It will not get half a chance. The honorable member has not grasped that good economic management has made it possible for the Government to stimulate the economy further by giving real and lasting tax cuts. It has also made it possible to legislate for no increase in the Medicare levy. This is a redistributive Budget. The honorable member for Tangney (Mr Gear) has pointed out that the highest cuts in tax have gone to the lowest income earners. Along the same lines the Government has been able to afford relief from the levy to a greater proportion of low income earners. The threshold for payment of the levy will now be $7,110 for individuals and families will be exempt up to $11,803 with a further $1,330 added to that for each dependent child or student. These Bills go a long way to giving effect to the Government's objectives of social justice and sound economic management and I commend the Bills to the House. Mr ROCHER(Curtin)(8.23) —Six separate tax measures are being debated cognately. It should be recognised at the outset that one of these measures, the Medicare Levy Bill 1984, is a tax Bill. It would have been unnecessary to mention that self-evident truth if the Treasurer (Mr Keating) had not previously tried to convey the impression in this Parliament that the levy on personal incomes is somehow not income tax. Mr Braithwaite —It was only this afternoon that he said that. Mr ROCHER —He has done that a couple of times. We all know that a continuing levy of this kind is a tax and that a tax is a tax is a tax. The fact that the Government has listed the Medicare Levy Bill 1984 for cognate debate with five other Bills which have, as part of their titles, the words 'income tax' or ' debit tax' should put an end to the Treasurer's obfuscation about the real meaning and impact of the personal income tax that is called a levy. Provisions in this Medicare Bill aside, the fact remains that the Budget expenditure on health will escalate during the year to 30 June 1985 by a massive $1.772 billion to nearly $6.2 billion. The tax which some honourable members opposite would have us believe is not a tax because it is a levy will raise by way of revenue some $1.191 billion, which is up by $826m this financial year. However, medical and hospital benefits will cost an extra $2.021 billion. This year the Medicare tax, therefore, will raise some $830m less than the program will cost. That $ 830m shortfall is the equivalent of 0.7 per cent of all personal taxable income. Mr Braithwaite —It should have been 1.7c in the dollar. Mr ROCHER —I am coming to that. In turn that means that, although Australians have been led to believe that the additional tax is needed to finance Medicare, it is not one per cent of personal taxes but, in reality, 1.7 per cent. It is 70 per cent more than promised. It is another of the 123 promises broken by this deceitful Government. It does not matter to this Goverment that the leaflet which announced the introduction of Medicare stated: Medicare will be paid for by a 1 per cent levy on your income tax. But in fact something like 1.7 per cent will be required. When seeking to mislead it is difficult to imagine that any government could be so brazen as to up the ante by a staggering, unannounced 70 per cent without even a murmured apology. The 1983 election pledge of the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) that 'nine out of 10 Australians will pay less for the health needs of themselves and their families' was just another sacrifice at the altar of truth since he came to government. Ask taxpayers who are now getting their tax rebate cheques what they think about the broken election promise to maintain the health insurance rebate until the introduction of Medicare. Ask them what they think is the worth of this Government's promises. It is an inescapable fact that the one per cent impost, which it was claimed would meet the cost of Medicare, will meet less than 60 per cent of that cost this year. That will be the best possible outcome, mind you, if the dicey assumptions in the Budget are met in every respect. That will be the outcome of this Medicare Levy Bill 1984 when it becomes law. Who will pick up the balance of more than 40 per cent, some $830m? The answer is: The same taxpayer who was led to believe that the 1 per cent hike was to be all there was. It will come as no surprise that those same taxpayers will be further imposed upon, in addition to the 1.7 per cent Medicare tax, by provisions of the other five Bills under discussion. Nowhere will the new taxes and taxing arrangements have a more devastating impact than amongst pensioners who have separate incomes to top up their pension entitlements. For example, a pensioner who was getting the full pension with $20 a week additional income would have had to pay $20 tax for the year to June 1983. This year he or she will pay $109 which is up $89. Mr Braithwaite —How much? Mr ROCHER —One hundred and nine dollars as against $20. This state of affairs is quite simply due to the failure of the Hawke Government to adjust the tax threshold to take inflation into consideration. Alternatively, it is partly the product of the failure of the Government to honour another of its election promises to raise the pensioner tax rebate immediately on its election in 1983. The adjustment to be made some 19 months later will not even restore pensioners to the tax levels of 1982-83. It exposes for the sham it was the joint statement issued by Senator Grimes and the honourable member for Gellibrand (Mr Willis) on 8 August 1982 when they said: . . . it is absurd that pensioners who are classified as 'needy' should be forced to pay income tax. Under Senator Grimes, as the relevant Minister, it is now 80 per cent more absurd for pensioners in the example quoted. Increased income taxes on pensioners incomes is just one element of these amending Bills. Claimed tax reductions are phoney after examination of the bald figures. The truth is pay as you earn collections will be up 14 per cent or $2.755 billion after the phoney tax cuts are accounted for. Other personal taxes, excluding the Medicare tax, are up 45 per cent by $2 billion to a total of nearly $6.5 billion. As has already been pointed out by Opposition speakers, income tax from all sources will increase a mammoth $6.7 billion or by 23 per cent. How anyone confronted with these truths can claim there will be tax reductions from this Budget or these Bills is beyond comprehension. Yet we still hear that absolutely untenable proposition being argued by the more adventurous-adventurous in terms of their idea of the truth-of those opposite. As has already been demonstrated, it would have taken at least $22 a week in tax cuts and increased family allowances to restore the average wage earner to the position he or she enjoyed just two years ago. Even before this Budget hundreds of thousands of wage and salary earners had been pushed into the 46c tax bracket-47c in the dollar if the Medicare tax is included. Many of those people will find themselves in the 55. 33c in the dollar web this year, while still more will advance-I use the word ' advance' derisively-into the 48.33c in the dollar bracket this year. We all know that there is more than one way of increasing taxes. Ask those who are now receiving their tax rebates for last year what happened to the $300 or so rebate of recent years which has become a pittance this year or even a demand for more tax. Honourable members should try to explain to them that they should have known that election promises to retain both the housing loans interest rebate and the health insurance rebate were mere figments of their imagination. They will not be fooled again by this Government's empty promises and slick, meaningless claims that tax increases are really tax reductions. Nowhere is it more apparent than in these few harmless sounding Bills that this socialist Government is creating a taxation monster. Australia and Australian businesses this year will pay 23 per cent more tax. Yet we can still expect a deficit of $6 .745 billion even after the tax monster has been let loose on the knowing and unsuspecting alike. We have record taxation and we will continue to have it. We have had record expenditure and the highest ever successive deficits under this Government. I would have liked to have traversed a couple of other points, particularly the conditions which have been allowed to remain surrounding the investment allowance. I will save that for another day. I simply want to say that this situation, as it presently stands, is hardly the way to go about getting the necessary incentive and investment we need to get the wealth creation program in operation for the benefit of all Australians, including those in need. These tax Bills are jointly and severally part of the total tax cut trick which is an insult to the intelligence of the Australian people. Hundreds of thousands of Australians have been thrust into the higher tax brackets because of this Government's insistence on wage indexation without commensurate indexation of the tax scales. Workers on average weekly earnings will soon be paying tax at the rate of 48.33c in the dollar on every additional dollar they earn this financial year. A whole range of tax rebates has been abolished. The Medicare tax has added to the cost of health care for many families. For this and for many other reasons the Government has earned the sanction of the Australian people. Mr McGauran —Madam Deputy Speaker-- Motion (by Mr Uren) agreed to: That the question be now put. Original question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith. Bill (on motion by Mr Uren) read a third time. Consideration resumed from 7 September, on motion by Mr Keating: That the Bill be now read a second time. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith. Bill (on motion by Mr Uren) read a third time. Consideration resumed from 7 September, on motion by Mr Keating: That the Bill be now read a second time. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith. Bill (on motion by Mr Uren) read a third time. Consideration resumed from 7 September, on motion by Mr Keating: That the Bill be now read a second time. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith. Bill (on motion by Mr Uren) read a third time. Consideration resumed from 5 September, on motion by Mr Hurford: That the Bill be now read a second time. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith. Bill (on motion by Mr Uren) read a third time. Consideration resumed from 5 September, on motion by Mr Hurford: That the Bill be now read a second time. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith. Bill (on motion by Mr Uren) read a third time. Mr BRUMBY(Bendigo) —I wish to make a personal explanation. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mrs Child) —Does the honourable member claim to have been misrepresented? Mr BRUMBY —I do. In the debate on the income tax Bills that has just been completed it was claimed by the honourable member for Dawson (Mr Braithwaite) that certain calculations that I had made in respect of the effective level of tax free threshold for a single pensioner were totally incorrect and, further, that I did not understand the pensioner rebate system and that I should repeat my calculations. During the debate I stated that under the existing taxation arrangements the effective tax threshold for a single social security pensioner was $5,428 per annum. I then said that under the full year effect of the proposed Budget changes the effective tax free threshold for that same single pensioner will be $5,595. I said that that was clearly an increase. I have done my calculations again. I understand the pensioner rebate system and my figures are correct. Mr YOUNG(Port Adelaide-Leader of the House)(8.41) —by leave-I move: That Standing Order 48A, as amended by the sessional order of 29 February 1984, relating to the adjournment of the House, and Standing Order 103, be suspended for the remainder of this period of sittings. It was my intention to move this motion in regard to only this sitting tonight because business had fallen behind since yesterday and I was keen to see that we got through all the matters that were placed on the blue sheet for honourable members this morning. Members of the Opposition have been ringing me to see whether they will be able to speak tonight in the Committee stage of the Appropriation Bills. I have told them that they will. I was hoping to complete that business tonight. However, I have extended the motion to include the remainder of the period of sittings. I have indicated to the Manager of Opposition Business (Mr Sinclair) that it is not my intention to see the House sitting late at night every night, but we do have certain business to get through and this motion will provide an opportunity, if necessary, to do each night what we may have to do this evening for an hour or an hour and a half. I have moved accordingly, although I know that members on both sides of the House will not be delighted with what I am doing. The only thing I can say is that I am assured of the votes on this side of the House. Mr SINCLAIR(New England-Leader of the National Party of Australia)(8.43) — Firstly, I am glad that the Leader of the House, (Mr Young), at least for the moment, can be sure of the votes on this issue if not on all others. Secondly, I am sorry that he has fallen into the bad habits that I set on other occasions. Perhaps it is of more significance to those who are listening and to those who are in the Parliament that this is the first official notice by the Government that there is certainly to be an early election. The fact that the Leader of the House has introduced this change tonight suggests to us all that now that we are coming to the third sitting week of the Budget sittings the Government is in such a panic that it is launching itself precipitately to the polls-- Mr Gear —We'll be back. Mr SINCLAIR —The honourable member will not be. He should not worry. I do not know whether he will even get pre-selection, but I know that those members opposite who do return will not be back on that side of the House. The people of Australia need to know that this announcement tells everybody, finally and definitively, that the Government has had it, that no longer is it governing in a sense of knowing where it is going. It is running to the polls hastily, peremptorily, without proper consideration. Mr Uren —Oh! Mr SINCLAIR —Even the Minister's yawn at the table reflects his deep concern and consideration. Government members are old men running out of time and interest. I feel sorry for them. One can feel only sympathy for those who, in an advancing stage, see fit not to sit as we properly should, not to give adequate consideration until December, as we were originally advised, to all the matters that the Government said had to come before the House. Mr Braithwaite —What about all the notices of motion? Mr SINCLAIR —As my friend has just mentioned, we have all those notices of motion. I wonder how many of them will see the light of day. Sadly, very few will. Madam Deputy Speaker, the point of this motion is that it means we are to have an early poll. It means that the poll will be before Christmas. It means that the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) is properly concerned about the factional fighting within his own Caucus. He is properly concerned that he has lost control and that all the revelations about crime and the attempts he has made to cover up in the pursuit of crime are starting to register. That is part of the problem. The Prime Minister does not know what to do with uranium, whether he can hold the socialist left, the centre right, the middle left out-whatever they are. We all need to know that the change made tonight indicates that there is to be a hasty rundown to an early election. All of us need to understand that that significantly is the product of the motion the Leader of the House has just moved. We on this side of the House certainly regard it as very regrettable. We oppose the motion. We will not be dividing, only because I want to try to conserve what time I can for honourable members on this side of the House to make their contribution on the very important matters we still have to come before the House tonight. We oppose the move, both for tonight and, indeed, for the rest of the session. I commend to the Leader of the House the words of his predecessor, Freddy Daly, the former member for Grayndler, who on so many occasions admonished us all about the necessity to go home and go to bed early. I know that the Leader of the House (Mr Young) can take his Paddington Bear and cuddle up and all is well when he gets there, but I suggest that to the rest of us it would be far preferable if we could go home at a reasonable hour instead of trying the tempers and time of all those at the table, of you, Madam Deputy Speaker, and of all those who wait on us around the place. I think it would be far better if we could reasonably adjourn at 11 o'clock. On behalf of the Opposition I oppose the motion but, as I indicated, we will not divide on the issue. Question resolved in the affirmative. [COGNATE BILL: NATIONAL CRIME AUTHORITY (STATUS AND RIGHTS OF CHAIRMAN) BILL 1984] Debate resumed from 5 September, on motion by Mr Young: That the Bill be now read a second time. Mr UREN(Reid-Minister for Territories and Local Government) —Madam Deputy Speaker, may I have your indulgence to suggest that the House have a general debate covering this Bill and the National Crime Authority (Status and Rights of Chairman) Bill 1984, as they are associated measures. Separate questions will, of course, be put on each of the Bills at the conclusion of the debate. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER —Is it the wish of the House to have a general debate covering the two measures? There being no objection, I will allow that course to be followed. Mr RUDDOCK(Dundas)(8.47) —Thank you very much, Madam Deputy Speaker, for the opportunity to address the House on the Judicial and Statutory Officers ( Remuneration and Allowances) Bill 1984 and the National Crime Authority (Status and Rights of Chairman) Bill 1984. The first Bill we are dealing with is the Judicial and Statutory Officers (Remuneration and Allowances) Bill. The purpose of this Bill is to give effect to the Government's decision to accept certain reports of the Remuneration Tribunal relating to judges. In the Tribunal's report the proposal is as follows: There is to be an increase of 11.7 per cent in the salaries payable to judges and to the President of the Inter-State Commission. The phasing in of that increase, will be a 6 per cent increase with effect from 1 July 1984 and a further 5.7 per cent increase with effect from 1 January 1985. One can see the application to each of the increased rates of salary of any national wage increases after 1 July and, indeed, any increases in travelling allowances to reflect increases in those costs. This is a rather simple Bill which is to give effect to that report of the Remuneration Tribunal and is not a Bill with which the Opposition proposes to quarrel. The other Bill, the National Crime Authority (Status and Rights of Chairman) Bill, is more substantial. That Bill's purpose is stated in the following form. . . . to make special provision for the remuneration allowances, leave, conditions of service, pension rights, and status of the Chairman of the National Crime Authority, the Honourable Mr Donald Gerard Stewart, upon his resignation as a Judge of the Supreme Court of New South Wales. It will also modify the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 to enable Mr Justice Stewart to be appointed a full time Deputy President of the Tribunal, notwithstanding that he holds the office of Chairman of the National Crime Authority. It needs to be understood that this Bill is really designed to ensure that the gentleman who has been appointed to head the National Crime Authority will be able to enjoy the status of judge because he intends to resign from the Supreme Court of New South Wales. There was considerable controversy, of course, about Mr Justice Stewart's appointment while he intended to remain as a judge of the New South Wales Supreme Court and also to carry on the role of Chairman of the National Crime Authority. It was the view of a number of very learned bodies , such as the Law Council of Australia, other professional bodies and the Chief Justice of New South Wales, that it was quite inappropriate for a judge on a virtually permanent basis to head a body charged with the investigation of criminal activity. That role was seen as being incompatible with the concurrent holding of judicial office. The fact is that all of the judges' peers and many of the judges of the Supreme Court of New South Wales-I think the only one to speak out in his defence was Mr Justice Enderby-by the messages that they gave to the Chief Judge of New South Wales made it clear that they had quite significant reservations about the appointment. It is a matter which, of course, has been the subject of some controversy previously in Victoria, where it has been seen as undesirable that judges be appointed to carry out royal commissions. However, where a judge has been given a special role, an inquisitorial role, in relation to a national crime authority on a semi-permanent basis, that is, in terms of a tenured post, I think the criticism was very much more forceful. In New South Wales, which has in the past seen many of its judges committed to roles in relation to royal commissions, I think it was seen in this case, with the large number of royal commissions to which judges had already been committed and the special role that was involved in this case, that it was inappropriate for a justice of the Supreme Court of New South Wales to be appointed. To overcome this and I think to overcome the embarrassment the Government was suffering, Mr Justice Stewart has announced his intention to resign from his position as a judge of the New South Wales Supreme Court. Of course the Commonwealth Attorney-General (Senator Gareth Evans) announced that the Government would give Mr Justice Stewart the title and style of a judge of the Australian Capital Territory Supreme Court. When that appointment was announced there was some criticism from the Chief Judge of the Australian Capital Territory Supreme Court, Sir Richard Blackburn. What the Bill purports to do is give Mr Justice Stewart, during his term as Chairman of the National Crime Authority and any subsequent appointment to a full time Commonwealth office, the same designation, rank, status and precedence that he would have if he were a judge of the Supreme Court of the Australian Capital Territory. He will have the same pay as a judge of the Supreme Court of New South Wales. He will have the same leave entitlements and other conditions and he will be eligible for appointment as a full time deputy president of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal. This provision ensures that he is treated as a judge upon an appointment to that Tribunal so that he may sit as a presidential member. In other words, it provides him with an avenue for further employment once his term as Chairman of the National Crime Authority is completed. One has to accept, I think, that this is a very messy arrangement. It is certainly not the way in which we would have seen the National Crime Authority operating. I have already complained in debates previously that the National Crime Authority is a body that has been very significantly weakened by the way in which this Government has set about limiting its powers and ensuring that perhaps it will not be the sort of body that can take up the mantle of the investigative role that Mr Costigan, QC has so effectively pursued in relation to the royal commissions which he has been undertaking. One must be concerned that an authority, which has been so roundly criticised as it has in this place and by so many who are interested in its success, is now being caught up in this maze of publicity about the way in which its chairman should be treated. If Mr Justice Stewart were prepared to resign from his appointment as a judge of the Supreme Court because of the nature of the criticism that came from the Chief Judge of the Supreme Court of New South Wales, Sir Laurence Street, one would have very severe reservations about why he should be so worried about having simply a title and so on to carry out this role. I think it is demeaning and it is demeaning of the nature of the body itself that it has been caught up in this controversy. It is a measure of the incompetent way in which this whole question of the establishment of the National Crime Authority has been dealt with that this situation was allowed to arise. This is a very important matter. It is most undesirable that the question of the controversial nature of this appointment should have been allowed to taint it. The inquiry is one of fundamental importance. We have only this week had the Annual Report of the Special Prosecutor to emphasise the important role that this Authority was expected to pick up. When one has a body which has been hampered by the way in which the Government has established it, designed to take up this role, one must be terribly disappointed. I want to quote what Mr Redlich has had to say because one of the points that was particularly impressed upon me was his comments about the Costigan Royal Commission on the Activities of the Federated Ship Painters and Dockers Union. Mr Redlich, on page 2 of his report, had this to say about the Costigan Royal Commission: The work of the Costigan Royal Commission has been of inestimable public benefit. It has created a public awareness about the type of criminal activities which threaten our society, and provided the momentum and foundation for the creation of an effective National Crime Authority. He went on to say, as previously noted: . . . the matters referred to me by the Royal Commission, subsequent to Interim Report No. 4, will all lead to prosecution. Mr Redlich details the nature of the prosecutions that he has undertaken. He goes on to say: All of these matters are based on 'hard facts' and have, or should, lead to the institution of prosecutions and in most cases the taking of civil proceedings. 1.12 Over 600 charges have been laid covering 12 different areas of illegal activities. Other charges are likely to be laid. Prosecutions have been successfully completed in 6 of those areas. It is disappointing to me that while we now have the reports of Mr Costigan, QC giving rise to the initiation of an inordinate number of charges, with some successful prosecutions having been completed-one sees the value of the work that has been undertaken-the very excellent work of Mr Costigan has been the subject of such controversy as we have seen over the last few weeks. Letters from Mr Costigan were concerned about the way in which the National Crime Authority is to take over the work that he has been undertaking. We have seen tabled in this Parliament letters from Mr Costigan outlining his concern at the transitional arrangements and the unwillingness of those who are involved, including Mr Justice Stewart, the subject of this Bill, to accept briefings from Mr Costigan in relation to the matters which Mr Costigan's Commission has had under investigation. These are matters of concern. Obviously, the National Crime Authority is a body which could have had, were it not for the way in which the legislation that established it was circumscribed, the capacity to achieve the same sorts of results that Mr Costigan achieved. Mr Costigan's achievements are now there to be seen on the record with the Annual Report of the Special Prosecutor giving chapter and verse to the success that Mr Costigan has been able to bring about. He has unearthed information which has led to something of the order of 600 charges being laid in relation to 12 different areas of illegal activities. I think that is an enormously commendable record and one of which the Government that was responsible for the appointment of Mr Costigan and the initiation of that Commission-the Fraser Government-has just reason to be proud. The record is now evidencing the success of that. What worries me and my colleagues enormously is the transitional arrangements, the way in which Mr Costigan's Commission is being cut short, the way in which he has been told to get his report written and in and to stop his investigatory activity, and the fact that Mr Justice Stewart and his colleagues have been unwilling to accept briefings in relation to the matters that might well be further pursued; they have taken the view that they now have their own jobs to do and they cannot benefit from the experience and skills that Mr Costigan has been able to amass through the period of his reporting. This gives me and my colleagues very considerable cause for concern. The point I was making was that the controversy about Mr Justice Stewart's appointment and the way in which his office was demeaned has made it very much more difficult for the National Crime Authority to do its important work. Regardless of the way in which its powers have been circumscribed by the legislation that the Government has passed, Mr Justice Stewart's role has been hampered by that marked controversy. I am sure that if honourable members keep that very much in mind they will appreciate that there is a need in our society, as there has never been before, for a National Crime Authority which is led by people who are not and have not been the subject of criticism, which can fully pick up all of the matters that Costigan has been investigating and which can pursue them relentlessly. If anything else happens in our society, those who have given us a body which is weak and which has come into place with a great deal of trepidation from those who are concerned about these matters, will be extraordinarily disappointed. This body has a role that could be carried on forcibly and well, but the Government, by the way in which it has handled this matter, has jeopardised that role, and that needs to be understood by the Australian people. The Costigan Royal Commission has been able to achieve a great deal. It is a pity that, in the transitional arrangements, the body appointed by this Government as its successor is not being equipped in the same way to carry out the same role as the Costigan Royal Commission was able to carry out so successfully. Mr SNOW(Eden-Monaro)(9.03) —The National Crime Authority (Status and Rights of Chairman) Bill was made necessary by the public controversy which erupted over the appointment of Mr Justice Stewart as Chairman of the National Crime Authority and his subsequent decision to resign from the New South Wales Supreme Court when he completes the Nugan Hand inquiry. The honourable member for Dundas (Mr Ruddock) mentioned the opposition to Mr Justice Stewart's appointment. That opposition was led by the Chief Justice of New South Wales, Sir Laurence Street. His opposition was based on the argument that a judge should not be appointed to a post so closely associated with the police and prosecution authorities. It should be mentioned that Sir Laurence Street sat in on an inquiry into the activities of the Premier of New South Wales, Mr Neville Wran. Jean Giraudoux said that there is no better way to exercise the imagination than the study of law and that no poet ever interpreted nature as freely as a lawyer interprets truth. Perhaps that trait can be a strength and perhaps the judges are finding the welter of royal commissions, many of which have led to nothing, increasingly uncomfortable. The Bill provides that Mr Justice Stewart shall have the same designation, rank , status and precedence as a judge of the Supreme Court of the Australian Capital Territory while he is Chairman of the National Crime Authority and during any period of service by him in another full time office under the Commonwealth. Clause 6 provides that Mr Justice Stewart shall be paid the same remuneration as is payable to a judge of the Supreme Court of New South Wales. I think the honourable member for Dundas would have to agree that any one of us prefers to have job security and that any one of us prefers to have the advantages of retirement provisions. I have never heard the reasons given by Mr Justice Stewart for maintaining his position as a justice. I believe that anyone involved in a five-year appointment can be justified in saying: 'I should like to continue with the retirement provisions to which I am entitled at the moment' . Mr Justice Stewart was appointed as Chairman of the National Crime Authority on 25 June 1984. He was an ideal choice for the position, because of his extensive experience in investigating organised crime. He was appointed on 25 June 1981 by the Commonwealth Government and the governments of Victoria, New South Wales and Queensland as a royal commissioner to inquire into drug trafficking. On 3 November 1982, the New Zealand Government also gave him a commission to report on matters associated with drug trafficking. Following lengthy investigations, he presented his final report to Parliament on 25 February 1983. At present he is completing the Nugan Hand royal commission which has given him even greater expertise in this area. I do not think anyone can deny the fact that Mr Justice Stewart has the expertise and that he is entitled to the present provisions which judges enjoy. Clause 7 provides that Mr Justice Stewart, during his term of office as Chairman, shall enjoy the conditions of service, including entitlement to leave, which apply to a judge of the Supreme Court of the Australian Capital Territory. Sub-clause 7 (2) entitles Mr Justice Stewart at the expiration of his term to long leave in accordance with arrangements for long leave which apply in relation to judges of the Australian Capital Territory Supreme Court. The Bill ensures also that Mr Justice Stewart's service as Chairman of the National Crime Authority is taken into account for the purposes of the Judges' Pension Act 1968 . He may be appointed under the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 as a full time Deputy President of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal. However, if he is so appointed, he is not entitled to remuneration as Deputy President of the AAT, except to the extent, if any, the remuneration for that position exceeds remuneration payable to him as Chairman of the National Crime Authority. The legislation, so far as it concerns judicial title, follows the precedent that was set in 1975 when Mr Justice Else-Mitchell was appointed Chairman of the Grants Commission, following his retirement as a judge of the New South Wales Supreme Court. It was always contemplated that a judge would head the Authority. The argument for a judicial chairman was based on the wide-ranging coercive powers which are available to the Authority, the sensitivity and difficulty of its task and the need for public confidence in it. Mr Justice Stewart, perhaps the most experienced judicial investigator of organised crime in this country, was asked by the Commonwealth, with the concurrence of the New South Wales Government, to become the inaugural Chairman of the National Crime Authority, following his highly regarded service as a royal commissioner into drug trafficking. He is continuing as a Nugan Hand royal commissioner. It is most unfortunate that the need for this legislation has arisen; however, the Government's view is that, having enacted the National Crime Authority Act 1984 on the basis that the Authority may be headed by a judge, the Parliament should now ensure that Mr Justice Stewart's rights are safeguarded. Mr STEELE HALL(Boothby)(9.10) —It seems to be a somewhat peculiar cognate debate to put into the same time span and area of discussion the increase in judicial and statutory officers salaries and the status and rights of the Chairman of the National Crime Authority. I wonder which Minister sitting on the Government side of the House dreamt up that conjunction of interest. On reflection perhaps one would not have to look far. Surely it is the work of the Attorney-General (Senator Gareth Evans), a man who would be able to bracket these two disparate matters. It appears to be his way to do things somewhat differently and at times to perform in a puzzling manner. However, we now have this debate before us. In regard to the Remuneration Tribunal's Report on salaries, it is worth saying that we on this side of the House do not want to stand in the way of this increase in the salaries of judges, secretaries to departments, senior full time public office holders and part time public office holders. I suppose it is a matter of relativity and these people have, as the Tribunal has said, arrived at a time in the discussion of their salaries when they are to get these increases. I draw the attention of the House to the report of the Tribunal which refers to no increase in parliamentary salaries. It is worth putting on record in Hansard the decision, as the Tribunal says, that the general increase in remuneration if not passed on to members of parliament will have the result that they will suffer a significant disadvantage. The report continues: The members will, therefore, by reason of the attitude they have adopted, now receive at least $4,691 less than they would otherwise have received. It goes on in the next paragraph to develop some of the Tribunal's attitudes to the reasons why members of parliament asked the Tribunal, through their spokesman, not to increase their salary. That is a move which I particularly support as do members of my party as an example to wage restraint in the community. I think however the public needs to be reminded that that has occurred. So often members of parliament are charged with raiding the Treasury on their own behalf. So often that is not the case, and it is not the case in this event. However, the matter of salary raises the question of the Government' s policy in this area. I want to go back briefly to the beginning of effective wage pauses in Australia in recent times. They began under the Fraser Government which, following the special Premiers Conference on 7 December 1982, implemented a wages pause in the areas of its own employment and undertook to fund employment-generating programs from savings in its own Budget which resulted from that wage pause. That is where the idea and the significance of the wage pause in Australia began. When the present Government came to office it thought that it would have to put some public relations around the idea of the wage pause and did so by establishing the summit and the so-called accord with the unions in Australia. Since then we have found that the example set by the Fraser Government and by members of parliament, to which I have just referred, is being undermined by the union movement which is failing to stand by the accord. Recent statements following the Budget, which is still under discussion in this Parliament, indicated that trade union leaders have no intention of following the spirit of the accord nor the example given by members of parliament. Mr Crean on the Nationwide program on the eve of the Budget presentation said clearly that his view is that the union movement should take out of the economy increases other than wages which he likens, however, to a wage increase in value. The two items specifically mentioned are a non-contributory superannuation scheme across the Australian work force, costing employers about $11 a week, and a significant productivity claim through the arbitration system next year. Somebody has written that that could be as much as 5 per cent. Both claims which are to be pressed and pursued by the union movement represent a break in the accord. The union movement by so acting is turning away from the example so clearly set by the Fraser Government and by members of parliament. I very much regret that the examples set out in this report referring to the lead given by members of parliament are to be ignored, as will happen in the coming months by leaders of the union movement. As my colleague the honourable member for Dundas (Mr Ruddock) has said the other Bill deals with the National Crime Authority and the status and rights of its chairman. This takes one back in some retrospectivity to the Fraser Government which first set up the legislation to produce a crimes commission in Australia. The National Crimes Commission was to be set up under the Fraser legislation. It was interesting to find in the first days and weeks of the Hawke Government that it, too, was to proceed with the Fraser legislation. I remember how the matter was dealt with here in the House of Representatives on 19 May last year when in answer to a question on this matter the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) replied: What we are doing is to ensure that by increasing the resources of the Costigan royal commission the work of the commission will be increased and improved and that, at the beginning of 1984, we will be in place, with the proclamation of the Act, for the National Crimes Commissioner to take over, in the most effective way, the work of the royal commission. In the first several months of the new Government that was the attitude of the Prime Minister to the existing Fraser National Crimes Commission. It was interesting that on the same day in the Senate the Attorney-General gave a different answer, which is in character. It is something the Attorney-General has been doing ever since, quite frequently in the Senate. It is interesting, too, to see what answers one gets to a question that is put here and a question asked in the other place. On the same day in answer to a question about the National Crimes Commission the Attorney-General said that the Government did not want to rush into the enactment of proclamations of legislation in this area without making sure it had the basic principles right. At that stage on 19 May last year the Attorney-General was already putting the brakes on the move to proclaim the National Crimes Commission legislation, whereas the Prime Minister in this place was saying that it would be in place by Christmas. That is one of the more humorous aspects of this Government's attitude to fighting crime in Australia. The next move that took place was the National Crimes Commission seminar held for two days in the Senate, which I had the pleasure of attending. As I have remarked before in debates on this issue in this House, one saw there the real moves to weaken the Commission and how the States came in with plans to weaken the powers of the Commission to have the authority to investigate crime and to have the Commonwealth with the power to refer references to the Commission or to the Authority. We saw here the work of well versed lawyers arguing against the basis of any National Crime Authority or National Crimes Commission. One could not help feeling as one listened to the Attorney-General sum up the two-day discussion that we were hearing the first retreat from an effective body to fight crime in Australia. That was revealed when the Government brought its Bill into the Senate-a Bill so deficient that a Committee with, I think, equal membership, or perhaps a dominance of members from the Government, reported on the deficiencies of the Government's Bill. Before that Bill was brought into the Senate, there was pressure on Mr Costigan, which is evident from the letters which have been tabled by the Prime Minister in this House. I quote from a letter that Mr Costigan wrote to the Prime Minister on 3 February 1984. I quote one paragraph, in which he said: Indeed, if I was to write a report and submit it by the time requested it would be necessary for me to terminate now all investigations and confine my report to a statement of the precise position these investigations have reached at this point in time. That would have the effect of destroying the investigations and the momentum they have gained. He went on to say: Nor is it possible for me to suggest that the 30th June would be a more satisfactory date. We see from reading these letters the pressure the Prime Minister was bringing on Mr Costigan to close up his commission of inquiry as soon as possible, long before the Government had its Crime Authority in place ready to take over. There has been no satisfactory explanation as to why that pressure was put on and why such haste was required of Mr Costigan to finish his work. He went on in the last paragraph of his letter to say: In these circumstances I reluctantly advise that I am quite unable to provide your Government with a report by the end of April. One can find further in that letter the pressure that Mr Costigan was under at that time. We come to the provision in clause 5 of the Bill which confers on the Chairman of the National Crime Authority the status of a judge. Despite the fact that the appointment first made by the Fraser Government was Mr Justice Williams -he quite obviously bore the title of a judge-a further study of the sort of work in which the Crime Authority will be involved has certainly led my Party to take the view that it is not correct that the Chairman of the Authority should bear the title of judge. In this case, it would be in a sense a courtesy title and as such it would, in effect, put a different value on the title 'judge'. It would really have no relationship to a judge fulfilling his role, for instance, on the bench of the New South Wales Supreme Court from which Mr Justice Stewart has come. It seems to us to be entirely misplaced that this type of work, which is a combination of a policeman's work and an investigator's work, or perhaps a super policeman's work and a super investigator's work, is nevertheless of that nature. After study of the type of work that will be involved and is involved in fighting crime, it does not seem to fit that proposition. It is interesting that the recommendation comes from the Attorney-General. He is a co-author of a recently published book called Australia's Constitution. There were three authors, an academic lawyer, Mr John McMillan, the Federal Attorney-General- Mr John Brown —There is no such thing. An academic lawyer? Mr STEELE HALL —The Minister might not recognise the first description but he recognises the second-the Federal Attorney-General, Senator Gareth Evans. The third is the former Victorian Liberal Attorney-General, Mr Haddon Storey. Two significant paragraphs in this book relate to this very question. These two paragraphs read: These anomalies cause lawyers and civil libertarians varying degrees of disquiet. Recently and most noticeably there has been a growing concern at the use of judges to head royal commissions, especially those with strong political overtones. An argument against using judges for such non-judicial purposes is that every task which is coloured by political considerations can diminish the particular judge's reputation for impartiality and independence and, by extension, public confidence in the courts in general. As the Attorney-General is one of the co-authors of the book to which this paragraph is attributed I am rather intrigued that he could at the same time be the sponsor of this Bill. Perhaps that is why on 19 May last year he was saying one thing in answer to a question in the Senate while his leader was saying another thing in answer to the same question in the House of Representatives. Perhaps that is the reason. Perhaps he does it to himself now. He might talk to the mirror one morning and talk to the Senate that afternoon. I do not know what it is but he seems to have different views on the status of a judge in this matter. We do not happen to agree with his current view, which he has put here today. We agree with his first view as co-author so we will try to help him maintain that view by moving in the Committee stage to delete clause 5, which is the clause involved in this matter. I said that the work of the Chairman of the Authority is really outside the work of a judge. It is the work of, in a sense, a super investigator. If we look at the work of Mr Costigan we find that he has chased crime and drug offences through almost every State of Australia and in this surprising way has branched out, of necessity, following the leads from his original terms of reference, to an enormous web of crime. I have before me a copy of a police report going back some years which is the sort of thing which will involve the work of a National Crime Authority. I am sure Mr Costigan's computers are full of these things. That is obviously one of the problems he has in handing over the National Crime Authority, especially as his offer of briefings has recently been refused. One of the physical and technical problems is getting the information to the National Crime Authority. I wish to read this police report, which is of interest and which illustrates the sort of factors with which the Crime Authority deals. I refer to a request from an Australian Federal Police inspector to his Commissioner in 1974 for permission to interview people. In this request some of the things that have been discussed publicly are detailed. It illustrates a web of crime or the possibility of crime. It is addressed to the Commissioner. It says: On Sunday, 28th April 1974, one Ramon SALA was detained at Kingsford Smith Airport where he was about to board a Qantas flight to Hong Kong. SALA was found to be in possession of $35,950 in Australian currency and a small quantity of LSD and cannabis resin. In his subsequent court appearance on 25.5.1974 he was fined $6,000 under the Banking (Foreign Exchange) Regulations and $600 on four drug charges under the Customs Act. The sum involved was confiscated. SALA left Australia on his own accord, on 30 May 1974. 2. Ostensibly this would appear to be a straightforward matter, possibly worthy of commendation for the alertness of the airport security officer and the two members of this force involved in the arrest and search of Sala. 3. However, there are various significant and important aspects to this matter some of which raise questions which can only be regarded as being of a disquieting nature. 4. I do not think there is any doubt that SALA is and was a major drug trafficker. In December 1973 an associate, Dennis Hanson, was detained in Honolulu with $21,000 in Australian currency; from reactions from a Customs ' sniffer' dog, a large quantity of either hashish or opiates had been contained in various items of baggage used by SALA. Addresses from his notebook indicated association with many Australian drug users and the drug scene in South East Asia, the Indian sub-continent and Europe . He did not appear to have any employment in his given occupation (a film cameraman) certainly not sufficient to encompass the travel indicated by his passport or that of his girlfriend Michelle Senannes (first class incidentally). Taking into consideration Sala's expenses while in Australia, lawyers, travel, loss of capital, etc. etc., I have conservatively estimated that in the period mid-May until early June Senannes and Sala have spent at least $75,000. Not included in this sum is a figure of not less than $4,000 which, I have reason to believe Sala or his representative paid in bribes. 5. Sala's passport was, quite obviously, forged or at least tampered with, the French Consul also giving this opinion. Subsequent advice from the French authorities confirmed this. The original passport was reported lost in India ( where Sala is a frequent visitor) by a French woman deported from Switzerland for drug offences. The vaccination document in his possession and proffered as his own was issued to a French Canadian reported to be involved in drug trafficking. 6. However, 29.5.1974 prior to confirmation of our doubts concerning the validity of the passport, Mr A. Watson of the Attorney-General's Department- Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Keogh) —Order! The honourable member for Boothby is, I am afraid, straying very wide of the subject matter of the two Bills involved in this cognate debate. Whilst what he is saying may be very interesting, I suggest that he might direct his attention back to the subject of the Bills fairly quickly. Mr STEELE HALL —Mr Deputy Speaker, this quite obviously has nothing to do with the Bill relating to the salaries of judges and public servants. This is to do with the status of the Chairman of the National Crime Authority, who will be dealing with a whole host of matters, and whether- Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Although the honourable member may be dealing, in his mind, with that particular legislation, my interpretation of the legislation is that he is not dealing with it, and I ask him to return fairly soon to the legislation. Mr STEELE HALL —I should like to take up that matter on a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. This Bill deals specifically with the National Crime Authority, and I put it to you that I should not be limited in my speech by the inclusion in this cognate debate of a Bill quite extraneous to the National Crime Authority. I am devoting my remarks specifically to that subject of the National Crime Authority and the work that it will do under its Chairman. We are discussing the status of its Chairman, which must affect the work that he does. We are also discussing in this Bill his future emoluments and the prospect of his career after his term as National Crime Authority Chairman is finished. All of these things, I would imagine, will impinge on the job that he does and the type of work which he has to do within that job. I am reading a report- Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! I have listened to the argument from the honourable member. Whilst I accept that the matters that he has mentioned and put to me in that argument may be relevant to the Bill, I must reiterate my previous ruling that the matters to which he is referring are events of many years ago, and whilst they may be interesting to the House, they are not directly concerned with the legislation currently before the House. I repeat my request to the honourable member that he fairly return to the subject matter of the Bill. Mr STEELE HALL —I have no alternative, Mr Deputy Speaker, but to disagree with your ruling. I take it, Mr Deputy Speaker, that I have to disagree in writing. Mr Young —I think, Mr Deputy Speaker, that the honourable member for Dundas (Mr Ruddock) ranged pretty widely, and that we can accommodate this matter. Whilst the Government is not encouraging it, I think that we realise its relevance. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —I shall accede to the request of the Leader of the House and permit the honourable member for Boothby to stray to the extent that he has so far strayed. Mr STEELE HALL —Thank you for that ruling, Mr Deputy Speaker. I believe that it is in accord with the latitude that the first speaker had. I was finishing that point by saying that the report continued: . . . Mr Watson of the Attorney-General's Department contacted me and stated that the Attorney had instructed that the passport be returned to Sala. I queried this, pointing out that the passport was almost certainly false. Subsequently a telex expressing the Attorney's instruction was received at this office and the Sydney District Headquarters. The passport was returned to Sala's solicitor by a member of the Immigration Department, and Sala departed Australia the following day, 30.5.1974. The deportation order which, we had been informed, precluded further action on a false passport charge was not in fact served at all, Sala so avoiding the ignominy of complications which arise internationally from having been subject to deportation action. This in itself would curtail or at least have severely hindered Sala's trafficking activities. 7. In relation to the deportation order, Sgt. W. Taylor, Crime Intelligence Section, New South Wales, expressed considerable surprise that a deportation order had been obtained so promptly and used as a reason to prevent prosecution on the passport charge. On querying this with Immigration in Canberra, I was advised that the matter was pushed through on request from Sydney. Subsequently I was informed that this was done at the request of Sgt. Taylor to Immigration officials, a fact which would appear to be entirely untrue. This report goes on in a similar vein. Had I had the time, I would have read it all, although I am the first to say that it would have been repeating this type of matter and material. I believe that what I have read reminds honourable members present of the controversy which has been well ventilated but, I believe , has not been expressed in this report before. The essence of it is that this inspector summed up his report, in section 14, by asking this: I therefore wish to interview several persons to ascertain the nature of the representation made to them and their knowledge of the Sala matter. Listed are five particular people whom this inspector asked permission to interview. He said: In view of the nature of the enquiry, the obvious delicacy of the matter and the implication, this report is submitted for your guidance and direction. It should be mentioned any approach to the Attorney should depend upon the information provided by Mr Watson. But the fact of the matter is that this inspector said in 1974: 'I want to interview the Attorney-General about the Sala matter'. As I understand it, permission was never given and the interview never took place. I relate this back to the position of the Chairman of the National Crime Authority-which I know, Mr Deputy Speaker, you were waiting for me to do. I believe that it does relate. What particular position would the Chairman be in, if he is a judge, with all the community respect of a judge, if he has to deal with a situation in which an inspector of the Australian Federal Police is asked to interview the Federal Attorney-General about the wrongful deportation of a drug trafficker out of Australia? It is entirely wrong that he should bear the title of judge and be put in that position. That is why clause 5 of the Bill is misplaced, and that is why we shall move in Committee to delete it. Mr BLANCHARD(Moore)(9.39) —We have just heard from the honourable member for Boothby (Mr Steele Hall) a very good historical background to the National Crime Authority, but it did not add much to the debate. It was a classic case of shadow boxing by a shadow Minister, with very little substance-and you, Mr Deputy Speaker, certainly seemed to make such observations yourself. There has been a case for the establishment of a national crime authority, but the Opposition when in government refused to grasp the nettle. That is the point the Opposition has to realise-it had the opportunity to have a national crime authority but it refused to grasp the nettle. It was for this Government to do what a number of people in the legal profession felt should have been done years ago. I remind the Opposition that the National Crime Authority has the support of all States and will prove its worth in the years to come. It is my intention to address my remarks to the least controversial of the Bills before the House. At least I do have the support of the honourable member for Boothby in respect of the Judicial and Statutory Officers (Remunerations and Allowances) Bill. The administration of justice is one of the basic functions of a democracy. Deciding disputes between private citizens and enforcing the criminal law are the traditional functions of the judiciary but, as we all know, it may also have the task of adjudicating between the citizen and the state. It is important for the judiciary to be independent of the state and to be seen to be so independent. It is also important that justice be administered impartially , without fear or favour. It is in the light of these comments that I support the Bill before the House. The purpose of the Bill is to give effect to the Government's decision to accept Report No. 5 and Report No. 6 of the Remuneration Tribunal's 1984 review. It should be noted that apart from reports and determinations passing on increases handed down by the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission in the September 1983 and April 1984 national wage cases, this is the first general review by the Tribunal since August 1982. The statutory duty of the Tribunal is to recommend and to determine the remuneration which properly should be paid to those within its jurisdiction. The judiciary comes within its jurisdiction. At the time of the 1982 review the Tribunal recommended that an increase of at least 13 per cent was necessary. The final outcome in 1982 was an increase of approximately 7 per cent. The Tribunal approached its present review on the basis that the national consensus achieved by the present Government and the wages principles was central to the economic policy of the Government. It therefore recommended and determined salary increases of 11.7 per cent for judges and other senior office holders. I too join with the honourable member for Boothby in drawing attention to the Tribunal's determination that there were to be no salary increases for Ministers, parliamentary office holders or senators and members. I think the honourable member was drawing a long bow when he extrapolated from that comment a suggestion that the trade union movement is abusing the system. The trade union movement, to its credit, in the last two years has shown a responsible attitude in the issue of wage determination. The Tribunal determined and recommended that the salary increases be phased in with 6 per cent effective from 1 July of this year and a further 5.7 per cent effective from 1 January 1985. The cost of implementing the Tribunal's recommendation will be about $900, 000. I refer also to some remarks made by Mr Justice Michael Kirby in the Australian Broadcasting Corporation's Boyer lectures last year. Mr McGauran —Great fellow! Mr BLANCHARD —If the honourable member listens he might hear something of worth. Mr Justice Michael Kirby pointed out: The Australian Constitution guarantees Judges against the diminution of their remuneration whilst they remain Judges. The authors of the 1901 commentary on the new Constitution rashly suggested that this provision would prevent the levying of any taxation on Federal Judges. He added: Unhappily it has not proved so. We pay taxes like the rest. So the judiciary should pay taxes like the rest of us. I add that in Western Australia early in 1983 judges there suffered a salary cut of 10 per cent in association with other senior Crown appointments. That was as a result of a deliberate decision of that State's Government in order to balance the Budget because it too inherited a situation whereby the previous Liberal Government had run down the State's economy. In 1977, Mr Justice Kirby points out, a number of Federal judges in the United States of America even brought an action to recover compensation. They claimed that inflation, unrecompensed by increases in judicial salary, had violated the constitutional guarantee against reduction. Mr Justice Kirby commented: It is perhaps a notable commentary on Judicial integrity and selflessness that the claim was dismissed. In closing, I repeat that the independence of the judiciary and its impartiality are fundamental to our judicial system. I therefore support the Bill. Mr McGAURAN(Gippsland)(9.47) —In this cognate debate I wish to concentrate my remarks on the National Crime Authority (Status and Rights of Chairman) Bill. I very much regret that this Bill is yet another chapter in the controversy-much of it of the Government's own making-that has surrounded the National Crime Authority since the Parliament some months ago brought it into being. The reason for this latest chapter of controversy is, of course, that the Chairman, for whom I share the same respect and admiration felt by all other members of this chamber, will have the title and position of Supreme Court Judge of the Australian Capital Territory. Before I address myself to the specifics of that concern I again state the obvious-the importance of the National Crime Authority . Indeed, the importance of the Authority can hardly be overstated especially at a time when it appears that allegations of organised crime or crime organised on a national basis are coming at us almost weekly, if not daily. Mr Deputy Speaker , as you would be aware, the latest such event is the ring-in at the Brisbane races whereby a horse by the name of Bold Personality was substituted for a horse by the name of Fine Cotton. I simply make reference to that as it may be an incident which the National Crime Authority would want to concern itself with . Let us remember one thing about the National Crime Authority, that is, that this Government has attached to it in a very half-hearted manner powers which will necessarily restrict the scope and powers of its operation. In other words, I share the same concern as the honourable member for Boothby (Mr Steele Hall) that the National Crime Authority has been so restricted as to diminish its powers to combat organised crime or crime taking place on a national basis. The reason for this is twofold: Firstly, the National Crime Authority cannot initiate any investigation which would allow it to use its coercive powers. It cannot initiate an investigation which would allow it to compel witnesses, subpoena documents or force people to appear before it. That is of tremendous concern. It relies upon references from the Federal Attorney-General. The honourable member for Moore (Mr Blanchard), in the closing sentence of his speech in this Parliament, said that he was convinced of the independence of the National Crime Authority and, for that reason, he would support this legislation . Where is the independence in that? The National Crime Authority must rely on a reference from a politician at a time when the public wishes all investigative bodies to be seen to be separate from politicians. The second concern which I have which restricts the powers of the National Crime Authority and necessarily restricts its independence is that any State can veto its investigation. We have a situation where this National Crime Authority must rely for its riding instructions, if one likes, on the Federal Attorney- General. But lo and behold, any corrupt State can veto its investigations. There is no doubt at all which State we think is most likely to veto the investigation , a State which is nothing more than a cesspool of corruption. Of course, that is the State headed by the Australian Labor Party Premier, Neville Wran. The National Crime Authority must be utterly and completely free from political pressure. The public is demanding that the National Crime Authority fearlessly and independently tackle the major crime networks of this country. Not one person on this side of the House believes that this Crime Authority has sufficient power to do it. This Government has so hamstrung its operations that, to a large extent, it will be unable to carry out its duties. I turn now to the position of Chairman of the National Crime Authority. Good heavens, we can only wish him luck and wish him the best, given the restrictions he will be operating under. I stress that Mr Justice Stewart is a person unusually qualified to head the Authority. His appointment is an appointment which we would welcome in normal circumstances but the problem is simply that Mr Justice Stewart will be a judge of the Supreme Court of the Australian Capital Territory. This causes a number of problems which the Government, in my view, as well as in the view of other members of the Opposition, has failed to address. First and foremost, the independence and separateness of the judiciary from investigation, accumulation of evidence and even prosecution are now, to a large extent, hampered if not tainted. The most basic and utterly immovable principle of our judicial system is that judges are free, in every sense of the word, from the accumulation of evidence. The judge's role is simply to conduct the court hearing and to pass sentence when a jury, made up of 12 members of the community , has made a decision on the facts. Mr Groom —Or has passed a verdict. Mr McGAURAN —Or has passed a verdict, as the honourable member for Braddon, a distinguished lawyer, has reminded me. The appointment of Mr Justice Stewart to head the crime authority caused immediate controversy when he accepted the appointment while still a member of the New South Wales Supreme Court. It is interesting to note that the Attorney-General (Senator Gareth Evans), in his usual fashion, made the announcement without properly consulting the necessary persons; in this case, without consulting the Chief Justice of the New South Wales Supreme Court, Sir Laurence Street. The Bill before the House will allow Mr Justice Stewart to receive the pay of a New South Wales Supreme Court judge during his chairmanship of the Authority as well as allow him to enjoy the leave and other conditions of service of an Australian Capital Territory Supreme Court judge. There is no question at all that the Chairman of the National Crime Authority ought to have received such remuneration. There would be nothing to stop the Government introducing a Bill with those terms and conditions of employment without conferring on the Chairman the title 'Mr Justice', a title applicable only to judges who sit in courts of law, not as chairmen of crime authorities. The Government found itself in a total mess in that it had decided upon Mr Justice Stewart without properly consulting with his Chief Justice, the Law Council of Australia or any other bodies that have an interest in and an ongoing contribution to make to bodies such as the National Crime Authority. Mr Groom —Most discourteous. Mr McGAURAN —It goes beyond being merely discourteous as the honourable member for Braddon has said; it is an extremely dangerous precedent which impinges upon the independence of the judiciary. Mr Justice Stewart was urged to resign from the New South Wales Supreme Court as a means of saving the Government from further embarrassment. He was reassured, no doubt at the time, that he would suffer no disadvantage. But providing him with token judicial status can do nothing but harm to the judiciary. The standing of the title 'Mr Justice' is so highly regarded in our community that it brings to mind immediately a fearless, strong, independent judiciary that should remain separated from a body such as the National Crime Authority, particularly a National Crime Authority that I regard as being so severely restricted by politicians who make up this Government as to prevent it being able properly to carry out its task. The appropriate title was given to Mr Justice Stewart simply as a political ploy and is totally unjustified. It was given to him simply to save this bumbling, accident-prone Attorney-General from further embarrassment. In summary, a number of problems are associated with the National Crime Authority. It is much weaker and has far fewer powers than envisaged by the Fraser Government. Indeed, the Fraser Government had reached the stage of drafting legislation. The National Crime Authority certainly does not need a further controversy such as this. For that reason I join with the honourable member for Boothby in strongly opposing not Mr Justice Stewart, for whom I share the honourable member's very high regard, but the title given to him as it befits only a Supreme Court judge. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. Message from the Governor-General recommending appropriation announced. Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith. Bill (on motion by Mr Lionel Bowen) read a third time. Consideration resumed from 5 September, on motion by Mr Lionel Bowen: That the Bill be now read a second time. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. Message from the Governor-General recommending appropriation announced. Clauses 1 to 4-by leave-taken together, and agreed to. Clause 5 (Status). Mr STEELE HALL(Boothby)(10.02) —I wish to speak only briefly to this clause. I made the point in the second reading debate that the Opposition believes that a courtesy title of judge or justice ought not to be applied to the Chairman of the National Crime Authority on the basis that this position is quite separate from the normal position occupied by judges. In a sense, by the association of the chairman with the points that I have made of investigation and preparation for prosecution, that is not a fitting title for the chairman. As other honourable members have said, that is no reflection on the person himself. I rely, as I said earlier-it will only take a couple of minutes to read more fully -on an article in the Sydney Morning Herald of 24 July this year which is headed 'Growing concern recently. Judges defend doctrine'. It is written by Mr John Slee, the legal correspondent. It states: The issue at the centre of the controversy over Justice Stewart's appointment to head the National Crime Authority concerns the doctrine of separation of powers. This doctrine, endorsed by various philosophers since Aristotle, is reflected in Australian constitutional practice where the legislative, executive and judicial powers are vested respectively in three different branches of government-Parliament, Cabinet and the courts. The separation of legislative and executive powers has not been as jealously maintained in Australia as judicial independence. Even so, judges are not kept entirely out of executive functions. The recently published Australia's Constitution, by three authors-the academic lawyer John McMillan, the Federal Attorney-General, Senator Evans, and the former Victorian Liberal Attorney-General, Mr Haddon Storey-notes that two former Chief Justices of the High Court, Sir John Latham and Sir Owen Dixon, were appointed as Ambassadors to Japan and the United States respectively without resigning from their judicial posts. Judges of the Federal Court concurrently serve on administrative tribunals. And judges often head royal commissions and other inquiries. These anomalies cause lawyers and civil libertarians varying degrees of disquiet. Recently and most noticeably there has been growing concern at the use of judges to head royal commissions, especially those with strong political overtones. An argument against using judges for such non-judicial purposes is that every task which is coloured by political considerations can diminish the particular judge's reputation for impartiality and independence and, by extension, public confidence in the courts in general. The very point I am making-this was made by some of the quotations that I read from the inspector's report-is that some of the work of the National Crime Authority will get very close to the political scene. As has been indicated, the references in this debate must come from a politician. The work of the Costigan Royal Commission into the Activities of the Federated Ship Painters and Dockers Union, the Stewart Royal Commission of Inquiry into Drug Trafficking and other commissions have been matters of controversy and debate in the Parliament in the airing of reports and the like. It is very close to the political process and it fulfills the other criticism of judges in executive positions. On the two counts , we believe that the term judge or justice should not apply in that it will tend to devalue the term and the title in relation to the public's regard for the justices of the various courts. As I have said, that is not a reflection on the person who holds the position, but it is a manifestation of the type of job involved as chairman of the Authority not, as I have said, a criticism of the person involved in holding that job. By making this move the Government is offending every principle that the Attorney-General (Senator Gareth Evans) has put his name to in the book that I have referred to. Whilst we are very used to the contradictions of the Attorney- General and fully understand that one day he may disagree with an opinion he has given the previous day, we happen to agree with the opinion he has given this day in this book which was reported on 24 July. On the opinion he has given, we oppose clause 5 of the Bill. I oppose the clause. Mr LIONEL BOWEN(Kingsford-Smith-Minister for Trade)(10.05) —The Government cannot accept the suggestion from the Opposition that the clause be opposed. Without delaying the Committee, I think even the Opposition agrees that there is a precedent for what is being done here. Opposition members have, quite fairly, been prepared to been prepared to admit that when they were establishing the National Crimes Commission they had in mind a judge from Queensland. In fairness to their explanation they say that they would not do that now because they are in opposition, but they were going to do it when they were in government. Mr Steele Hall —We knew more about crime since you have been in government. Mr LIONEL BOWEN —If honourable members do it is because in the period in which they were in government the crimes took place. The other matter at which Opposition members ought to have a look is the Commonwealth Grants Commission. There is a precedent in the Commonwealth Grants Commission Act 1975 under which, they will admit also, Mr Justice Else-Mitchell was appointed as Chairman of the Commission with the identical provision that we now have in the National Crime Authority (Status and Rights of Chairmen) Bill. I do not think it matters a great deal for us to debate the fact that a judge wishes to hold his title. Any person who had attained the position of judge would certainly want to retain that title. When he might finish his term as Chairman of the National Crime Authority, which is basically a four-year term, he would be at an age which would entitle him to go back to the court. Without giving too much information about the particular judge who was good enough to accept this appointment, he would be well below the retiring age at the end of the next four years. Why should he not have the benefit of going on the Bench again if he wished so to serve? I do not see any merit in making the accusation that because he was a judge-he is now deemed to be the judge of the National Crime Authority-he is deemed to be a person who acted as a policeman, prosecutor and investigator; after all, we are dealing with crime. Let us make it very clear that, despite the fact that there are objections to judges serving on royal commissions, many of them have the necessary experience to evaluate the evidence as to whether there should be an offence for which a person should be indicted. In a very recent example a judge recommended to the Government that the people involved in the royal commission be charged with conspiracy. Honourable members are not going to suggest that the requirement of that sort of professional assessment should be left to somebody else other than the person who has the judicial expertise so to evaluate it. Why are we frightened of crime being identified, evaluated and people prosecuted? There is nothing serious or mysterious about it except that it has not happened frequently enough. That is the very purpose of the National Crime Authority. It is much more beneficial for the citizens of a nation to be able to go to an authority, headed by a judge, and not, as they have had to in the past, often go to the police to be investigated by the police. It has not been necessarily accepted- Mr Groom —He is not a judge. Mr LIONEL BOWEN —He is not judging, but he can assess and, if we may say so, give some protection to the people who wish to lay information. Let us make it very clear-the honourable member for Braddon would appreciate this because he is a lawyer-that plenty of people who might have information might be somewhat hesitant unless they had the necessary advice and protection that perhaps judicial training can give. One does not lose one's impartiality or credibility because of the appointment. I fail to see it. Mr Steele Hall —He has not a judicial function. Mr LIONEL BOWEN —He has a judicial function to evaluate the evidence. That is very clear. One cannot just leave that to every person who, well-meaning as one might think they are, can assess the situation. In my view, one needs professional training to ascertain the credibility of the person laying the information and also the ability to get the evidence that would entitle a prosecution. We can argue about it, but the precedents are there. I see nothing wrong with the judiciary's being involved in royal commissions or assessing whether there is a crime. There is nothing wrong with that. Mr Groom —Look at Cross. Mr LIONEL BOWEN —The honourable member knows very well that in the case of the Cross Special Commission of Inquiry it made no difference to the issue. Judges who have gone through the legal profession are experienced in the procedures of courts and have the additional advantage of being able to assess the credibility of witnesses and also to understand the law as to what charges should be laid. Up to the present it has usually been left to the police prosecutor or somebody of that ilk to proceed with that sort of matter. It has not always been satisfactory when information has been laid and given to the police. It has perhaps not been effectively pursued. Mr Ruddock —If you adopt that argument, the Director of Public Prosecutions ought to be a judge. Mr LIONEL BOWEN —I am not arguing that at all. We have not always had the Director of Public Prosecutions. This is a question of information being given on an issue. Let us make it very clear. The National Crime Authority was sponsored by our present Opposition on the basis that it would be headed by a judge. The whole argument this evening has been to make some accusations that something is dreadfully wrong because a judge wishes to hold on to his status. I mention one final matter. I make the point firstly that the judge will be of an age where he can certainly continue his career at the end of his appointment. Why should he not be entitled to do so? The second point is that apparently an allegation was made that the appointment was without consultation with the New South Wales Chief Justice. I am reminded that the Attorney-General (Senator Gareth Evans) made a Press statement on 20 July 1984 in which he made the point that he had had discussions with Sir Laurence Street in the week beginning 4 June prior to Cabinet's considering the matter. So it is a matter of record that , in fact, discussions took place. For those reasons and in the interests of what we are saying should be support for the judge who has graciously accepted this appointment, the Government naturally wishes to pursue the matter of his being entitled to hold that status which applies to Mr Justice Else-Mitchell and which would have applied to the judge that the Opposition had in mind when it was in government to appoint as head of the Authority. I think that the Opposition's argument is completely inconsistent. While I can appreciate that the Opposition has had a change of heart because it is in opposition, it should be in no way deemed that the Government is impressed with the argument. Mr RUDDOCK(Dundas)(10.14) —I think that some points need to be taken up in relation to the contribution of the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr Lionel Bowen) during this debate. The fact is that Mr Justice Stewart, as a judge of the Supreme Court of New South Wales, was to be appointed to head the National Crime Authority. Of course, after his appointment was announced it was considerably criticised. The judge himself felt so concerned about the nature of the criticism that came from his professional colleagues and from the Chief Justice of New South Wales that he, in fact, resigned his commission as a judge of the Supreme Court of New South Wales. What we are doing here now is giving him an appointment which carries the status and rights of a judge, whereas the function that he is being asked to carry out is not a judicial function. He is being asked to head, for the Commonwealth, the National Crime Authority. For some reason to do with status he is to be given that appointment as a judge of the Supreme Court of the Australian Capital Territory. The fact is that he is not to be a judge of the Australian Capital Territory. He will not hear cases in the Australian Capital Territory. To all intents and purposes he will not be a judge of the Australian Capital Territory. The Chief Judge of the Australian Capital Territory, Sir Richard Blackburn, has said that he will not be a judge of the Australian Capital Territory in that context, that he will not be hearing matters in the court in relation to the Australian Capital Territory. The Deputy Prime Minister alluded to the fact that the judge, in his role as Chairman of the National Crime Authority, will have certain responsibilities to hear allegations, to weigh up the material that comes before him and to consider what needs to be done with that material. He will not be the only Commonwealth officer who will carry out the role of that sort. If one carried the Deputy Prime Minister's argument to its logical conclusion, one would assume that the Solicitor-General, to undertake the function of being Solicitor-General, of weighing up evidence, advising the Commonwealth and carrying out an Executive function, should always be appointed a judge. One would assume that if the person one wanted to give that appointment needed to be bolstered up, to have some confidence in carrying out his function and to get the right person and perhaps to overcome the problem of not being able to pay him the same amount one would pay him if he were a senior Queen's Counsel able to charge fees at the Bar of New South Wales, that is, if one wanted to give him some extra status, one would appoint him as a judge. That is the logic of the argument that is being offered. One could relate clearly to the advising on the question of prosecutions which the Deputy Prime Minister was suggesting. One could relate it to the role of the Director of Public Prosecutions. If one takes the Deputy Prime Minister's argument to its logical conclusion, Mr Temby QC would not be Mr Temby QC. To carry out his functions he would have to be Mr Justice Temby in order to give him some status. That is a nonsense. I think that argument demonstrates the nonsense of the proposition that is being put to us. To have an effective Chairman of the National Crime Authority and for him to carry out his functions does not mean he has to be a judge. It might be nice to have a judge doing it but he does not have to be a judge. The fact is the Mr Justice Stewart resigned as a judge of the Supreme Court of New South Wales because he was concerned about the nature of the criticism that was offered. We are being asked to approve of his being given the status and the title of a judge for the sake of having somebody in the position who is able to have that title and status. I do not think that is the appropriate basis upon which the decision should be made. If the man were a judge, were appointed a judge and felt that he wanted to hold the position of judge that he held in a Supreme Court of a State maybe it would be a different matter. But Mr Justice Stewart himself felt compelled to resign as a judge of the Supreme Court of New South Wales. That is the point at issue. He himself resigned. In that context, is it appropriate that we should be according him a judicial status simply to make up for the fact that he felt compelled to resign? Mr GROOM(Braddon)(10.19) —The comments I make are not intended to reflect at all on Mr Justice Stewart. However, I am concerned about the standing of the judiciary in Australia at present. I think the Murphy affair has had a very bad effect on the standing of the judiciary in Australia at the moment. Mr Lionel Bowen —What has this to do with clause 5? Mr GROOM —I believe that it is very relevant to clause 5. Mr Lionel Bowen —Come on; you are just prostituting the position here for your own gain. Mr GROOM —If the honourable member hears what I have to say he will understand the point I am making. We are concerned here with a person who does not have a purely judicial function. As a start, he is involved as an official; he is involved as an investigator and he is involved to some extent in assessing evidence that is before him. We do not need a judge to do that sort of work and the person concerned does not have to be entitled a judge. I think to a large extent in this country in recent times judges have been involved in matters which have reflected very badly on the standing of the judiciary. I believe that it is appropriate at this time to look very carefully at the role of judges in this country. I think it is wrong to look, for example, at the Cross report and the role of Mr Justice Cross in that report. I am not arguing whether he was right or wrong or whether Mr Justice Murphy is right or wrong, but the chief justices of the various supreme courts should consider very carefully whether judges of those courts should be involved in these inquiries. Times change and politics change and in this day and age judges have to be very wary about the role they play. Over the years, of course, judges have played a very important role in inquiring into particular issues of public importance in various countries-in this country, in Britain and in other countries. We now find that when judges become involved they are subject to attacks, rightly or wrongly, from both sides of the political fence. I am not playing politics. To some extent perhaps we have lost our sense of fairness in these matters. Mr Lionel Bowen —I think we have. You persecute people, using a house of parliament to do it. Mr GROOM —Okay, the honourable member makes that point. Both sides have lost their sense of fairness. Should judges become involved in this kind of issue? I think that is a particularly important question. I do not see that creating a fictional title of 'Mr Justice' in this case is appropriate. I take this opportunity of saying to those involved in deciding whether judges should be involved in particular inquiries that they should be very wary about placing judges in this kind of position because I think that it is reflecting very badly on the standing of judges in this country at present. Question put: That the clause be agreed to. The Committee divided. (The Chairman-Mrs J. Child) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 59 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 39 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 20 —— Baldwin, P. J. Jones, BarryBeddall, D. P. Keating, P. J.Bilney, G. N. Kelly, R. J.Blanchard, C. A. Kent, L.Blewett, N. Keogh, L. J.Bowen, Lionel Kerin, L. J.Brown, John Klugman, R. E.Brown, Robert Lindsay, E. J.Brumby, J. M. McHugh, J.Campbell, G. McLeay, LeoCharles, D. E. Maher, M. J.Chynoweth, R. L. Mayer, H.Cohen, B. Mildren, J. B.Cross, M. D. Milton, P.Cunningham, B. T. (Teller) Morris, AllanDarling, E. E. Morris, PeterDawkins, J. S. O'Neil, L. R. T.Duffy, M. J. Punch, G. F.Edwards, Ronald Scott, J. L.Everingham, D. N. Simmons, D. W.Fatin, W. F. Snow J. H.Free, R. V. Staples, P. R.Gayler, J. Steedman, A. P.Gear, G. Theophanous, A. C.Gorman, R. N. Tickner, R. E.Griffiths, A. G. Uren, T.Hand, G. L. Wells, D. McM.Hollis, C. Willis, R.Humphreys, B. C. (Teller) Young, M. J.Hurford, C. J. Adermann, A. E. Hicks, N. J. (Teller)Andrew, J. N. Hodgman, W. M.Blunt, C. W. Howard, J. W.Braithwaite, R. A. Lloyd, B.Burr, M. A. Lusher, S. A.Cadman, A. G. McArthur, F. S.Cameron, Donald McGauran, P. J.Cameron, Ewen (Teller) MacKellar, M. J. R.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.Fisher, P. S. Sinclair, I. McC.Goodluck, B. J. Tuckey, C. W.Groom, R. J. White, P. N. D.Hall, Steele Wilson, I. B. C.Hawker, D. P. M. Hayden, W. G. Aldred, K. J.Charlesworth, R. I. Katter, R. C.Beazley, K. C. Dobie, J. D. M. Question so resolved in the affirmative. Clause agreed to. Remainder of Bill-by leave-taken as a whole, and agreed to. Bill reported without amendment; report adopted. Bill (on motion by Mr Lionel Bowen)-by leave-read a third time. Consideration resumed from 10 September. Schedule 2. Department of Employment and Industrial Relations Proposed expenditure, $753,718,000. Mr MACPHEE(Balaclava)(10.31) —The Opposition and the community at large are becoming increasingly concerned about the administration of the community employment program. In my speeches last week on the Budget and on a matter of public importance, I likened the community employment program in its administration to the notorious regional employment development scheme which was introduced by the Whitlam Government. The problem with CEP is that it is a by- word for waste and irrelevance. The decision to increase CEP funding to $410m in this Budget has been made in the face of contrary evidence from all over the world about job creation programs and certainly made in defiance of the recommendations of the Government's own advisers. The report of the Kirby Committee of Inquiry into Labour Market Programs is very critical of subsidies which are, as the report states: . . . of little assistance to those who are not retained when the subsidy ends, in their search for further employment. Instead, the inquiry comes down 'in favour of changes to substantially increase education and vocational training'. In our view, the Government would have been better advised to allocate the increased expenditure in the Budget towards providing Australians with permanent jobs entailing worthwhile and fulfilling employment. All the evidence shows that work experience-that is all that CEP provides-is useful for some people in that it gives them employment discipline, but it has failed to provide training and has not given people the capacity to compete with others for jobs when the subsidised employment finishes. What criteria does CEP require regarding improving people's employability? What does CEP require regarding training on or off the job? How can people best compete when the subsidised employment finishes? What is the prospect of employment when the subsidy expires? There is $410m in this Budget that could be better spent on providing long duration training to enable those with minimal skills to compete with others for the available jobs and, therefore, to become more productive. When employers know that an abundant supply of certain skills is available, they are often prepared to invest more money and to employ more people. As I said last week, it is clear that people invest money in job creating programs when they know that there is a climate that is conducive to making profits and, therefore, to making further investment. People also invest when they know that people are available with certain skills. The shortcoming of job creation programs are that they do little to improve the overall level of skills. One is tempted to say that the 44 per cent increase in funding for CEP is a very limited attempt to improve the Government's employment figures. It really amounts to a very temporary make-work program. An examination of the figures, which I mentioned last week, on page 312 of Budget Paper No. 1 shows that the so -called 44 per cent increase is nothing more than a reduction of 5 per cent on the overall amount in the previous Budget for expenditure on job creation programs. I refer the Committee again to my contribution last week during the second reading debate on Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 1984-85 and the debate on a matter of public importance. I quote especially from page 212 of Budget Paper No . 1 for 1983-84. Under the heading 'Community Employment Program', the Budget Paper states: A major initiative of the Government has been the introduction of an Australia- wide employment-generating program-the Community Employment Program (CEP) established by the Community Employment Act 1983 for a period of three years. An amount of $300m will be provided in 1983-84 for direct job creation. When it is fully operational, CEP will provide annually up to 70,000 full-time jobs averaging 6 months each on labour intensive projects of social and economic benefit to the community that are proposed by State and Local Governments, community organisations and interest groups. Since then, it has been confirmed that CEP has been a massive white elephant and is, as I said on 6 June in the House, 'in the throes of a massive breakdown'. On 24 May 1983, in a Press release when announcing some changes to CEP, the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations (Mr Willis) said: The Federal Government will make available an additional $300m during 1983-84 for direct job creation under its Community Employment Program (CEP) starting on 1 July. When it is fully operational, the program is designed to create up to 70,000 new jobs in a year on worthwhile community projects for an average duration of six months. More specifically, six weeks later, on 24 June, the Minister said: The Federal Government's Community Employment Program (CEP) would create employment opportunities on worthwhile community based projects for 70,000 disadvantaged job seekers in 1983/84 . . . I emphasise that in both the Press releases issued the Minister stressed 70,000 new jobs. It was, therefore, of great concern to find that, only three months after the last of those Press releases, the Minister issued a Press release headed 'Enthusiastic Response to Community Employment Program', in which he stated: The Federal Government is spending $300m on CEP during 1983/84 to create up to 40,000 jobs. I repeat that he said 40,000 jobs. One must ask what happened to the other 30, 000 jobs? The number went from 70,000 to 40,000. As if that were not bad enough, on 6 June this year the Minister in a separate Press release stated: More than 40,000 jobs have been created in the past 10 months under the Federal Government's community employment program. The Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations Mr Ralph Willis said today the jobs had been generated in 6 ,570 projects. I ask how this compares with the Minister's letter to me of 20 June, just 14 days later, in which he said: In fact, it was estimated that by 8 June approximately 23,300 jobs had commenced, and at 30 June 1984, it is estimated that 30,000 of the 45,800 jobs approved had commenced. On page 215 of Budget Paper No. 1, we read: 28,400 placements had been made by 30 June 1984. We see that the estimated figure of 70,000 jobs fell to 40,000, then to 28,000 and finally to 23,000. What does the Government believe it is achieving by the expenditure of over $400m when we are given various estimates of job creation programs which amount to subsidies, involving no real serious work experience, no level of training improvement for six months or 12 months and giving only a marginal benefit in terms of employment statistics? Barely 40 per cent of the jobs promised by the Government under the CEP have been produced, but the expenditure is still $286m, or 95 per cent of the allocated $300m. Is it any wonder that the Opposition is concerned about where we are going in light of these figures in the last 12 months? One wonders where the community will be taken in the next 12 months. I believe that the most important thing for us is to lift the level of skill of those who are out of jobs so that they can be more competitive in gaining employment. The $400m should be spent in improved training programs not in job subsidy programs which, in the end, do not make people more employable. Mr HAND(Melbourne)(10.41) —I have only a short period in which to develop my remarks and to deal with the Department of Employment and Industrial Relations expenditure items. This Department is a major feature of the Government's economic strategy. This Government, as members on this side know, is pledged to return all those people in the community who lost their jobs under the previous Government's regime. By this expenditure we can show quite clearly that the Government is trying to achieve that end. The planned expenditure for the 1984- 85 Budget on the full range of programs administered by the Department of Employment and Industrial Relations to meet the Government's labour force policy objectives is set out in the following way. I quote from the relevant documents. These figures are very interesting and people should listen to them. In the last year of the Liberal Government a sum of $95.4m was spent on trade training; the Labor Government is spending $122.2m, which is an increase of 28 per cent. On skills training the figure rose from $14m to a figure of $36m under the present Government, again an increase of 24 per cent. The total number of labour force programs and services has been increased by this Government by 77 per cent. The expenditure on total labour force programs and services has increased from $344m in 1982-83 to nearly $846m this year, an increase of 145.7 per cent. That shows that this Government is determined to turn around the disastrous policies of the previous Government, which led to the greatest increase in unemployment we have seen since the 1930s. In the last year of the previous Government's rule there were 719,000 people unemployed as a result of the deliberate policies of that Government. The present Government has been able to lower that to an estimated figure of 620,000 for this year. We have also been able to create a massive number of jobs. In addition many people returned to the work force. It is interesting to note that in 1979-80 dollar prices, whereas the previous Government in its last full year of office spent $364 on each unemployed person, this Government will be spending $847 on each unemployed person, an increase of 133 per cent. That again shows that the Government is dedicated to returning people to the work place. We have increased spending by 10 per cent to a record level of $846m, in this Budget. We have sent back into the work force in excess of 300,000 people and 320,000 people receive employment assistance from this Government. About 65,000 unemployed people will be assisted under the Community Employment Program this year. We will be initiating a range of programs to assist women in the work force, an area which was neglected by our predecessors. Some of those programs will involve an additional 500 places being earmarked for women on pre-vocational trade based courses. We have a continued commitment to achieving the 50 per cent objective for female participation under the CEP. In comparison one should examine the wages and industrial relations policies of the previous Government. When the previous Government lost office as a result of its disastrous policies, it could not agree on a new wages policy. We saw over a period of about six months a power struggle in that Party between the shadow Minister, the honourable member for Balaclava (Mr Macphee), and the Deputy Leader of the Party. It is fair to say that because the Deputy Leader of the Party was getting a bit close to the leader in popularity within the Liberal Party, the Leader knifed his deputy and supported the shadow Minister. At present nobody is sure what is the Opposition's policy on wages. I could go on to quote a series of Press clippings in which commentators in a whole range of papers express themselves as unsure about the Opposition's policy on employment and industrial relations. Those concerned in the Liberal Party appear to have reached some sort of compromise-or that is the way it is being described-which leaves the whole area unclear. As it has been suggested that contributors to this debate should be brief, I intend to conclude my remarks by quoting from a statement by the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations (Mr Willis) on 21 August this year. The Minister said: . . . the 1984-85 Federal Budget represented the continuation of a clear commitment by the Government to improving skills training, and creating new employment and training opportunities for the most disadvantaged in the labour market. That is surely what we are trying to achieve, to get those disadvantaged people back into the work force. The Minister continued: As a result of its second Budget, the Hawke Government will have increased expenditure in this area by 146 per cent compared with the last year of the previous Government. I think that sums up the whole matter. We as a party are concerned about people' s welfare. We do not wish to put those who are least able to defend themselves out of work. We do not want people to suffer extreme hardship as happened under the previous Government when more than 720,000 people were out of work. I close my remarks with those few comments. Mr BURR(Wilmot)(10.48) —I agree with the comments made by the honourable member for Balaclava (Mr Macphee) and the honourable member for Melbourne (Mr Hand) that the most crucial aspect of this vote is that of employing people, the employment of Australian people in the work force in Australia. While I agree with the remarks of the honourable member for Balaclava I disagree in some respects with the honourable member for Melbourne. However, honourable members on both sides need to bear in mind that the most important aspect of the Budget and what it means both for the economy of Australia and the future of the social structure of our country relates to how many people and which people can be employed. We need constantly to bear that factor in mind. I disagree with some of the aspects of the present Budget. It appears that the Budget strategy is to provide employment opportunities for a relatively few people by taxing some Australians to provide handouts in the form of work opportunities for other Australians. In this Budget we find that under the community employment program there is an allocation of $411.7m and under the wage subsidy scheme there is an allocation of a further $149.8m. That means that through the wages pause or the taxation system a certain number of jobs are being provided for Australian people to the tune of $560m, which is coming out of taxpayers' funds to provide subsidised employment for a certain number of Australians. I do not think we can end our analysis of the unemployment situation at that point because if we look at the totality of the Budget we have also to look at the social security and welfare allocation. A further $2,970m is provided for assistance to the unemployed. I think we need to look at the total allocation for the unemployed and assistance for the unemployed if we are looking at where the taxpayers' money is being allocated to unemployed people. I disagree with the Government on what seems to be its thrust-that it is the Government or the Public Service that can provide some relief for the unemployed people. I commend the Minister and the Government for having that concern for unemployed people but I disagree with the thrust of thinking that it is the Government which can provide some fill to that vacuum. Mr Robert Brown —That is a cop-out because you did nothing when you were in Government. Mr BURR —I ask the honourable member for Hunter to bear with me. If we look at where Australian people are employed we find that roughly 75 per cent of the Australian work force is employed in the private sector and 25 per cent is employed in the public sector. I think all of us would agree with those rough figures. So to assume that it is the public sector which can take up the vacuum of the unemployed I think is totally wrong. If we are to look to where the unemployed people of Australia are to be usefully employed we have to look to private sector employment and then to how the private sector can take up that vacuum. It is in that thrust of policy that I disagree with the Government. The Government seems to assume that if we tax a certain section of the Australian population we can then provide handouts that will take up this vacuum of unemployed people. I disagree with that. I think if we assume that 75 per cent will continue to be employed in the private sector and 25 per cent in the public sector we have to look at what will encourage the private sector to take up the unemployed people in this country. If we start looking at where the private sector is likely to take up that vacuum of unemployed people we have to start looking at the overall context of the economy. That opens up a much broader ambit. I commend the Treasurer (Mr Keating) and the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke), quite frankly, for saying that we need to have a much stronger private sector input of private capital to develop the private sector input of investment. But one must also then look at what encourages the private sector of the economy to put its money where its mouth is, and that is a very much different thing. We have also to look at the break-up of the gross domestic product and at the areas of the national economy to which funding has been devoted. We find that the public sector debt in 1983-84 was $75.3 billion. When we project that further forward we find that in 1984-85 $90 billion is taken up by the public sector debt. If we project that even further forward, according to Dominguez and Barry, we find that in 1985-86 $105 billion will be taken up by a public sector debt. That means that less and less money, a lesser proportion of the GDP or of the economy, will be available for private sector investment. Therefore less private sector development of employment opportunities will be available because more and more of the share of the cake will be taken up by the public sector. Quite frankly, the Government needs to look very carefully at how the Australian cake is being divided. It should come to the conclusion that if employment and development opportunities are to take place in this country they will occur in the private sector. If the Government does not come to this conclusion-and I urge it to do so-I urge it very seriously to withdraw from its lion's share of the take of the economy of this country so that the private sector can have more investment capital available and therefore create more employment opportunities. I share the views of the honourable member for Melbourne and the honourable member for Balaclava (Mr Macphee) when I say that employment opportunities are what this Budget is all about. Dr Harry Edwards —It is what it is not about. Mr BURR —My friend the honourable member for Berowra reminds me that is what the Budget is not about, but it is what it should be about. Employment opportunities are what it should be about because that is what the future of Australia is all about. I urge the Government to reconsider where the thrust of its economic policy is leading this country. Employment opportunities will be created in the private sector of the economy and it is to that sector that the major share of the economy should be directed. I conclude by reaffirming that the major growth of the economy will take place in the private sector. That is where the thrust of the Government's policy should be directed, but unfortunately it is not. Mr MILTON(La Trobe)(10.57) —In speaking to the estimates of the Department of Employment and Industrial Relations, I want to deal particularly with the problem of youth unemployment. It is a serious problem which the previous Liberal-National Party Government allowed to deteriorate to the present high level. The Hawke Labor Government has managed to reduce the general unemployment level, with 230,000 Australians finding jobs, compared with the 240,000 lost jobs in the previous year. The hypocrisy of the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Peacock) in blaming the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations (Mr Willis) for the continued high level of youth unemployment is beyond measure. The Minister has initiated and improved policies for the young unemployed, as the present estimates indicate. I do not have much time tonight so I wish to take up the ideas on youth unemployment of the Secretary to the Treasury, Mr John Stone, which he expressed in the recent Shann Memorial Lecture, views which have been enthusiastically endorsed by the Leader of the Opposition. I believe it is most important to explode any idea that the views of Mr John Stone should have any credibility as far as this chamber is concerned. His views represent the most conservative aspect of financial management, enshrining the monetarist gospel that free market forces should reign unfettered by government restraint. It is a view which has long been espoused by the ex-Treasurer, the honourable member for Bennelong (Mr Howard), whose constant carping about the price of labour in the form of unreasonable wage and salary demands being the prime cause of unemployment and inflation I have challenged on a number of occasions in this chamber. The price of labour is only one element in the cost of production. Profits and interest, the price of raw materials, entrepreneurial costs and land prices are also important elements which Mr Stone chose to ignore. Instead he chose to attack our wage determination system and suggested that the maintenance of real wages was the cause of unemployment. He also suggested that minimum award rates should not apply to young people, claiming that, if lower wages could be paid to the young employed, they would get jobs. He also attacked, amongst other bodies, the Amalgamated Metals Foundry and Shipwrights Union, one of the most responsible and imaginative representatives of organised labour in this country. I find it intriguing that in the whole of John Stone's lecture he made no mention of the influence of transnational corporations on the economies of all nations, even those of the communist bloc. In this respect, it is worth quoting from the introduction to the fifth volume of essays in the book Political Economy of Australian Capitalism, edited by E. L. Wheelright and Ken Buckley, which states: The central conclusion which emerges is that a few hundred transnational corporations have internationalised the means of production, distribution and exchange to such an extent that the centralisation of economic power in the world has outstripped that of political power. International capitalism is therefore virtually out of control by any national government and there is no international government. Within this framework many smaller nation states, including Australia, have become client states of international capital, their economies and societies becoming not much more than appendages, or satellites of the great nodes of capital which dominate the world economy. John Stone's lecture was full of invective, which I tried to avoid in my comments. In my criticisms of his comments, I have to say that his failure to make any reference to the important growth of the power and influence of giant transnational corporations since the 1930s displays a high degree of intellectual sloth, particularly as that growth has a great deal to do with youth unemployment in this country. It would seem that neither he nor the Leader of the Opposition has any understanding of how the large business corporations of the world are able to maximise the profits of their high technology production methods by exploiting the cheap labour pool of Third World countries. Countries such as Thailand, the Philippines, Singapore, Indonesia, South Korea and Taiwan all have their free trade zones which are used by transnational corporations for their semi- automated factories. In these free trade or industrial zones there are no unions and no safety regulations. In addition, there are minimum restrictions on hours and very low wage rates. So there is nothing to impede production. This ensures that the young, easily replaceable and compliant wage force is paid a mere pittance for long hours of work on the production lines. Does Mr Stone wish us to lower our wage rates and deregulate our industries in order to compete with these countries? Does he want our young people to become wage slaves to a grinding industrial machine to compete with adult workers until all our wage and salary levels are brought down to the appallingly low level of the incomes of the working populations of Third World countries? It is important for us to understand that these views of Mr John Stone are irrelevant to employment for young people in this country. I commend the Estimates to the House. Mr MILLAR(Wide Bay)(11.02) —The most cursory examination of the appropriation for labour and employment will reveal essentially two things-the wide range of involvement of government, any government, in the labour area, and a very substantial sum of money which, of necessity, perhaps unavoidably, remains a burden on the public purse. One could not help but be impressed with a sum of $1 ,221.9m expenditure for the ensuing year. In the very limited time available, one can adopt only a cursory analysis of some of the elements contained within the appropriation. Naturally, one's attention is attracted immediately to the most substantial amount appearing therein-the $411.7m for the community employment program for the ensuing year. One would like to be able to say that one is impressed with the spirit with which the broad community-State governments, local government, community groups and others-have embraced the philosophy and hastened to take advantage of the scheme's arrangements. Possibly being a little more realistic in assessment, one would have to accept that the involvement is not necessarily essentially altruistic. Thus far it has moved away to achieving the Government's objectives, but one could fairly ask whether we are getting value for money. Looking at expenditure for the year 1983-84 of $286.6m having created, as questioned by the honourable member for Balaclava (Mr Macphee) a little earlier in the evening, 48,200 jobs, it leaves us with a net cost per job of about $6, 000. That means one of two things-either that the period of employment under the scheme is relatively short, or that there is a disproportionate allocation in respect of job classifications. Some may secure temporary employment for 12 months at a relatively high salary; others may secure employment for a very brief period at a lower salary. It disturbs me that, whilst the spirit implicit in the arrangement is laudable, in the practical aspect it can be described with all charity only as an artificial device substituting for bona fide economic activity. If that were not so, it must necessarily follow that if we could resolve unemployment of 40,000 for the sum of $300m, we could resolve the unemployment dilemma for 400,000 if we increased the sum to $3,000m. Clearly, that is a nonsense but it demonstrates quite positively that we are engaged in an artificial device, laudable in spirit. The economists will argue, of course, that wealth is generated by man's activity. It is in part, but if taken to its logical conclusion one would have to accept that we can prosper by taking each other's laundry. I am sure the Minister himself would insist that such arrangements would have to stop far short of such a proposition. We have a very serious unemployment problem; there are no two ways about it. It will probably defy the best efforts of any government within the parameters of conventionality. We have a new situation in this country, with very substantial changes in the social and economic infrastructure. I hasten to say that I am not being the least sexist when I allude to the change from the traditional single income family to the multi-income family. It would be fair to say that if we reverted to a single income family-I hasten to say who stays home is not a matter of concern in this context-there would not be sufficient unemployed presently registered to fill the vacancies that would become available. We have to adjust to this very changed circumstance. Not only have we from time to time been faced with this extraordinary contradiction of employment figures going up with unemployment figures; we are also faced with a situation where the worker, loosely described, is becoming somewhat redundant in the work force, resulting in more people competing for fewer jobs. This is a problem that will not go away . If that was not bad enough in itself, it is very greatly compounded by advancing technology and automation. The worker, again loosely described, becomes increasingly redundant. A very substantial problem confronts our society , not just one government or another. We have not really addressed ourselves seriously to what we may do. There have been passing references to alternative lifestyles, such as something in the nature of a kibbutz. I have a recollection of the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) making a suggestion of that kind. It may have some novel appeal in the first instance, but in the ultimate people need a more substantial involvement in their lifestyle than that offered by a kibbutz which, with the greatest of charity, must be seen as a putting aside from the mainstream of human activity. We have to face this problem. Sadly, not all those within the work force have a sensitivity to the unemployed. I notice in the appropriation a fairly modest figure of $6.7m for trade union training. This is not a new initiative; it is an expansion of a program of long standing. I have little doubt that those who benefit from trade union training would have been acquainted with the history of the movement and been very much aware that the trade union movement took its rise from a period when the worker was shockingly oppressed and exploited, not necessarily with malevolence but in the fashion of the time. The trade union was quite essential to the reasonable well-being of the worker. But I wonder whether in the trade union training attention is also drawn to the fact that in many respects the pendulum has swung and now the formerly oppressed work force, through its trade union structure, dominates in some respects the democratically elected government of the day. If it does not dominate, it certainly intimidates to the extent that it does not leave that government free to govern according to its own judgment in the best interests of the nation. That is just as harmful to those unemployed as conditions of an earlier time. We have, if you like, bully-boy elements within the work force who assert themselves and derive benefits totally disproportionate to their arguable moral entitlement. They have not a scrap of concern for their less fortunate brethren who suffer the consequence of their field of employment. Today we find, for example, janitors at high schools and those in similar occupations doing well to bring home $220 a week to support a family. That compares most unfavourably with an average wage in the vicinity of $400 a week. Therefore, even within the work force itself, where there has always been a strong claim of solidarity and common sense of purpose, there are great disparities in fortune and attainment. Unless we can get an acceptance within the work force and within the community at large that we have very substantial problems we will be confronted with Budget after Budget in the conventional fashion-much like a dog chasing its tail. We are really using an ointment to cure a cancer. There is a great malaise in this country. It requires the best talents of the Parliament, as distinct from a political party, to come to grips with this and possibly to resolve it. If we exhaust our resources and talents with a war of attrition in this continuing battle for the Treasury benches we will continue to find, regardless of who wins the battle, that our nation will lose the war. Possibly in an individual sense the worker will suffer more than others in more fortunate circumstances. We can no longer approach these matters within the parameters of conventionality. We have a whole new ball game-to use the vernacular. I think we delude ourselves if we think we can remedy these serious complaints by continuing applications of ointment. Dr HARRY EDWARDS(Berowra)(11.12) — It is hard not to participate in this very important debate on the estimates for the Department of Employment and Industrial Relations. We on this side of the chamber are suggesting that, whilst these expenditures totalling of the order of $1.2 billion are, of course, not unimportant, in a sense they are artificial devices which, in fact largely address the difficulties created by the Government's commitment on the other hand to the over-centralised, market insensitive and inflexible wage system that pertains to this country. What this can mean is that wage and other judgments handed down are made in a sort of remote way without regard to the capacity of particular companies to pay and to employ. I felt moved to rise to my feet to speak of an interesting study reported in a recent issue of the Economist which takes a long view of this problem. I think it is important that someone should put before the Australian people that sort of long view. The article made a comparative examination of the United States with its much more flexible wage arrangements and the situation in the United Kingdom. Wages is not the only factor involved. For example, the massive technological effort in the United States would be a very relevant factor as well. However, this study, taking a very broad view over a decade, found that whereas in the United States employment had increased by 16 per cent over that decade, that had taken place in the context of real hourly wage rates having fallen by 11 per cent. That is not something we think of as happening in the richest country in the world, but that is what the statistics showed. I think that has all sorts of implications for future trends. But the outcome is that in recent times in the United States the unemployment rate has been low-perhaps the only country with a lower unemployment rate would be Japan. In the United Kingdom, where there has been an increase of 10 per cent in real hourly wage rates over the decade, employment fell 7 per cent over the decade. Since at the same time there has been some growth in the work force, this has the horrendous implications for unemployment that we witness in that country. It is cause for reflection on the points that have been made from this side of the Committee-we need to look at the total thrust of policy, at rendering our economy more competitive and dynamic, and at freeing up the rigidities that affect it, particularly those of our over-centralised, market insensitive and very inflexible wages system. While I am on my feet I wish to mention that the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations (Mr Willis) at the table recently drew the attention of the House to the fact that an index of unit wage costs in Australia is currently at a level similar to the one that prevailed in the early 1970s. The Minister has been drawing comfort from this fact. I think he should recognise that it is not the index of unit wage costs as such that is relevant, but the translation of that into a measure of international competitiveness. I suggest that he look in the Budget Papers at the graph of the trend of unit wage costs he referred to, and then go on to the next graph which shows a measure of international competitiveness based on that index but allowing also for other factors which come into play when one takes account of relative productivity trends, exchange rates and so on. That graph shows that currently our international competitiveness is at a disadvantage of about 10 per cent compared with that earlier period. That is very significant in its bearing on the problem of achieving full employment in this country. Mr WILLIS(Gellibrand-Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations)(11.13) — I wish to make a few points in reply to what has been said in this debate although it is getting rather late. The Opposition has sought to give us some lectures about attitudes towards employment and ways of achieving it. I find this rather curious coming from an opposition which, when in government, was a massive failure in the area of employment. I remind the chamber that in the Opposition's last year in office employment fell by 187,000. In the past 12 months of our government, employment has increased by 220,000. There has been a massive turnaround. I also remind the chamber that in the period of the Fraser Government not one extra job for teenagers was created. There were 592,000 jobs for teenagers in November 1975 and there was that same number in March 1983. So not one extra job was created in seven and a quarter years. Yet Opposition members seek to lecture us about the way in which we should increase employment. Mr Coleman —What are you doing about teenage unemployment? Mr WILLIS —Under our Government, teenage unemployment has gone down by 26,000. In the Opposition's seven and a quarter years in office unemployment among teenagers went up by 67,000. Quite obviously there has been a complete turnaround and we have achieved far more in our year and a half in office than the Opposition achieved in seven and a quarter years. I wish to say a few words about the community employment program, rather than keep debating with the honourable member for Wentworth (Mr Coleman), who is interjecting. We have heard some disparaging remarks from Opposition members suggesting that the CEP was not particularly worth while. I dispute that very strongly. The CEP is a very worthwhile program. It is performing a worthwhile and a very important task. It is not the sole end of the Government's employment policy in any way. Indeed, we would certainly not wish to suggest in any way that the CEP is the be all and end all of employment policy. It is an essential part of a comprehensive employment program. It is designed to create jobs, particularly for those who are the most disadvantaged in the work place. The honourable member for Wentworth seeks to interject again. I know that he does not care a lot about those people because he may not have that many of them in his electorate, but the fact is that a lot of disadvantaged people, more than 200,000, have been unemployed for more than 12 months. Amongst Aborigines, disabled people and young people there are high unemployment rates. These sections of our community are not likely to benefit quickly in the employment sense from a recovery of the economy, even though that recovery be as rapid as the one we are now experiencing. So it is very important, if they are to be able to have a chance of a job without waiting for a long time, that we try to have a job creation program which seeks to assist them to get back into the labour market, to get used to working again, and, hopefully, because of the training and the work experience on a job creation program, to be able to go on and get a job in the labour market. That is the concept of CEP. I think it is a very worthwhile concept, one which the Government strongly adheres to and one which it intends to stick with. The honourable member for Balaclava (Mr Macphee) tended to be disparaging of CEP in various ways. I find this curious coming from him and indeed from other Opposition members who were suggesting that this kind of expenditure on job creation programs is not worthwhile. I must ask: Why did they bother with the wage pause program? Why did they introduce the wage pause program if they do not believe in short term job creation programs? I thought this was a sort of death bed conversion by the Fraser Government, frankly, in which in its dying days it saw the value of short term job creation projects. But apparently it was just some absolute sugar coating on window dressing to try to make the wage pause more palatable, something in which it did not believe at all, judging from the comments that have been made in this debate. The wage pause program, in our view , had some validity. That concept of a short term job creation program is sensible but it ought to be done better than it was done in the wage pause program. That is what we are doing with CEP. The CEP, of course, is a far better administered program than the wage pause program. For that reason it is a much more effective program, one which will provide much greater benefits to the Australian community and use the taxpayers' money much more effectively. The honourable member for Balaclava accused us of waste and irrelevance. He said that the work experience programs do not provide a training component. The fact is that one of the criteria which we would use in assessing CEP projects is whether or not they provide training. In making the comparison between projects, those that provide training are likely to be rated higher than those that do not and, therefore, are more likely to be funded. So it is important. We want to get training in these programs. I do not think it is always absolutely essential that there is a clear training element. Perhaps just sheer work experience is enough. But obviously I agree with the honourable member for Balaclava; we want to have a more trained work force and, therefore, in the context of CEP, we would certainly see training as having a high priority. We are working towards greater integration of training into the CEP as a result of the interim recommendation of the Kirby Committee of Inquiry into Labour Market Programs. I am sure that we will continue to put this emphasis on training. Available evidence suggests that the prospects of longer term employability are improved as a result of participation in programs such as the CEP. It seemed to come from Opposition speakers that work experience programs are useless because they do not lead to anything. But many of them include training anyhow. Even where it is just work experience my understanding is that these kinds of jobs- they need not be just CEP jobs; they can be wage subsidy schemes which provide work experience-do tend to lead to the substantial ability of the persons who go through those programs to get jobs subsequently. That is the experience of job creation programs in other countries. It is the experience in Canada, Germany and the United States of America where between 30 and 40 per cent of people go on into permanent employment. Opposition members might like to know that our best assessments at the present time are that between 40 and 45 per cent of participants in the wage pause program went on to permanent jobs. We would like to see that percentage higher of course. We are working on it for CEP. We are getting up to something like half of the people on the wage pause program going on to permanent employment. That result is rather encouraging. I do not know where all this waste and irrelevance comes in. I think that is an absurd comment . The honourable member for Balaclava said that the Government has reduced expenditure on job creation by $22m or 5 per cent in this Budget. That is completely and totally untrue. The fact is that he gets to that calculation only by lumping in as a job creation program in the last year's expenditure some $47m under the wage pause program which was for public housing. It was not part of the job creation money; it was public housing money. Mr Coleman —Oh, no. Mr WILLIS —The honourable member should not shake his head as though it is going to fall off. It is a fact that it was public housing money. If we take that out, as we should because it was not job creation money, we see that there has been an increase this year, in the $410m allocated for the CEP over the $386m for the last year for CEP and the wage pause, of $24m or 6.2 per cent. In other words, we have maintained the real level of expenditure in that area and there has been no reduction at all in the way that the honourable member for Balaclava has suggested. The honourable member for Balaclava also said that the CEP was in the throes of a massive breakdown. I find this an incredible observation. I do not know what he means by that. This must be a case of the wish being father to the thought. The fact is that the CEP is being quite successfully implemented. We are not in any way in the throes of a breakdown. Rather, we are in the throes of setting down a program which is going to be very effective indeed. Let me say that unlike the wage pause program this is a much more targeted program. Let me give the Committee some idea of the kinds of results we have got from the program so far. Of the people who have been placed on CEP to 30 June 1984, over 50 per cent had been unemployed for nine months or longer. So there was a very heavy emphasis on long term unemployed persons and people who are very unlikely to get a job otherwise. It is also interesting to note that 8 1/2 per cent of persons placed were Aboriginals, 9.4 per cent were disabled and 38 per cent were women, excluding the jobs on local roads component. So I believe we did very well in achieving our targeting to particular groups and trying to ensure that we created jobs for disadvantaged groups at a level which is greater than their participation in the work force overall. The honourable member for Balaclava also said that I had made all sorts of differing statements about the number of jobs created during 1983-84 under CEP. He said that the figures varied from 70,000 to 28,400. I would like to say that he is again quite wrong in his assumptions and statements. The fact is that we have consistently said that we would, in the course of a full year of operation, create up to 70,000 jobs. That is where the 70,000 figure came from. That was when the scheme was fully operational. It did not start until 1 August last year when it was formally launched. There was then a long period in which we had to get projects approved and set up the administrative structures. Then there was the delay between approvals and commencement. So, by the end of the financial year 1983-84, about 28,500 jobs had in fact commenced. But 52,000 jobs had been approved. So we said in the various Press statements, which I will not go into now because I do not want to keep the Committee any longer, that we would create up to 40,000 jobs in 1983-84. In fact, we created through the approval process over 50,000 jobs. Indeed, 28,400 were commenced and, of course, that rate of commencement has rolled on very strongly since. The latest figures I can give the Committee are that by the beginning of September some 44,000 persons have been placed in jobs under CEP. So I dispute entirely the honourable member for Balaclava's statements that we have been misleading. There has been no misleading at all. This year 65,000 persons will be assisted under CEP. So, we will be very close to the 70,000 figure which I referred to in various Press statements over the course of 1983-84. Finally, can I say that the CEP is a very worthwhile program. I think that most members in this place support it. They understand the value of it to unemployed persons in their electorates. They see the value in terms of various projects operating in their electorates. I believe that those who disparage this worthwhile program in this debate should take a second look at it and be prepared to concede that they have made some pretty egregious errors. Proposed expenditure agreed to. Department of Education and Youth Affairs Proposed expenditure, $854,247,000. Mr COLEMAN(Wentworth)(11.30) —The first point to be made about these estimates of $854m for the Department of Education and Youth Affairs is almost too obvious to need being made. This item indicates the Government's hope of defusing certain issues in the field of education which might be damaging to the Government in the forthcoming rushed election. One of these issues is the standards in schools which the Government has suddenly made a big issue. For years parents and then teachers with a sense of professional standards have been complaining that the massive increases in spending of taxpayers' money on schools has not led to a rise in educational standards-let us for brevity call them the three Rs-but has been accompanied by a fall. Not only has this happened but also some of the statistical evidence of it was suppressed when, for example , the Minister for Education abolished the national testing program which reported on the standards of literacy and numeracy of school students and which consequently provided for national and international comparisons between schools . The Ministers did not want to know the results of the tests and certainly did not want the public to know. Educationists-I say 'educationists', but it is often a label for people who are afraid of genuine education-in defence of their position, published libraries of gobbledegook to try to show what parents knew to be a fact was not a fact, to show indeed that standards were generally improving. The Minister for Education and Youth Affairs (Senator Ryan) was particularly scornful of the 'elitists' who talked about standards. They had class prejudices, she said. They lived in some cloud cuckoo land of the 1920s and so on. The Liberal and National parties adopted a policy of doing something real about standards in our schools and the public responded warmly. So now the Minister and the Government have done an about-turn and established a quality of education committee under the chairmanship of Professor Karmel to develop strategies so that the Commonwealth can direct its funds more effectively towards the raising of standards in schools. This is good news even if it is a sort of death bed repentance. We must wait to see whether the committee really confronts the problems, including those sections of the teachers' unions which regard a concern for standards as indicating elitism, racism or goodness knows what. Another issue which the Minister and the Government have tried to defuse is that of aid to non-government schools. The Minister has made plain her hostility to non-government schools and last year made serious cuts in funding to 40 of them, including six in my electorate. The fault of the schools was that their funding from all sources was about equal to that of government schools in the Australian Capital Territory. The private schools, which are as good as government schools in the Australian Capital Territory, of course had to be hit. Now she says she has travelled the road to Damascus and is sponsoring what she calls a new deal for schools and a new commitment to supporting non-government schools. This is all to the good, although it is done with a view to a rushed election. The Government has acknowledged the strength of the case that has been put by non-government schools and the depth of feeling involved and has retreated. But it is a welcome retreat. Nevertheless, I do not believe it will put an end to what the Minister calls 'the divisiveness of the State aid issue', a divisiveness she has done something to promote. I do not believe that because of the strength and bitterness of the anti-non-government schools lobby in the Australian Labor Party. But at least for the moment that lobby has been frustrated. Mr Robert Brown —You are getting worse. Mr COLEMAN —I hope the honourable member will keep interjecting on this issue because every time he interjects he and his colleagues lose some further votes. I encourage the honourable member to keep interjecting so that he and his anti- government schools position will lead him to lose more votes. I urge him to keep it up. The anti-non-government schools lobby has not been entirely frustrated. The cuts made to the 40 non-government schools last year have not been and will not be restored. Further, total funding for non-government schools increased in real terms only by 1.8 per cent compared with an increase to government schools of 5.7 per cent, a huge gap of some 300 per cent. But the real attack is on new independent schools, especially the new Christian schools, the number of which have expanded by about 50 per cent since 1978. They will now be required to give two years notice of establishment if they are to qualify for government funds. Capital grants will be available only to non- government schools in so-called developing areas. In other words, people in a so -called developed area who are dissatisfied with the local schools will not be assisted to establish a new school. Their freedom of choice will be restricted. A committee will supervise the development of new schools and apply the guidelines. Since the chairman of the committee was the information officer for the Australian Council of State School Organisations which opposes government funding of non-government schools, one must assume these new guidelines will be zealously and strictly applied and that parental freedom of choice will be narrowed as much as possible. The final point I want to make concerns the Government's commitment to affirmative action. A number of programs within this estimate have been designed to improve the participation and performance of girls and women at the various levels of education. These are all to be welcomed although one cannot help noticing that, without any particular government program being responsible for it, we now have a higher percentage of girls completing the full school course- about 45 per cent-than boys, at 40 per cent. The Government has also supported the Commonwealth Tertiary Education Commission proposal that all tertiary institutions establish equal employment opportunity programs and three tertiary institutions-the Australian National University, Griffith University and the South Australian College of Advanced Education-are involved in the Government's voluntary pilot affirmative action program. These developments will be followed closely by all members of this House. It is unconscionable that a woman pursuing an academic career should be discriminated against purely on the ground of her sex. Obviously many people think that this happens, and this idea is plainly the basis of the various affirmative action programs in this education budget and outside it. Nevertheless, the testimony is not all one way. Well known people such as Professor Kramer claim there is no discrimination of any significance against women academics and that if few women become professors-very few do-it is principally because they have made a free choice to pursue other interests. Dame Leonie Kramer has been quoted as saying: Equality is meaningless if standards are eroded. Court-imposed quotas in America had disastrous results. The Government assures us that we are not following the American way and that our affirmative action program will be voluntary and experimental. But there can be a fine line between legally imposed and enforced quotas and Government recommended 'voluntary' quotas which are perceived as being in effect compulsory in that if voluntary quotas do not work they will be made compulsory. Recently Professor Stove, of the Philosophy Department at Sydney University, wrote that unfair discrimination against women has simply not existed in the universities and, if it has, the number of cases has been 'vanishingly small'. In the case of his own profession, he says there has never been a case of an appointment in philosophy in which a man was preferred, because of his being a man, over a better woman candidate. But he says things are changing and that women are now being appointed because they are women, over better men candidates. This is happening in all our universities, at least in the humanistic faculties. He says : Cases of unfair discrimination against men are occurring in universities almost every day and no-one says a word. He sums up in this way: The feminists have already made the quality of Australian university staff lower than it otherwise would have been. Since they are still gaining influence, this will no doubt in future make the quality of university staff worse still. I cannot say whether this is correct or false although I know Professor Stove to be a perceptive and balanced observer. The point is that if unofficial as opposed to official affirmative action-one has to distinguish between the two because the officers administering these programs say one thing but do another in many cases-is proceeding in this direction, we are doing no good for the reputation of universities, the students or the staff and no good to the taxpayers who pay for it all. At last we have got governments to take seriously the problem of standards in our schools. I hope government policies do not help to create that same sort of problem in our universities. Mr STAPLES(Diamond Valley)(11.39) —In two Budgets, under this Government, we have witnessed an increase of 10.7 per cent in direct outlays on education in 1983-84 and an estimated increase of 11.2 per cent for 1984-85. That must also be measured against a far lower consumer price index increase than operated during the Fraser years of government, so it is very significant in real terms. To date this Government, by its words and in many ways by its actions, has re- established the role and value of a strong education system and program for this country. Let us look at the progress and direction in this area, for example, the participation and equity program, the computer education program and the reactivation of the Curriculum Development Centre, all initiatives from last year's Budget. This year, for example, there has been the basic skills in primary schools program, the Quality of Education Review Committee, the introduction of stable, guaranteed funding to non-government schools on the basis of need through the community standard model and increasing expenditure to the government school system. Time does not permit me to go into the full accounting and exploration of those initiatives, but I wish to make it clear that although I am proud to recognise the great advances being made in all levels of education by this Government, advances that will recoup a thousand-fold in years to come the dollars spent, I am not yet fully satisfied. However, there are some who should be fully satisfied. The noisiest of the private school lobby should be well satisfied with this Government's funding for those highly resourced private schools. Those in the lower-resourced non-government schools should also be very satisfied by the arrangements brought in by this Government in this Budget. There is still a long period of abuse and neglect of the public education sector to overcome. It is the public education sector that caters for the vast majority of Australian children. It caters for the rich and the poor; it caters for the highly intelligent and the less intelligent; it caters for the handicapped and the able-bodied, those from English-speaking and those from non- English-speaking backgrounds, those from the city and, of course, those from the country. Three out of four Australian children are educated in the public education system of this country. It is the primary obligation of government to provide an education system of the highest standard, an education system open to all. While I applaud the 49.3 per cent increase in real terms in the funding of government schools over the next eight years, I remind all honourable members of the national necessity of having a much stronger public education system. It is through a strong public education system of the highest standard that we will become a stronger nation in our economic, industrial and social development. There are no two ways about that. In the few minutes I have left I wish to say a few words about youth affairs. Next year is International Youth Year. What an opportunity 1985 will be. This Government has recognised the importance of this event with increased funding of this area from $2m to $2.3m and increases in grants to national youth organisations by 18 per cent to $960,000. But if International Youth Year is to be more than just some television commercials and a few staged events, more than just dollars will have to be spent on it. We will have to recognise, as do the countries of the Third World whose young people have a very special role and status in their societies, that role and status here. We need to empower young people and to give them a status and a role in our society. The future of this country towards 1988, beyond the year 2000 and beyond that again, lies firmly in the hands of the equity of our public education system and of our higher education system, that should be open to a wider range of society than it is now and to a new role, a new status and a new deal for young people in this country. This Government's second education and youth affairs Budget makes a start in that future. It will require a new spirit, realisation and determination such as this country has rarely seen or rarely been able to sustain previously. That is the real world challenge that we face in this Budget and in Budgets to come. Mr BLUNT(Richmond)(11.44) —I was impressed by the remarks made by my colleague, the honourable member for Wentworth (Mr Coleman), during his address which related to this Government's philosophy for education. Unfortunately, I believe that the Government is lost. We have before us estimates for the Department of Education and Youth Affairs which are designed for political expediency rather than for education according to a consistent philosophy. We have seen an example of this Government's expediency in education expenditures in the participation and equity program. That program replaced the transition in education program. What it has succeeded in doing is removing young people from the statistics of unemployment and putting them back in the classrooms for no real apparent purpose. What it has done is fund a very expensive and fairly ineffective child minding exercise. The curriculum and courses offered under PEP really offer children no future. The teachers originally thought that PEP would provide an opportunity for them to give education to children, who, for various reasons, had decided to leave the education system in their growing disillusionment and disenchantment with the system. We find that even those children who do persist with their schooling have nowhere to go. That brings me to the question of tertiary education funding. A lot has been said about the level of this Government's commitment to education and the degree to which it is prepared to fund tertiary education. But anyone who examines the figures carefully will realise that on a per capita basis funding for tertiary education in this country, according to this Budget, will actually drop in real terms this year. So what we have is a lot of hollow rhetoric for education arising from the Minister for Education and Youth Affairs (Senator Ryan) and no genuine commitment. That hollow rhetoric extends to the tertiary education assistance scheme. TEAS was a very good system when it was introduced. At that time our economic circumstances were a lot better and it was possible for parents of students to provide assistance or for students to get part time employment. But in the current economic circumstances it is unrealistic to tell a student to go and get a part time job because there are far too many people who are seeking that job as their full time employment and primary source of income. So what we have is a government persisting with an outmoded and unsatisfactory system of student assistance and also perpetuating the gap between the unemployment benefit and the TEAS allowance. The result is what is known throughout the education industry as the disincentive, or incentive, gap which is an encouragement for students to drop out of an education course and to become unemployed simply because the unemployment benefit is higher than the TEAS allowance. If this Government was genuinely concerned and was not just mouthing rhetoric it would do something to provide an incentive for young adults to stay in education and acquire the skills that will enable them to obtain worthwhile employment in the future. It also concerns me that for political reasons this Government has decided, I believe, to postpone the announcement of capital grants for the forthcoming year . Obviously this announcement has been postponed for one month because of the intention of the Government to go to an early and unnecessary election. The Government has moved to suspend the 11 o'clock rule; we are into an election mode. Every decision of this Government, every action and every announcement that it has made over the past six or nine months, has been designed for electoral advantage, political gain on its part and manipulation of the Australian people, irrespective of the consequences. Why are tertiary institutions, which should, by rights, have known what their capital grants would be in September, having to wait another month? What is the purpose of that ? Obviously it is a political ploy. My colleague the honourable member for Mallee (Mr Fisher) has just drawn to my attention an advertisement which appeared in this morning's Canberra Times. I think that it should be read in detail by this Government and all members of the Australian Labor Party because it really gives the lie to their commitment to education. The other aspects of their attitude to education which I find absolutely curious-I suppose I should not when I realise that this Government is a government of big unions, big business and ever growing Public Service-concerns small business education. The Northern Rivers College of Advanced Education is a centre of excellence for small business management training. Over some years it has developed courses in this field. As a result of a proposal to extend this course to external students it sought permission from the New South Wales Higher Education Board to introduce a course in 1985. The Higher Education Board provided some $50,000 worth of interim funding for the development of this course, its promotion and the engagement of staff. The Board also indicated that a quarter of a million dollars worth of funding would be made available for the course. On that basis the CAE went ahead and planned. As a result of the Budget which was brought down the other day, the Higher Education Board has advised that it is unable to provide the quarter of a million dollars necessary to fund this course. Considered against the size of this Budget that is a relatively small amount. Given the number of students who would be interested in the course, some $250,000 is not a great deal of money. This decision disadvantages not only the Northern Rivers College of Advanced Education but also the Riverina College of Advanced Education, the Macarthur Institute and the Macquarie College of Advanced Education. What it really means is that this Government has no commitment to an area of education which is sadly lacking. In many other countries governments recognise the importance of small business and the impact that it has on the economy. They also recognise the importance to train small business managers. In the United Kingdom the Government, which has an enlightened attitude to business, commits vast amounts of money to what is known as enterprise training, that is, training the people responsible for managing business throughout the United Kingdom economy in the skills that are necessary, skills of financial management, skills of stock control and skills relating to the general management of their businesses from retailing through to small manufacturing. This Government seems to feel that small business can operate in a vacuum without any assistance at all. Yet, it has decided to provide some $500,000 under the assistance to disadvantaged groups to the Melbourne University Master of Business Administration program. I find this quite curious. I am the first to admit that Australia needs higher standards of top management and that MBA programs are of great assistance to business. But I also think that in relative terms it would be necessary to provide funding for small business management, particularly a small business management program that is accessible to all small business men and women throughout New South Wales. To provide $500,000 to assist the Melbourne MBA program, under the guise of assistance to a disadvantaged group, is the most curious decision that I have come across. I think that the Government would have done well to find another program under which it could provide assistance because I do not think it can be justified in logic or common sense. I hope that if small business in Australia is to have any future and its managers are to have some training, this Goverment will revise its decision and provide funding for this course. Ms MAYER(Chisholm)(11.53) —One hears some rather curious sorts of statements from the Opposition, but none more curious than those made by the honourable member for Wentworth (Mr Coleman) who seems to be absolutely obsessed with something he insists on calling the three Rs, as if that had anything to do with education. This Budget provides a number of significant allocations for youth programs in a number of departments but tonight I want to deal directly with those relating to the Department of Education and Youth Affairs. Some 32 national youth organisations will receive a grant of $960,000 to help fund their work. Those 32 organisations are general community organisations, church-based organisations and ethnic youth organisations. They do very important support work amongst young people in our community. Also assisting in the youth support area is the $85,000 for the training of youth workers. That is basically for in- service training and support training to assist those youth workers to continue in their very necessary work. They are employed in a wide range of organisations and the opportunity to exchange ideas and receive fresh input is very important to their continuing ability to do their job. An allocation which may have some extremely useful outcomes is the $150,000 to facilitate training for the development of employment opportunities outside the conventional work force. While this is by no means an extravagant amount of money it will allow the testing of various options, identification of which has been developed through a consultative research process. With the structural change which is taking place-it has already taken place in the traditional opportunities for young people to gain employment skills and experience-new ways of developing gainful use of skills have to be found. This small but significant program is additional to the very important participation and equity program which, among other purposes, has the vital object of helping young people to stay at school and to enter technical and further education programs which will enable them to acquire a much higher level of skills and understanding. Mr McGauran —That is just theory; it just does not happen. The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN(Mr Keogh) —Order! The honourable member for Gippsland is not in his seat and all interjections are out of order. He will cease interjecting. Ms MAYER —His own education apparently seems to have been lacking. All the youth programs of this Government will be co-ordinated by a standing inter- departmental committee for youth policies. This committee will provide essential linking between departments providing for young people and give a coherence to youth programs which was missing in past years. A matter of considerable concern to this Government has been the skills level and employment patterns of girls and women. Research studies have shown that a differential treatment of girls in education has led to lower retention rates- that is beginning to improve and we are very happy about that-choices of soft rather than hard subject options, lack of confidence in their own ability, and career choices of jobs with low levels of pay in disappearing industries and without opportunities for career and personal development. Therefore, it is pleasing to see an allocation of $261,000 for the education of girls element of the programs of national significance. I draw to the attention of honourable members a very useful document prepared by the Schools Commission Working Party on the Education of Girls entitled 'Girls and Tomorrow-The Challenge for Schools ', a document which puts the case very plainly for the need for a change in the way in which schools and tertiary education institutions perceive their responsibilities to girls and young women. Mr Ruddock —It doesn't look like a report; it looks like a poster. Ms MAYER —In addition to those measures there are other measures which provide in the TAFE programs an element for girls and the education of girls. I only wish it would provide an element for the education of some members of the Opposition in this House because they are seriously in need of some training in better manners. The Government is happy to support the Commonwealth Tertiary Education Commission in ensuring that female participation in tertiary education adequately prepares females for the realities of the labour market. That is taken from the document which contains the women's budget program and assessment of the impact of the Budget on women, which has an interesting and very useful section on education and women. I draw to the attention of honourable members one seriously worrying figure; that is, while 52.9 per cent of those people who are given tertiary education assistance scheme grants are women, only 34.9 per cent of those people who gain post-graduate awards are women. I think that says something for the need for extra assistance and encouragement for young women in higher education. Mr RUDDOCK(Dundas)(11.57) —Thank you, Mr Deputy Chairman, for giving me the opportunity to speak on the estimates for the Department of Education and Youth Affairs. Mr Dawkins —If he had any choice, he would not. Mr RUDDOCK —That may be the case, but you gave me the call, Mr Deputy Chairman, and I welcome that. I would like first to put in context the estimates about which we are speaking. There has been a rather interesting phenomenon in relation to the Budget and that has been the marked unwillingness of Ministers to defend the decisions that have been taken in the Budget as they impact upon their portfolios. It is interesting to read the transcripts of some of the addresses that Ministers have given when they have spoken to special interest groups. I was interested in the address particularly of the Minister for Veterans' Affairs (Senator Gietzelt), who showed a distinct unwillingness to defend the amounts that were allocated for the housing of veterans. I was interested in the comments of the Minister for Science and Technology (Mr Barry Jones), who berated his colleagues because they did not recognise the priority that ought to be accorded to science. Honourable members have come into the House tonight and talked about education, but none of them have shown a willingness to defend the decisions taken by the Government in the context of the priorities established by the Government for fixing the programs that it would reward or fund and indicating substantially the reasons why it would not give priority to other programs. I would have been very interested in the discussion if the honourable member for Diamond Valley ( Mr Staples) or the honourable member for Chisholm (Ms Mayer) had been prepared to address those questions. For some time, I have been involved with education in the sense that I represent the Parliament on the Council of the Australian National University. It would be fair to say that over a period I was led to believe that one would expect to find a very different approach to education funding under a Labor government. People were quick to criticise the former Government for the amounts of money that it made available, for the way in which it provided allowances for students and for the amounts of money that were available to fund particular institutions and organisations. One would have expected student papers throughout Australia to laud this Budget under a Labor government and to commend the Government for what it had been able to achieve on behalf of students. One would have expected the academics to indicate with approbation the way in which this Government was performing. Strangely enough, that does not appear to have been the case. My attention was drawn to a student paper called Student Times. It is the only national student paper in Australia. The September 1984 edition is headed ' Education in Crisis', and states: The Federal Budget, unveiled by Treasurer Paul Keating on August 21, demonstrated clearly that students don't count as far as the Hawke Government is concerned. Despite this Budget being widely promoted as the first volley in the coming early elections, students were dealt only token increases in allowances, more plastic rhetorics and a few other crumbs left over from Labor's record spending feast. That is the view of some students of the way in which particular programs that have an impact on them have been funded. An item in the Australian of 30 August 1984, which was written by the education editor and was headed 'Furious Academics slam Ryan and Government', stated: Academics yesterday delivered a stinging attack on the Hawke Government's education policies, including a vote of no confidence in the Minister for Education, Senator Ryan. The annual meeting of the Federation of Australian University Staff Associations (FAUSA) censured the Prime Minister, Mr Hawke, his senior ministers , and Senator Ryan. The item continued: The resolution, combined with a highly critical address from the outgoing president of FAUSA, Dr Adrian Ryan, captured the level of disillusionment of university academics towards the Federal Government, which they supported strongly at the election last year. Further down, the article stated: The recent tertiary funding guidelines from the Government were even more worrying because of the policy statements included in them, he said. That point was made by Dr Ryan. The article continued: The guidelines were the most interventionist introduced. 'There are implications that in the areas of student admission, student access and participation and affirmative action the institutions must attempt to implement government policies or else they will be forced to do so.' Dr Ryan went on to say: . . . academics had not lobbied the Government as well as they could have. Dr Ryan was obviously critical of his colleagues. The article in the Australian further stated: Delegates to the meeting passed a resolution saying that FAUSA had no confidence in the understanding or appreciation of the needs of higher education by the Prime Minister or his senior ministers. Nor did it have confidence in Senator Ryan's ability to secure adequate responses to those needs. Comments were made about salary and other related matters. The article stated: . . . Dr Mayo said Senator Ryan was incapable of defending her portfolio and totally insensitive to tertiary education interests. Those are astounding comments, and I am surprised that honourable members opposite have not come into the Parliament to defend their Government's priorities. When the former Government was in office I went about universities more frequently than one can imagine defending the Government's record on its programs. Nobody appears to be willing to defend this Government's priorities. Some of those priorities need to be drawn to the attention of honourable members . Recently the Government decided to remove the support for residential colleges . It intends to phase out support for students attending residential colleges and colleges of advanced education. One might have expected that Australian Labor Party members opposite would argue, as they have in the past, that students at colleges represent a privileged and financial elite. Perhaps that is their view. I have not heard them say that in this debate but, even if they did, it would not be the case. A survey was carried out recently of the students who occupy residential colleges and halls in universities and colleges of advanced education. That survey found, amongst other things, that 80 per cent of college students come from non-metropolitan areas, that their sociological and educational backgrounds did not appear to be especially privileged and were typical of university students in general, and that colleges played an important part in acclimatising students, particularly those from rural and isolated areas, to a new environment . These are important factors that ought to be acknowledged. I am surprised that the Government has taken this view in relation to the funding arrangements for colleges that are such an important adjunct to higher education. I turn to tertiary allowances. We have seen the continuing situation, which my colleague the honourable member for Richmond (Mr Blunt) has addressed, wherein the amounts that students receive in the form of tertiary allowances are significantly less than the amounts that they would receive were they undertaking no courses of study and were simply receiving unemployment benefits. In the pre-1982 period the difference between the amount received under the tertiary education assistance scheme and the amount of unemployment benefit received by an independent student over the age of 18-I understand students in that age bracket constitute 79 per cent of those receiving TEAS-was $8.43. In November 1982 it was $4.79. In May 1983 it was $9.04. In November 1983 it was $ 13.99. In May 1984 it was $15.99. In November 1984 it will be $18.51 and in May 1985 it will be $14.36. That is a significant difference. Notwithstanding the Government's professed concern about these matters it has said that it is examining the question and it has called for reports and so on-this question has not been addressed. It is an important one which, if the Government is realistically addressing the question of increased participation in education, it has to look at it. We have not heard Government members saying why their priorities in education spending are such that this matter cannot be addressed. It is a pity that in these truncated discussions we will not have an opportunity to hear Government members being prepared to defend the priorities that their Government has established, because I think there are many questions in the education area that should be discussed. The CHAIRMAN(Mrs Child) —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Wednesday, 12 September 1984 Mr McGAURAN(Gippsland)(12.08 a.m.) — The appropriation for the Department of Education and Youth Affairs has been a severe disappointment to a great many people, not least of all the Council for the Defence of Government Schools, which was so moved by what it regards as Government discrimination and inaction as to insert in today's Canberra Times a full page advertisement which raises a whole range of questions. I will quote very briefly from that advertisement, which states in part: Do you wish to be treated like your Victorian counterparts who are basically victims of the Premier's Media Manipulation Unit? This is addressed to the Press. It is a rhetorical but very reasonable question. It continues: No doubt you are aware that the A.L.P. spends a lot of energy and skill in managing the written and spoken media. The A.L.P. performances in the area of news management and particularly in the State-Aid area rivals the achievements of Goebbels in Nazi Germany. A.L.P. manipulation is made far easier because the way the media conducts press conferences with politicians and the way radio commentators handle talkbacks shows. The free press if it wishes, can perform an invaluable vital service to democracy if it thoroughly and persistently discusses the State-Aid Issue. Madam Chair, it is a very dark day when you find me agreeing with the Council for the Defence of Government Schools, but on this one issue I have some credence in the questions it poses. The Victorian media are to a large extent manipulated by the Premier's Media Liaison Unit. It is a centralised body which feeds out, in dribs and drabs, Press releases to selected journalists at selected times as it sees fit. It is interesting to note that a body which has long supported the Australian Labor Party on education is so moved as to accuse the Australian Labor Party of deceit, downright dishonesty and media manipulation. Mr Blunt —And they are right. Mr McGAURAN —They are absolutely right. For a long time Opposition members have been accusing the ALP of double standards in many areas, not least in education. Who better typifies that standard of misrepresentation that the Minister for Finance (Mr Dawkins)? He was such a vitriolic disaster as shadow Minister for Education that the ALP sacked him from that position, unwilling to carry the burden of his personal bitterness into the election. He was removed as shadow Minister for Education, downgraded, thrust aside. His performances in this House since the election give a certain legitimacy to that concern of the ALP. There are a number of other groups who rightly feel disfranchised by the Government's decision in the Budget on education. Residential colleges at universities and colleges of advanced education have had their residential subsidy cut by 25 per cent and by 1986 that subsidy will be phased out in its entirety. The sad irony is that this decision will hit those whom this hypocritical Government professes to serve. I refer to disadvantaged students, country students, students who rely on the tertiary education assistance scheme to allow them to pursue their tertiary education. Mr Blunt —What about the TAFE colleges? Mr McGAURAN —Furthermore, as the honourable member for Richmond interjects, what about the TAFE colleges? The stupidity of the Government's decision in higher education is best represented by the lack of appropriate funding for TAFE colleges. A short while ago we heard the honourable member for Chisholm (Ms Mayer) laud the participation and equity program. She forgot to add that once students are retained at secondary school and they complete that schooling, there is nowhere for them to go. Labor members can talk all they like about PEP, but unless they correspondingly fund colleges of advanced education or TAFE colleges, it is a wasted exercise and a cruel hoax to manipulate and fiddle with the unemployment figures. The Labor Government stands condemned for its callous cynicism and its playing of the political game. Further, I refer to a matter that is close to the hearts of Victorian members, particularly the honourable member for Mallee (Mr Fisher) and the honourable member for Murray (Mr Lloyd), namely, the closure of student hostels by the Premier of that State. Mr Howard —He has not done that, has he? Mr McGAURAN —He has done that. He has closed tertiary education hostels in Melbourne, leaving more than 400 country students without a residence. Mr Blunt —Mostly girls. Mr McGAURAN —And mostly girls, as has been pointed out. Unfortunately, my colleagues and I made representation after representation to the Minister for Education and Youth Affairs (Senator Ryan) and simply met a brick wall. She refused to assume the responsibility that had been abdicated by the Premier of Victoria. I draw those few matters to the Committee's attention and add them to the matters which have already been listed by the honourable member for Dundas (Mr Ruddock) and the honourable member for Richmond (Mr Blunt), in an attempt to explode once and for all the myth that the ALP is more concerned that we are about education. In fact, if one examines the Budget appropriation for the Department, one finds that not only is that a myth, but it is a cruel exercise in the utmost political cynicism. Mr DAWKINS(Fremantle-Minister for Finance)(12.14 a.m.) —One of the extraordinary things about the Budget debate this year, as with most Budget debates, is that Opposition members have abused the Government for spending too much, but when it comes to areas such as education they claim that the Government is not spending enough. What the Opposition does not quite understand is that the bottom line is the sum of the parts. A Government like this, which is concerned about bringing in a responsible Budget appropriate for the circumstances of this country's economy and which is dedicated to the economic recovery which we are now seeing unfold in this country, has to be concerned about ensuring the greatest possible restraint in public expenditure. Mr McGauran —Why make all the promises? You promised those things. Mr DAWKINS —I am coming to the honourable member for Gippsland. I have sat in this place rather longer than he has. I have been wondering where all the heroes of the Liberal Party and the National Party have been in relation to the advocacy of education and youth affairs. I was a very long voice for a long time in drawing attention to the shortcomings of our predecessors in relation to education priorities and education funding. Now of course it is easy to forget all of the legacies which were our bitter inheritance in education. The honourable member for Dundas (Mr Ruddock) must get the gold medal for hypocrisy. After all, he was here during all that time. At least the honourable member for Gippsland and the honourable member for Richmond (Mr Blunt) came down in the last shower of rain and can therefore perhaps be excused for not understanding the history of education funding in recent times. I say to the babes in the wood that in relation to education it is interesting that the National Party, when it finds a couple of candidates who have done better than third grade, trots them out with such great alacrity that it forgets to tutor them in the history that they are bound to defend. It is interesting that the National Party has now chosen millionaires from Melbourne and shiny pants from Sydney to represent it in this House. Indeed, the Richmond toff had the particular brilliance of inventing a new college of advanced education called Macquarie. I would be interested if he could tell me exactly where it is, which will perhaps explain why it slipped through the funding net. What the National Party, and particularly the recent articulate members of it, have to be reminded of is that the real and great problem with which we were confronted on coming to government was the tragic situation relating to participation in education. Over a period from about 1975 to the early 1980s there was in fact a 25 per cent drop in the participation rate of young people in tertiary education. That was the first problem we had to address. The second problem we had to address was that in the name of fiscal responsibility capital funding to colleges of advanced education and universities had been cut in a most dramatic way to the point where the Commonwealth Tertiary Education Commission was forced to report to the Government and the nation that there was a serious deterioration in the capital and repairs and maintenance votes for the restoration of that vital and important resource which was represented by the capital in CAEs and universities . Therefore, it was not a question simply of our maintaining the fabric of education or maintaining participation rates, but rather a question of cranking up participation rates so that Australia could perhaps begin to hold its head high in terms of international comparison, something it had not been able to do for many years, and also to begin the great task of rebuilding the great educational institutions in this country. Therefore, I am not all that rapt in hearing the sanctimony of members of either the National Party or the Liberal Party when it was we who had to address the wreckage which was our legacy when we came to government. Nowhere more than in education was our inheritance more bitter. Nowhere more than in education was it such a disaster. We have had to address those questions and the problems which have confronted us in very constrained economic and fiscal circumstances. We are now seeing a rebuilding of participation not only in secondary education but also in tertiary education. We are beginning to rebuild the value of tertiary allowances. Education and training allowances remain an area which needs to be addressed and improved to remove the kinds of disincentives which exist between those allowances, but we at least have made a start and we at least have indicated a very definite and determined commitment to do something about recognising that education is a vital investment as far as the Commonwealth is concerned. I will not bother about addressing the particular issues which members of the Opposition have raised because I, more than perhaps anyone else in this chamber, know of the history of the Liberal-National Party's performance in the area of education. I perhaps more than anyone know the disastrous decline which occurred in tertiary and secondary education in this country during the dismal Fraser years. Therefore we have nothing at all to apologise for. We were confronted with an education crisis and we have embarked upon solving that crisis in a way that does not involve simply throwing money at a problem but rather a very determined, very persistent and very intelligent addressing of the great issues that confront us in relation to education. Far from the abuse that has been visited upon the Minister for Education and Youth Affairs (Senator Ryan), she deserves to be toasted by anyone in this country who is seriously concerned- Mr Ruddock —Are you saying Dr Ryan was not serious? Is that what you are saying? Mr DAWKINS —It is interesting that the honourable member has mentioned Dr Adrian Ryan. Is that not the same Dr Adrian Ryan that we have recently appointed to the Commonwealth Tertiary Education Commission? Is that not an indication that we are prepared to listen to the views even of those who criticise our actions? That is in sharp contrast to the kinds of approaches taken by our predecessors, the Government which the honourable member so enthusiastically and sycophantically supported for so many pathetic years. We have addressed that question. We have put Dr Ryan on to CTEC. We hope that he will make a positive contribution, perhaps even more positive than the contribution he made in the article to which the honourable member referred. The Minister for Education and Youth Affairs has begun in a very concerted, positive and effective way to address the huge problems in education. I think that rather than being attacked by members of this paltry Opposition, she might at least be acclaimed by them. Proposed expenditure agreed to. Department of the Treasury Proposed expenditure, $528,058,000. Department of Finance Proposed expenditure, $66,609,000. Advance to the Minister for Finance Proposed expenditure, $160,000,000. Mr HOWARD(Bennelong)(12.25 a.m.) —In speaking to these estimates I wish to say something about the deregulation of the Australian financial system. I do it mindful of the fact that yesterday the Treasurer (Mr Keating) made a very important announcement, an announcement that I personally welcomed, I suspect, more warmly than did some of his colleagues. I look at the grinning countenance of the honourable member for Burke (Dr Theophanous), the putative member for Calwell. The vagaries of the Victorian pre-selection process will prove just how accurate that estimate may be. It proved to be a very important announcement. I welcome quite unreservedly this further march along the path to a freer and more competitive financial system. It is interesting to reflect just how far we have come along the path of financial deregulation since November 1981 because in November of 1981 I, as Treasurer in the former Government, tabled in this Parliament the report of the Campbell Committee of Inquiry into the Australian Financial System. I remember very well the blind antagonism and the vociferious opposition to that report and everything it stood for that was expressed by the then Labor Party Opposition. Of course, there were a number of people in my ranks at the time who had certain misgivings about recommendations in that report. Putting that aside, it is important, and I think it is a matter of satisfaction, to reflect on the progress that the Australian financial system has made over the last three years. It is infinitely more important that we have broadened, deregulated and generally freed up the Australian financial system than it is to reflect upon different views that may have been held at various stages on this very important issue. We have come a long way from the days when people believed that the Australian economy could be insulated from the pressure of world economic activity. We have come a long way from the day when people looked upon foreign banks as some kind of enemy of the Australian people. We have come a long way from the days when Labor spokesmen would freely say that if foreign banks were let in it would cause intolerable pressures on interest rates in the Australian community. Because the Treasurer has just entered this House, I say genuinely that I welcome very much his conversion in government to the more enlightened views that were expressed in the Campbell inquiry report and supported by a number of us in the former Government. I say this because I think we have come a long way and whatever odd reservation here and there that I might have about the details of what the Government is doing in this area, I can only say that this has been one of those areas of government policy where I believe by and large the Government has done the right thing and by and large it has received and has deserved to receive the support of the Opposition. I have said on a number of occasions both inside and outside this Parliament that I believe that the best economic decision that this Government has taken is its decision on 9 December last year to float the Australian dollar. I think that was both a correct and a courageous decision in the circumstances that existed at that time. The decision on foreign banks announced yesterday by the Treasurer marks a further milestone in implementing the major recommendations of the Campbell inquiry. It is interesting to reflect that it virtually takes us back to the substance of an announcement that I made in January 1983 just prior to the change of government. If one looks at the fine print of my statement and at the statement made yesterday by the Treasurer one will see there is not a great deal of difference. I suppose if I were an uncharitable person I would reflect that so unattractive and failed were the policies of the former Government that the Treasurer has been more than happy to help himself to one or two of them along the way! But I am not an uncharitable person and will not reflect in that very unkind, point scoring and unduly political fashion at this hour of the evening, because it is far more important that this country have an international financial system. When I established the Campbell Committee in 1979 I believed that one day Australia would become a world financial centre. I believe that with the efforts of both sides of politics in Australia that goal is within our grasp. It is very interesting to reflect on the employment statistics in Australia. I am pleased to say that over the last 18 months or so there has been a rise in employment. I have the odd comment to make about its cause, but that belongs to another hour and another day. If we look at the private sector figures we find that one of the areas where there has been a rise in employment is banking and financial services. That area has seen a rise of something like 50,000 or 60,000 . That figure is partly due to a statistical aberration. Most things are due to statistical aberrations. This is due to some reclassification of hours of work in the banking sector, but some of it is due to the fact that the financial services area has received and enjoyed a very large rise in employment. That is classic field evidence to demonstrate what happens when one takes a risk and frees up the system. Instead of the freeing up of the system resulting in competition crushing and destroying local Australian financial institutions, the opposite has happened. The Australian financial system has responded to the challenge. It has demonstrated that Australian bankers and merchant bankers are as good as any bankers and merchant bankers anywhere else in the world. They have been able to respond to the new era of deregulation that has arrived over the last two or three years. By the growth and the expansion in the industry, they have demonstrated just how they can play a part in it. I am very pleased at a personal level, and I know that all members of my party are very pleased, at the progress that has been made under both governments on this issue. We have come a long way from the days when we had a rigid, closed- door policy on foreign banks, when we believed that we had to regulate everything that moved otherwise people would get hurt. All of that has started to change. It is a very welcome development. It is an instructive lesson in what can be achieved in Australia, where occasionally it is possible to achieve a tolerable level of bipartisanship on developments in this area. I should like to believe that there is a genuine motivation on the part of many people in the Government-I know the views that the Treasurer holds and those held by a number of his colleagues-that we see a sensible completion of the process of deregulation of our financial system, because we can play a very major part in our part of the world. With the changing political and economic situation in Hong Kong, Australia must increasingly be seen as an attractive haven for investment. We are one of the few countries that offers genuine economic and political stability. We are amongst the handful of genuine liberal democracies. We are amongst the handful of countries that totally respect private property rights. We are amongst the very few countries that can offer a stable, secure, long term investment environment. All of those things are tremendously important to international investors. So much of what has happened on the international financial scene over the last few years has reflected that very simple fact of market life: When one has uncertainty on world financial markets, there will be a flight to quality. It is important to remember that Australia offers, amongst a very few countries, a safe haven and a very attractive repository for overseas investment . It can only be to our advantage that the process of sensible and rational deregulation that has gone on over the last two or three years continues. The Government will continue to enjoy the Opposition's support to the extent that it continues that process, because it is very much in Australia's long term interests. Mr KEATING(Blaxland-Treasurer)(12.33 a.m.) —I should like to respond to the very generous words of the Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard) in welcoming unreservedly the changes which the Government has introduced in respect of financial deregulation. He said he was very pleased at a personal level at the changes which had taken place under the present Government. Well he might be pleased, as indeed I recognise that he had a very intense personal interest in the establishment, within his ministerial responsibility, of the Campbell Committee of Inquiry into the Australian Financial System, the report of which is the landmark document on our financial system. It is to the honourable member's credit that he chose Sir Keith Campbell to chair that Committee. I have not known a finer Australian than the late Sir Keith Campbell. His contribution to this country and the great personal effort that he put into producing that report I am sure, contributed substantially, to his very untimely and early death. There is a substantial degree of bipartisanship about the financial system and the way it operates. It is a fact that the current Cabinet has a view very similar to that of the Deputy Leader of the Opposition about the way in which the financial system should operate. I should mention that in the period between the presentation of the Campbell report and the time this Government was elected a number of significant milestones in deregulation were set into place by the former Treasurer in respect of deposit regulation, which started the big shift of deposits into the banking system to the savings banks in particular, and, of course, the bond tender system, which has allowed the Commonwealth to market its securities in a way in which it would not otherwise have been able to do. Certainly, it would not have been able to finance substantial Budget deficits with Cabinet in fact pricing the paper, because politicians tend not to price the paper at the price at which the paper will sell. Because of that fact, with interest rates not being set or faced up to by Cabinets, the Commonwealth was not able to sell enough paper; therefore, it was unable to hit its monetary targets. The bond tender system has been a very innovative and important development in the way in which monetary policy operates in this country. It has brought an orderly and sensible change to the financial system. In the same unreserved terms, I am able to say that I was pleased to continue with this very important development for which the former Treasurer had the sole responsibility . In respect of foreign bank entry, it is true that this Government when in opposition had a policy opposed to the entry of foreign banks. But as time wore on and as we saw the mergers that took place in the last few years it became obvious to us that there was less competition in the banking system and that for this country it was important to inject some competition back into that system. I put on the record at this time that I personally held the view from the time Sir Keith Campbell presented his report that there was a case for involvement of foreign banks in this country. But the policy of my Party differed from my view. In the Labor Party we seek to change policy in an orderly way. At our National Conference a couple of months ago we effected a change whereby this Government, under the Labor Party's policy, could invite applications of interest from foreign banking institutions to participate in the Australian banking system. That is the announcement to which the Deputy Leader of the Opposition referred. It was made yesterday by the Government and is one which, I think, will change the face of the Australian banking system for the better. Many other aspects of banking and banking regulations have changed. We have continued the deposit deregulation. If my memory serves me correctly, the former Treasurer reduced the minimum time under which a trading bank could accept deposits from 30 days to 14 days. As I said earlier, that affected the big shift of deposits into saving banks-the reintermediation we have seen in the last couple of years-and now the decision of this Government to remove the 14-day rule so that trading banks can accept deposits virtually overnight will mean a very substantial shift in deposits over time to the banking system from the non- banking system. This will mean changes in the way in which the merchant banking sector operates, because its money market operations will no longer be what they were. Access to the money market will no longer be protected from competition by the banks because of the 30-day rule and the 14-day rule. I am sure that the former Treasurer was advised at the time that to have changed the 30-day rule to zero very quickly would have had disruptive effects on the system. I am sure the staged effect of the 30 days to 14 days and 14 days to zero, has been the appropriate way to make the change in this area of deposits. It will mean that we will have a bigger banking sector. The deposit base of the banking system will be bigger. Merchant banks will go back to doing the things they traditionally did. That was to be a bit more innovative and cleverer than the banks and not simply to be able to rely on a protected basis for money market operations such as they were in years gone by. As a result also of this Government's decision to move to deregulate the financial system we made a decision to give foreign exchange dealing rights to merchant banks. That will mean that merchant banks which deal with large slabs of corporate finance can validate their own arrangements without sharing their profits with the Australian banks by doing the foreign exchange business themselves. Of course, they can specialise in foreign exchange for others. That will be an important element to the range of services which merchant banks will now have on offer. That is a specialisation which I think we all wished to see and which I am sure we will see as their money market operations run into more competition from the banking sector in general. Yesterday I also indicated that the Government would put aside the foreign investment policy in respect of merchant banks for 12 months to allow rationalisations of ownerships, for example, in instances of banks-particularly foreign banks-having four or five ownership positions in merchant banks. Now that we are seeing foreign bank entry to this country and our own banks can now own 100 per cent of a merchant bank-another reform which this Government introduced-I am sure it will allow a much needed nationalisation of that sector. It will give the merchant banking sector a future. It will be one that will encourage innovation and specialisation. That after all is what a merchant banking sector should be all about. It should not be about the easy operation of its money market concerns by virtue of protection from the Australian banking systems under regulation. That is an important change. I think the other important change which the Deputy Leader of the Opposition referred to was the decision to float the Australian dollar. My view about that was that once we moved from small discrete changes in the exchange rate, in fact as we did when the Government devalued by 10 per cent in March 1983, the managed system had really come to an end. I am sure that the former Treasurer probably agreed that the managed system had seen its best days towards the end of his tenure of office. I know that it is, and has been, his firm view that the Australian dollar essentially should have been floating and be determined in the market place. That is a decision which this Government made. We came to that realisation towards the end of 1983. I think that that decision will stand Australia in very good stead in the future. It is a situation where now the exchange rate has been fixed in the full light of all the facets of the operation of the Australian economy and fixed on the true underlying basis of the economy rather than being fixed by bureaucrats trying to second guess the market with a rigid system. Of course, the benefits are many. One is that there are more stable interest rates and the capacity to run a more sensible and precise monetary policy, which was not the case when the Reserve Bank of Australia had to buy all foreign exchange and capital inflow made monetary management so much more uncertain. These are all important changes to the financial system. They are all in the manner of deregulation. As we have said on this side of the House on a number of occasions, we are not in the business of deregulation for deregulation's sake, but we are certainly not in the business of keeping regulations which are now outworn and which have outlived their usefulness. Let me reciprocate the generosity of the remarks of the Deputy Leader of the Opposition. He is quite unreserved in his appreciation of what the Government has done. I can say that I am equally unreservedly appreciative of his personal efforts as Treasurer in starting off this process with the establishment of the Campbell Committee of Inquiry into the Australian Financial System and the decisions which the Treasurer took in the earlier stage of deregulation. It is a fact, as he says, that when there is agreement on both sides of this Parliament to do some of the things which are worth doing, we can see some real progress in this country. These things are of lasting benefit. They are large, important institutional changes which will sit in the financial landscape and which will be there when governments of all persuasions come and go. These changes will make the Australian economy and the Australian nation that much stronger for having been made. Mr HODGMAN(Denison)(12.47 a.m.) —It is an extraordinary paradox and indeed a disaster for Australia that the positions of Treasurer and Minister for Finance at present are invested in two millionaire socialists. Both men are very wealthy in their own right and they seek to impose on this nation a socialist legacy which, I suggest, will be very dangerous for us as a nation and very counterproductive. I have never felt more uneasy about a Budget than I feel about this one-and that is after listening to some eight State Budgets and eight Federal Budgets. On paper this Budget looks good now but it is without doubt, a depth-charge Budget, a delayed shock Budget, and the cost to Australia, not just in 1985 but in the years which follow, will be very substantial. It is a Budget based upon the most optimistic outlook in relation to receipts that one could possible imagine. I do not share that optimism for three reasons. Firstly, as Budget Statement No. 1 concedes this has been a year, indeed a second year, of unusually strong growth in revenues. To emphasise the point, I refer honourable members to Hansard for 21 August and the fact that, as detailed in Statement No. 4, the effects are such as to yield increased revenue before new measures of $9. 7 billion or 20 per cent in 1984-85. I ask honourable members how long it is since they can remember the revenues of the Commonwealth of Australia going up 20 per cent in one year. What staggers me is that with increased revenues of $9.7 billion the Government has been able to reduce the Budget deficit by only $1.2 billion. Where has the other $8.5 billion gone? I do not think, from my reading of the Budget Speech and the Papers, that there has been a proper accounting. The Treasurer (Mr Keating) and the Minister for Finance (Mr Dawkins) are trustees for the resources of the Commonwealth of Australia. I do not believe that there has been a proper discharge of their duty as trustees in a situation in which revenues are going up by $9.7 billion and they are only able to reduce the Budget deficit by $1.2 billion. If one talks about the domestic deficit, one sees that that has been reduced by only $1.6 billion. If those two men were solicitor trustees they would be on their way to prison if that is the best that they can do with the resources of the Commonwealth. Budget Paper No. 1 contains a number of very strong warnings which increase my fears, particularly in view of the track record of the socialists in relation to government spending. I do not see this Government moving effectively to reduce the public sector borrowing requirement. I do not see this Government moving effectively to control the growth of outlays. The answer to that must be that next year we will be looking at an even larger deficit. As the Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard) has pointed out so effectively in the Parliament, it is absolutely fundamental that for the implementation of the socialist policies to which the present Government is committed there will have to be substantial increases in taxes. Back in 1973-75 the Whitlam Government achieved an increase in income taxation receipts of 49 per cent. I want to compare its record with the record of this Hawke socialist Government since it came to power in March 1983. It is interesting to note that, in the very first year of the Hawke socialist Government-that is, the financial year just ended, 1983-84-personal income tax receipts increased by 7.6 per cent. In the 1984-85 financial year, the one that 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 a total of 30.6 per cent. What particularly frightens me is that on the basis of this Budget the growth rate in 1984-85 in income tax receipts will be four times as fast as it was in 1983-84. Quite frankly, 1983-84 was fast enough. When we look at provisional tax receipts we see that the Government will hit the small business men, the farmers, the employers, the people in professions, the young men and women of Australia wanting to go into business to employ Australians. Under this wicked socialist Budget provisional tax receipts will go up by 44.7 per cent. This is a classic example of a socialist government going from low gear at the time of its election to power to overdrive in less than 17 months. I believe that this bodes ill for the future of this nation. Let me put it on the other basis of the receipts figures themselves. In the last year of the Fraser Government income tax receipts were $22.967 billion. This year we will see income tax receipts go to $30.383 billion. That is an increase of $7.416 billion for 1984-85. In percentage terms that is an increase of 32.3 per cent. Yet this deceitful Government untruthfully tells the people of Australia that it is a tax cut government. The figures just do not support what I suggest is a blatant untruth being peddled to the people of Australia. Mr Braithwaite —A $7 billion increase is not a decrease, is it? Mr HODGMAN —It is certainly not a decrease as my honourable colleague has pointed out. This is an untruth which is being peddled to the people of Australia. With personal income tax receipts going up 30.6 per cent, provisional tax going up 44.7 per cent, actual receipts going up 32.3 per cent, I just do not see how, on any basis, this Budget can be tax cut Budget. Why is it that this untruth, this lie, is being peddled? It is being peddled because in the short term it will be sold to the people of Australia that they have actually had a tax cut-the magical $7.60 a week-forgetting the fact that on the day the Treasurer delivered the Budget, before he even opened his mouth, the average workers of Australia were already paying $22.41 more in taxes under the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) than they had paid under Mr Fraser. If we also take into account that in the Budget itself their taxes are going up by $8 a week, they actually finished up on Budget night 40c in the red which, added to the $22.41, means that the average workers of Australia, on the most conservative figures, finished up on Budget night $22.81 worse off under Prime Minister Hawke than they ever were under Prime Minister Fraser. I am gravely concerned about what this Budget is going to do to Australia in 1985, 1986 and 1987. The Whitlam Government took three years to bring this country to the brink of bankruptcy. The Hawke socialist Government within a period of 17 months has placed this country on the brink of economic disaster. This corrupt, incompetent Government must be dismissed and will be dismissed from office at the next Federal election. Mr ROBERT BROWN(Hunter)(12.56 a.m.) —First of all, I endorse the sentiments that were expressed by the Treasurer (Mr Keating) in relation to the contribution made by the shadow Treasurer, the honourable member for Bennelong ( Mr Howard). I thought the comments of the honourable member were both gracious and generous, as the Treasurer indicated. I am sorry that I am not able to say the same for the honourable member for Denison (Mr Hodgman) who has just completed his remarks. If he had taken the opportunity to listen to some of the discussions that have taken place in this Parliament since the Budget was presented I am sure he would have heard the Treasurer referring to the need for members of the Opposition to distinguish between the tax base and tax rates. It is clear that the honourable member for Denison has not done that. Either he did not listen to the debate or he did not understand what the Treasurer was talking about. When he refers to the rapid significant increase that has taken place in personal income receipts and assumes on the basis of that that there has been an increase in tax, he is confusing precisely those two things to which the Treasurer referred; he is confusing the tax base with tax rates. There has, of course, been a reduction in the impact of tax rates, and the increase in personal income tax revenue to which the honourable member refers results from the fact that for the first time for a number of years the Australian economy has started to grow. Why would there not be an increase in income tax receipts when we have had an increase in employment of something like 260,000 since this Government came to office? Of course there will be an increase in personal income tax receipts under such circumstances. I also want to make mention of the fact that probably for the first time- certainly for the first time in my memory-a debate on the Budget has concentrated around the forecasts, the prophecies, the estimates, the furphies and the misrepresentations related to the Budget which is to follow. The debate on the Budget for this year has revolved around all of the forecasts that members of the Opposition have been making about the Budget for 1985-86-the next Budget. Of course, they have found it necessary to do that because this Budget which was introduced by the Treasurer and which is in the process of being considered by the Committee of the Whole has commended itself not only to the Labor movement throughout Australia, as we might expect, but also to all areas of responsible, objective and competent thinking. One of the matters of concern which has been raised by the Opposition in connection with the question of the effect this year's Budget will have on future Budgets is related, of course, to the increase in spending in 1984-85. The real increase in outlays is 6.1 per cent. But if we discount that 6.1 per cent for the impact of Medicare and the growth in public debt interest, for which we were not responsible and which this Government inherited from the previous Government, the real growth in outlays this year is brought back to about 2.3 per cent. It has been pointed out that that 2.3 per cent increase in real outlays for 1984-85 represents only about half of the average rate of real increase in outlays for the 10 years prior to 1983-84. So there is no need at all for the Government, the Opposition or the Australian community to be concerned about the future impact of those details of the Budget for this year. Of course, the key to this whole question is real economic growth. If we have real growth of something like 3 to 4 per cent in future years, we are going to find that the 1985-86 deficit will be unchanged in nominal terms. Of course, in real terms it represents a significant reduction. For every percentage point that we can get economic growth over 3 to 4 per cent we will be able to reduce the cyclical deficit by about $500m. So there is no doubt that in the future the Government will find itself in a very secure position as far as its Budget strategy is concerned. The extent to which we can actually deliver the growth that is necessary in order to maintain the deficit at a sensible level and to start hauling it back, reining it back further than we have already, should be apparent to anyone. After all, we inherited a rate of growth for the previous 12 months of minus 2.5 per cent and within the space of 12 months of this new Government, the Hawke Government, with the policies introduced by the Treasurer, we were able to turn that situation around completely so that June quarter on June quarter we were able to achieve the dramatic increase in economic growth of 10 per cent and year on year we were able to achieve a rate of real growth of 5.5 per cent. Those things were achieved in our first year. The momentum of that real growth will be maintained even taking into account a forecast of some marginal reduction in the rate of real growth for the coming financial year because some of those one-off developments which contributed towards it last year will not be repeated. In the light of that level of growth being maintained all of the concerns that have been expressed about this year's expenditure and this year's deficit and the impact that that might have on next year's Budget can immediately be dispensed with. Mr BRAITHWAITE(Dawson)(1.03 a.m.) —In addressing myself to these estimates I want to make some remarks particularly in connection with the Australian Taxation Office estimates and basically to ask why the estimates this year, particularly for the Taxation Boards of Review, are so reduced compared with the figures for last year. I say this because I understand the Boards of Review get round to hearing objections probably years after the actual objections have been placed in the hands of officers of the Taxation Office. One would think that with the greater number of tax collections estimated through the Budget there would be a corresponding degree of disagreement between the taxpayer and the Taxation Office which would require a faster review of the objections and differences. I have always believed, and this is so particularly now that the Commissioner of Taxation has the power to add interest to overdue accounts- whether they are overdue because of natural causes or because of disputes does not matter-that the person who has an outstanding objection for three years, having paid his tax and forfeited the loss of interest, deserves better treatment than that. That is one aspect in connection with the Boards of Review. Also on the taxation estimates, it is a fact that this year, due to legislation going through this chamber at the eleventh hour some time in June in particular relating to tax on income for the previous year, schedules and tax returns normally available were not in the hands of agents or taxpayers until some two or three months after they should have been. That would not have mattered a great deal in regard to the ordinary taxpayer lodging his own return, which is a fast diminishing trade at the moment. But for public accountants throughout Australia, who like to draft these returns in the months before the end of the year, this has meant a severe waste of time. I have raised this matter with the Commissioner of Taxation but he has not given me an assurance in this regard. It appears that although the schedules were late, no consideration will be given at this time for extensions of time to those tax agents and public accountants who missed out. That is just one aspect of the matters I wish to raise at this time. I now address myself to the form that I believe the national accounts should take. I have always worried that when these figures are presented to us, public and private companies are required to disclose much of the information. Indeed, it is absolutely essential for companies to include this information in the preparation of their accounts in order to lodge their financial situations with the shareholders each year. Apparently, this does not apply to the national government. I do not blame the present Government; it is a situation which has existed over many years and it is one which we have never addressed. Basically, the national accounts and the Budget do not show in any way the amount of accruement at the end of each financial year for retirement benefits, pensions, superannuation, long service leave and holiday pay. If any private or public company wished to put accounts before their shareholders in any year without that information it would be fined. Mr McGauran —Hear, hear! Mr BRAITHWAITE —Obviously members of the Opposition who address themselves to private matters realise this. The penalties would not be small. Last year we addressed the superannuation payouts for Trans Australia Airlines, a statutory body for which no provision would be made. The Government was asked to make a contribution to help it out. While the contribution may not have been to the extent of the full superannuation payout required, I understand that at that time TAA was in debt, just on these accruals, to some $160m or $170m. If we were to apply that level of indebtedness to the whole of the Public Service, we would create a debt of about $25 billion to $30 billion as at the end of 1983. The position is significant enough to require these figures to be disclosed to members of the public so they know exactly what their contribution will be through their tax payments. That brings me to another aspect of the present Budget deficit and the tendency over recent years to have Budget deficits. In fact, schedules on page 364 of Budget Paper No. 1 indicate that Budget receipts this year, totalling 27.9 per cent of gross domestic product, represent the greatest percentage of GDP in the history of the Australian Federal Parliament. That is not all the story. Similarly, the Government's Budget outlays for this year are a record. I always believe that when we have a deficit all we are doing is deferring taxation. In other words, to square the books in any one year taxation would have to be raised. After all, State governments are expected to do it and so are local governments, so why not the Federal Government? Mr Peter Morris —Why didn't you? Mr BRAITHWAITE —I will give some figures which will show the increase over the last two years. Again we see the ignorance of the Minister for Transport, who is not even at the table. Mr Peter Morris —Why didn't you balance the books? Mr BRAITHWAITE —If he stood up I could see him, but he is sitting somewhere near the honourable member for Hunter (Mr Robert Brown). The ignorance of the man is shown by his interjection on a matter on which he is found hopelessly wanting. The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN(Mr Keogh) —Order! The level of conversation on my right is far too high. The Minister is interjecting from a seat other than his own. I suggest that the honourable member for Dawson is entitled to a reasonably quiet hearing, even though the hour is late. I call the honourable member for Dawson. Mr BRAITHWAITE —Thank you, Mr Deputy Chairman; it is all good stuff. Mr Cohen —Riveting. Mr BRAITHWAITE —Yes, it is. If we consider the deficit as being deferred taxation and we add that to receipts, we get some pretty startling figures. I refer to the schedule on page 364, not only in relation to the Budget receipts but also taking into account the deficit. I will go back to 1974-75 and progress through the years to 1984-85. In 1974-75 Budget receipts as a proportion of gross domestic product were 28.8 per cent; in the next year, 29.9 per cent; in the next year, 28.9 per cent and in 1977-78, 29.6 per cent. One will see that Budget receipts as a proportion of gross domestic product rose during that period basically because of the deficits of the Whitlam Government. In 1978-79 Budget receipts as a proportion of gross domestic product were 28.3 per cent and slipped during the next two years to 27.4 per cent and 27.3 per cent respectively. In 1981-82 it was 27.7 per cent and in 1982-83 it rose to 29.9 per cent. In 1983-84 it was 30.5 per cent and this year, 1984-85, it is a record, almost one per cent above any other year, 31.2 per cent. That means that taxation revenue would have accounted for 31.2 per cent of GDP. I think that is a fairly startling figure. The liability, not the roll-over but the interest, has doubled in the last 10 years from 4.4 per cent of outlays to 8.8 per cent. I am not saying that one government is to blame. Certainly Labor has put us on a slippery slide. But there is this aspect of Federal Financing: Because the national accounts do not show the accrued superannuation payments required, nobody realises their impact. Of course, the impact falls on those people for whom the taxation is deferred-tomorrow's generation, tomorrow's taxpayers. I believe that this is not fully explained either by the Government or within the accounts, particularly if one relates them to figures I was given which show that at this stage each Australian is responsible for $5,000 of the national debt. By June next year that figure will be $6,000. If one talks in terms of taxation paid, $900 is required from each taxpayer just to service the public debt. That debt will increase. I wonder whether we should not be under the same restraints as the Government as far as the discipline which it imposes on local and State governments is concerned. Perhaps a change in the Constitution, called a proposition in the United States, to ensure that we run at a surplus and not a deficit may be an appropriate item for a referendum. The honourable member for Hunter (Mr Robert Brown) did not say it, although he looks as though he did, but the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) would not be able to deliver his election goodies if that were the case. The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN(Mr Keogh) —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Dr THEOPHANOUS(Burke)(1.13 a.m.) —I have only a few minutes to deal with some of the points raised, especially those raised by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard) earlier today when he attempted to attack the Budget, claiming that taxation was too high under this Government. That seemed to be an interesting sort of claim for him to make as he said at the same time that the Budget deficit was too high. So we have what appears to be an interesting contradiction. This contradiction in the thoughts of the Deputy Leader of the Opposition has been there for a long time; indeed it was there when he was the Treasurer. In fact, when he was the Treasurer we kept emphasising one fundamental fact, and that was his failure to understand the basic fiscal problems associated with running the modern state. I referred in my speeches during that time especially to the fiscal crisis of the States which became absolutely massive under the Fraser Government. The fact is that this incoherence has continued. We are still urged on the one hand that the Budget deficit is too high, that it could have been much lower. On the other hand we are told that taxation is too high. We have introduced tax cuts. What would the shadow Treasurer have done? How would he have achieved both a reduction in the Budget deficit and a reduction in taxation? Obviously he could not have achieved that situation. What he really has in mind, if the Opposition is ever re-elected to government-it has been made clear in the policy statements issued by the Opposition-is a massive increase in indirect taxation. That is what the Opposition has in mind. That is the only way in which it can hope to come to grips with a fiscal crisis. That sort of approach which involves a massive increase in indirect taxation, the brunt of which would be borne by the ordinary workers of this country, would be increasing taxation by stealth. What we have is an advocation that there be a reduction in income tax but a massive increase in indirect taxation through the introduction of a whole system of indirect taxes. What other method would the shadow Treasurer adopt in dealing with the fiscal problems? Let us be honest about the situation. The fact of the matter is that he does not have a solution to this fundamental problem. The approach of the Budget is based on a Keynesian principle: That one increases demand in the economy through tax cuts, which give more disposable income to people and increases in social security and welfare payments. Not only do those payments support the poor disadvantaged in our community but also they give increased disposable income to those people which is spent in the economy and which provides an increased demand for goods and services. What is wrong with that approach to the Budget? The shadow Treasurer has not explained what he sees that is wrong with it, except to claim that somehow, in a particular way, it will result in some kind of massive fiscal crisis for the Government next year. The fact is that he has not taken into account the consequences in terms of the growth in the economy. If we look beyond the comments of the shadow Treasurer to those made by Opposition spokesmen on the Budget today, we see that at the same time as they are maintaining there should be a reduction in the Budget deficit-we have dealt with the specific incomes and the specific expenditures in various areas-they want increased spending on education, certain areas of welfare and certain areas of industry development. They want all those things. They say that the Government's approach is not satisfactory and yet they maintain that this increased spending can take place without increases in taxation and with a lower Budget deficit. That is economic nonsense and everyone knows it. The situation is quite clear: They will have no coherent approach to the Budget and to budgetary matters if they continue in this way. Within the parameters of the Budget the Treasurer (Mr Keating), rather than being irresponsible or radical in his approach, as has been claimed, has been cautious and conservative in his approach to spending. The shadow Treasurer referred to the possibility of a mini-Budget next year. I hope there will be a mini-Budget next year, but not to achieve what the shadow Treasurer has referred to; rather to deal with a situation in which the increased growth and the increased performance of the economy will allow us to do even more in the areas of welfare and industry development. Mr EWEN CAMERON(Indi)(1.20 a.m.) —Mr Deputy Chairman-(Quorum formed) I would like to refer to two matters affecting tax revenue, that is the proposed changes in the income equalisation deposit scheme and the wine tax. In this Budget the Government has neglected to recognise the important role played by the rural sector in the economic recovery brought about largely by the breaking of the drought. With this attitude it is not surprising that the Government has also ignored the real position relating to income equalisation deposits. The same principle is involved. The income equalisation deposit scheme was introduced by the Fraser Government and gave Australian primary producers the opportunity to average their incomes over a period. This helped balance the bad seasons with the good seasons. One of the basic planks in the income equalisation deposit scheme is that income deposited in good years does not attract tax at that time. The primary producer can draw on this money in bad years paying the income tax due at that time. It is obvious to any thinking person that the incentive provided by this scheme has encouraged a great many farmers to put money away and to provide for lean times. It has provided them with a very useful method of hedging against drought, flood and things over which they have not control. The Government has stated its intention of presenting to Parliament legislation which will destroy the very basis of the income equalisation deposit scheme. The Government is aiming at removing the taxation concession which is the very thing that makes the scheme so attractive to the farmer. As with any scheme there were a few who abused it but this is not a good enough reason to dismantle this most important aid to primary producers. Previous changes in the legislation have done much to obviate loopholes and abuses are now much less likely to occur. The legislation will rob the scheme of its major benefit reducing it to an alternative form of holding government securities. The deposits will become no more than ordinary savings bank deposits and provide little or no incentive for bad times. The Government will also reduce the interest rate applying to income equalisation deposits made before 1 September 1983 to 5.5 per cent. This will be effective from 1 September this year. Just compare this with the Commonwealth Savings Bank passbook interest rate of 6 per cent for deposits over $4,000 and a building society passbook interest rate of 8 per cent. It is absolutely iniquitous. I understand that in May this year the amount of IEDs was $160m. Since that time deposits have dropped to approximately $3m. Some of this could be put down to seasonal fluctuation but it would seem obvious that the reason for this dramatic drop is the realisation among the farming communities that the scheme, under the new guidelines, is virtually useless. I now turn my attention to the wine tax. Small family wine producers in north east Victoria are being severely discriminated against because of the 10 per cent tax imposed by the Government in this Budget. Wine makers in the Indi electorate produce top quality table and fortified wines. Mr Hodgman —The best in Australia. Mr EWEN CAMERON —That is right. These are the wines which will experience the largest price increase as a direct result of the tax. It has been estimated that approximately 50 per cent of Australian wine is sold in casks. Is it mainly produced by the larger wine companies and is of a lower quality than bottled wine. A five litre cask of wine retails at approximately $5 and will attract a 50c tax, or 10c a litre. A 750 gram bottle of better quality wine from Indi, retailing at $5 a bottle, will attract 50c or 66c a litre-over six times as much , which is grossly unfair. It seems the Government has failed to take into account the long lead time of about five years which is required by grape producers to produce a good wine. Most wine producers appreciate that they could not expect to escape forever the imposition of a tax or excise on wine, but feel that the imposition of such a large levy without warning is unjustified, particularly following the recent drought which affected production so drastically. The Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Kerin) has already admitted that many individual grape growers will be potentially battered, but he does not seem able to see that the wine industry is completely different from the beer brewing industry. Wine making is a primary industry which requires a long term commitment and capital investment and is subject to seasonal risks. As I have already said, it suffered considerably as a result of the recent drought. In a recent speech at the Rural Press Club in Victoria, given the day after the Budget was brought down, the Minister for Primary Industry said that many sections of the Australian grapegrowing industry had been in a lot of trouble for a long time and would continue to decline, even if there were no sales tax on wine. It was a singularly insensitive statement when one considers the number of people-little people-who are likely to become unemployed and face financial ruin because of the imposition of this tax. Australian wine companies normally buy grapes from many hundreds of small growers. Many are soldier settlers who were established by former governments in irrigation areas and many growers are migrants who brought considerable expertise to the industry. As larger wine makers scale down their requirements, these people, who also provide employment for unskilled and seasonal workers, are being told that not as many grapes will be required for the next vintage. It seems very strange, to say the least, that the Government, which is so vocal in expressing its concern regarding employment opportunities, should in one fell swoop threaten the jobs of an estimated 10 per cent of workers in this industry. Grape growers and small wine makers are also at risk because of the glut of wine in Europe. European wine is heavily subsidised by governments to encourage export income and full employment. The European Economic Community gives subsidies for shipping, insurance and other related export costs. Good quality European wines are being dumped on the Australian market and can be purchased at minimal cost. Apart from the actual sale of this wine to the consumer, the danger is that larger wine companies can take advantage of the cheap cost of the wine, blending it with Australian wine and thus diminishing even further the amount of grapes they would normally buy from Australian wine growers. This will create an even greater crisis in the wine industry. The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN(Mr Keogh) —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr TUCKEY(O'Connor)(1.29 a.m.) —In his Budget speech the Treasurer (Mr Keating) referred to measures to counter tax avoidance and evasion. He said: This Government will remain unrelenting in its efforts to counter tax avoidance and evasion. A little later he said: The Budget also provides for a significant increase in the compliance staff of the Taxation Office in order to increase the proportion of tax returns subject to audits. Page 93 of the Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 1984-85, under Division 678 dealing with the Australian Taxation Office, shows that expenditure for 1983-84 was $282 ,350,691 and that the estimate for this year's expenditure is $315,400,000-a jump of $33m. This morning, I heard the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) say that that increase would result in 400-he mentioned also another figure of more than 300- people to check tax avoidance and tax evasion. The figure could be as high as 700. It was surprising to note the Prime Minister's zeal, considering his recent Boulevard foray into the cash economy when he lost 16 per cent of his salary. He may be asked to explain what he was doing with that large amount of cash. Or is it reasonable to assume that Bill Waterhouse had a bad day and was paying out in American dollars and assorted travellers cheques. The new staff will investigate both old and new problems. I may have time to phone one of the new operatives and offer some of the information I have about the tax activities of the Minister for Finance (Mr Dawkins). Better still, one of those operatives might find time to write out a certificate to say that the Minister is clean. The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN —Order! The honourable member for O'Connor might like to indicate to which item he is referring. Mr TUCKEY —I went to great lengths at the beginning of my speech to tell you what I was talking about, Mr Deputy Chairman. I am talking about the expenditure on providing addition people to look into the tax business and tax avoidance and evasion. The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN —I remind the honourable member for O'Connor that he needs to be relevant. Mr TUCKEY —I do not know how much more relevant I should be. I am the first speaker tonight to have given you a direct reference, Mr Deputy Chairman. I have concluded my remarks about the Minister for Finance. No doubt, particular inspectors will have the job of resolving the bottom of the harbour tax avoidance problems. I chose to deliver a speech earlier today pointing out some of the difficulties that might arise in that area. It was most unfortunate that the Government got the story a little wrong. The Government was so busy blocking me that only the bad part of the story got out. Of course, that story did not tell all, as I was prepared to do. My speech and the information provided afterwards to journalists made that clear. The Premier of Western Australia was a one time director of a company known as Knowles Investments Pty Ltd, which went to the bottom of the harbour. The Premier of Western Australia said that that was not his fault, but we have heard that story thousands of time before. I am not saying that he is right or wrong this time. I am saying only that everybody said: 'The people to whom I sold the shares were clean. I did not believe that they might dump them.' . The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN —Order! I have already suggested once that the honourable member for O'Connor be relevant to the estimates that are being considered by the Committee. Mr TUCKEY —Mr Deputy Chairman, I have no choice in this matter but to ask you-- The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN — I shall not suggest-- Mr TUCKEY —to call the Speaker to get this matter resolved. The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN —Order! The honourable member will be silent while he is being spoken to about this matter. If I must once again draw his attention to the fact that he is not speaking to the subject before the Committee, and especially if he continues to speak while I am speaking to him, the honourable member will not be permitted to speak any longer. Mr TUCKEY —Mr Deputy Chairman, I will move dissent from your ruling. I shall give you a motion to that effect. The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN —Order! I have not made a ruling for the honourable member to dissent from at this stage. Mr TUCKEY —Well, I will just continue on then. The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN —The honourable member may continue if he wishes. Mr TUCKEY —Consequently, if the investigators had looked at the position at that stage of the game, they would have found that there was no doubt about the fact- this was not denied by the Premier of Western Australia-that that person was the proprietor of the company. These investigators who are about to be appointed would also know very well that the company went to the bottom of the harbour. The Premier in his denial of this-I accept many parts of his denial-went so far as to give an explanation about the company. He said: I set up the company shortly after my pre-selection for Parliament with the intention of transferring to it business interests I had, but I subsequently decided not to proceed with this and instructed my accountant accordingly. If he decided not to proceed, he spent a lot of money because there are company records which show that he established this company. The only thing he did not spend much money on were shares. He spent only $5 on them. I do not know what the company cost him. The interesting thing that these investigators should note , having discovered that in 1973 the Premier of Western Australia had substantial business interests, is that in the West Australian of 25 November 1983-10 years after the Premier as a member of the Opposition began receiving a parliamentary salary-there was an article under the headline 'Burke is first to divulge his interests'. That is funny, because in this Parliament we were going to hear a lot about divulging interests, but the Government has gone very quiet on that. The article states: They are: Two bank accounts-one with an overdraft of $17,000, the other with $1,000-a house mortgaged for $70,000, one wife, five children and another on the way. The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN(Mr Keogh) —Order! I inform the honourable member for O' Connor that I am finding it a little difficult to relate his remarks to the matter before the Committee. It might assist me if he can explain how his remarks relate to the question which is being considered by the Committee. Mr TUCKEY —Mr Keogh, I am trying to point out that we now have an additional 700 tax investigators and I could probably save some of their time-- Mr Young —Could you tell us how Robert Askin left $4m? Mr TUCKEY —I have no brief for Robert Askin. The point I want to make is that some of these investigators who have been appointed should approach the Premier of Western Australia and ask him what he has done with all those business interests, because he has not got them now. Did he sell them at a profit? Did he declare tax on them, or did he ever have them? The other thing that the tax investigators might be interested in is whether Knowles Investments was a convenient shelf company that Mr Brian Burke put his name to for one of the tax avoidance industry people who were just coming out of the woodwork in 1973, as Mr Costigan said. Was he helping those people by putting his name to shelf straw companies that later on could be used in the manner in which this one seemed to have been? He formed a company and as soon as he wanted to sell it he had no difficulty in doing so. I wonder whether he ever laid hands on it. If he had some business interests to transfer he had better tell someone. Perhaps he misled members of the Western Australian Parliament in his declaration of interests when he said he had no business interests. He might tell us how he disposed of them or lost them within the next 10 years, because we all know that had he turned them into cash he would still have that cash. I think that these investigators that the Government has employed should start on a couple of those matters. Mr Young —We haven't enough; they are too busy on the Liberal Party in Western Australia. Mr TUCKEY —Are they? The Special Minister of State knows that not to be the truth. I suggest that he should not get too wrapped up in that. I thought this was a good time to remind him and the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) that every time they get on to this issue they get their fingers crushed, and they will get them crushed again. Mr KEATING(Blaxland-Treasurer)(1.39 a.m.) —Mr Keogh, I responded earlier in the debate and I do not intend to respond to the contributions made by the honourable member for Denison (Mr Hodgman), which was an abject waste of time, and the honourable member for O'Connor (Mr Tuckey), who disgraces himself in this place almost daily. They are beneath contempt and not worth replying to. Proposed expenditures agreed to. Department of Home Affairs and Environment Proposed expenditure, $184,880,000. Department of Territories and Local Government Proposed expenditure, $165,862,000. Department of Sport, Recreation and Tourism Proposed expenditure, $58,669,000. Mr CONNOLLY(Bradfield)(1.40 a.m.) — We now come to a consideration of the estimates for the Department of Home Affairs and Environment, which is being conducted at almost a quarter to two in the morning. This surely not only demonstrates the cynicism with which the Government uses the Parliament but also shows the level of its concern regarding the environment. We are now debating effectively the second Labor Budget. As with the first it has failed to address the genuine concerns in the environmental movement and has failed almost utterly to meet in legislative or financial terms the high expectations built up by this Government prior to the last Federal election. Here we are on the edge of a second election a mere 18 months after the first, after two Budgets and, as I have said, with so little achieved during the period. The Minister for Home Affairs and Environment (Mr Cohen) may smile at those words but the time will come when he will choke on the very phraseology contained in his Party's environmental program-a program to which he contributed and which he has failed to implement since he has been Minister. A quick analysis of the estimates as they stand demonstrates quite clearly what I am saying. For example, there has been no funding for rainforest protection in this Budget but we have been told by the Minister on other occasions how he established the rainforest conference earlier this year. Out of that conference was established a working group. The extraordinary thing is that the famous working group took at least another six months before it had its first meeting. We are now told that the working group will be having its second meeting during October. Presumably this is an example of the rapidity of decision making within the Government and also a clear explanation to the environmental movement which is genuinely concerned about events in north Queensland as to how the Government proposes to use a talk shop as a means of overcoming the genuine problems which it has failed to face in relation to the Daintree up to now. Decisions were made by the Cabinet last Friday and, I gather, were released to caucus this morning-they found their way into both television and news programs this evening-to the effect that at last the Government has seen fit to support the program enunciated by me as spokesman for the Opposition as early as last November, when we asked the Government to stop pussyfooting around and to face the realities that the Government had a national responsibility to negotiate in practical terms with the Queensland Government and the Douglas Shire about what it proposed to do for the Daintree. But what we got from the Government as represented by the Minister was an extraordinary statement to the effect: 'We are not going to allow ourselves to be blackmailed by State governments, which may decide to try to screw money out of the Commonwealth Government by threatening the environment'. Is it not interesting that it has taken so long- some eight to 10 months-for the Government to come around to a realisation of the facts? I wonder whether it is just because an election is in the offing. I wonder whether it is because there are a few seats in Queensland about which it is genuinely concerned. How will the Government explain to the people of Sydney and Melbourne in particular how this Government of compassion and concern, which demonstrated so much concern for the environment, over the period of two Budgets has achieved so little. The situation we are facing is simply this: The Minister is the Brutus of the environmental cause. He has stabbed in the back the environmental movement and will continue to do so. The difference between his environment policy and ours, quite simply put, is analagous to the famous race between the tortoise and the hare. He is the hare. He got off the blocks early and won the first prize. He achieved great success in solving the problems of Tasmania. Now we go towards the second issue which is the Daintree. There he has demonstrated for so long his incompetence, his inability and his absolute lack of concern for what is quite clearly a major national issue. He has hidden behind protection of saying that he cannot use the world heritage legislation because he claims he does not have the power to do so. We have said that he has a responsibility to defend the environment, irrespective of whether it is on the World Heritage List. We have put forward the proposals by which that should be achieved, as we did for Tasmania when we offered $5 billion to solve its problems. The fact that that was not achieved was not the fault of our Government. The fact that the Government has failed with respect to the Daintree is its fault; it has had its opportunities and up to now it has failed to apply them. At the eleventh hour the Minister came forward. He offered $1m. Undoubtedly he will be told that it is a case of too little and too late. But the saddest thing of all is this: The only way in this country in a Federal system that any government can overcome the real problems of the environment is to depoliticise them, to face the issues before having elections and not try to make an issue out of the fact it has done so little just before an election. The only loss under those circumstances is the environment. The only people who will never forgive the Minister for what he has not done are the very people whose support he asked for in years gone by. Only a few weeks ago many young people buried themselves in the mud in the Daintree to try to emphasise a point. There may be many of us in this chamber and elsewhere who would say that they were misguided, but at least they had the courage of their convictions. Where was their knight in shining armour? He was disporting himself overseas in the fleshpots of the world, demonstrating his lasting concern for the environment by making a single telephone call per day to his office in Canberra to find out where the bulldozers were and how many environmental heads may have been crushed. The record of this Government in the environmental field should be examined for what it is-a charade. No single achievement of this Government has been anything more than an extension of the programs and the policies already put in place by the previous Government. Mr Milton —What did we do for Kakadu? Mr CONNOLLY —Precisely. This Government extended Kakadu on the basis of the fundamentals established by the previous Government. The same goes for the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park. The fact is that this Government has failed to establish an environmental contaminants authority which it promised to do. It has not increased funding for kangaroo research or the monitoring of the cull. It is in fact permitting the export of Australian kangaroos of various species, the basic population of which it does not know. It has failed to co-ordinate a national tree program for soil and water conservation on which it made fundamental promises which again have not been kept. The record goes on. Perhaps the most important thing of all is this: Early last year there was a major conference to look at the problems of salinity, soil erosion and so forth on the Murray River. The Minister for Agriculture from New South Wales came away from that conference and said: 'It is Australia's major environmental problem'. I ask honourable members: Where was the Minister for Home Affairs and Environment? One thing is certain: He was not at the conference because he has failed to co-ordinate the policies on the environment and to get the other Ministers who also have programs related to the environment under his jurisdiction. He has failed the Australian community and the hundreds of thousands of young people who are genuinely involved with and concerned about the Australian environment, who expected so much from this Government but who have received so little. Mr COHEN(Robertson-Minister for Home Affairs and Environment)(1.51 a.m.) —I do not think I have heard such a pathetic speech in my 15 years in Parliament. The honourable member for Bradfield (Mr Connolly) is known in the environment movement as the chook raffler. This is the man who has invented a new whip around system of solving Government problems. His solution to solving the problem of the Daintree is for every one of the environmentalists to put in $10 and buy it back. He is an absolute joke in the environment movement. Also he is not terribly numerate. When he talked about the Franklin River he suggested that Malcolm Fraser offered the Tasmanian Government $5 billion. The figure was in fact $500m, but what is $4,500m amongst friends? Let us look at the record of this Government on the environment. In that short space of 18 months it has saved the Franklin River, stopped the damming of the river. It introduced into this chamber the greatest piece of environmental legislation in its history. It has declared Stage 2 of the Kakadu National Park. Mr Connolly —You told the States you would never apply it again. Mr COHEN —If the honourable member for Bradfield will just contain himself and not wet his pants he will be able to hear what we are going to say tomorrow morning at 11.30. He is welcome to come to the Press conference. Mr Connolly —Why don't you do it in the Parliament? Mr COHEN —Look, we listened to all your bloody drivel in quiet. Would you at least extend the same courtesy to me? The CHAIRMAN —The honourable member for Bradfield has already spoken in the debate. I ask him to be silent. Mr Ruddock —You are grossly offensive. Mr COHEN —Your presence is personally offensive to me. The Great Barrier Reef Marine Park, for which the Opposition claims credit, was introduced by the Whitlam Government. In the seven and a half years between the time when the Whitlam Government went out of power and the time we came to power the former Government managed to declare 14 per cent of the reef. In the space of 12 months that area was increased to 98.5 per cent. The Great Barrier Reef region is now the largest marine park in the world. Moreton Island has been saved. There has been another major breakthrough. The Environment Contaminants Authority Division has been set up within the Department of Home Affairs and Environment, not to mention the fact that the voluntary conservation groups have at last been given the sort of funding that they require and had asked for and which the previous Government denied them over the-- Mr Connolly —One credit. Mr COHEN —I thank the honourable member very much. We have done something. I do not know what he thought the previous five or six things were. I do not propose tonight, because of the time factor, to speak for a long time on the question of the Daintree. Tomorrow I will give a Press conference and a full statement on what we propose to do. Mr Connolly —Why not have the courage to do it in the Parliament? Mr COHEN —I ask the honourable member to contain himself. He will hear all about it. The CHAIRMAN —Order! The honourable member for Bradfield has had a go. I ask him now to let the Minister have a go. Mr COHEN —The honourable member was on Nationwide tonight. The conversation between Richard Carleton and him went something like this. Richard Carleton said : 'We understand that you are critical of the Government for not declaring the World Heritage Properties Conservation Act. Would you use it?' The honourable member replied: 'Well, it is not a matter of using it; it is a matter of talking to the Queensland Government and having consultations'. Mr Connolly —Negotiations. Mr COHEN —He says I have not done that. I have had constant consultations and negotiations with the Queensland Government. Anyhow, he said that is what he would do; he would consult with the Queensland Government. He would offer it a package of proposals and ask it not to proceed. He was then asked: 'Is that not what the Federal Government is doing?' He said: 'Yes'. He was asked: 'What is the difference between you and them?' He said: 'We are following his initiatives '. Mr Connolly —You should have done it last November. Mr COHEN —Does the honourable member really think that we sit around waiting for what he has to say about anything. Mr Connolly —At least we have some ideas which is more than you have had. Mr COHEN —Talk about standing there with one's tongue hanging out. The CHAIRMAN —Order! The honourable member for Bradfield will cease interjecting , or I will deal with him. Mr COHEN —Talk about the honourable member standing there with his tongue hanging out. I have never in my life seen anyone look such a fool. In the short space of 18 months this Government has achieved one of the best records on the environment of any government in the history of this Parliament, and I will match it against the record of the Whitlam Government as well. We have a record of enormous achievements-- Mr Connolly —Through brawls. Mr COHEN —Incidentally, we have done it with one exception without having brawls . I believe we have the strong possibility-- Mr Hodgman —What about the Franklin? Mr COHEN —Yes, we did have a brawl over the Franklin River and that was unfortunate. It is something that we want to avoid in the future. We are not in the process of taking on every State. We do not want to have the same unfortunate brawl that we had over the Franklin River. We will not have a brawl with Queensland even though honourable members opposite would love us to have one. Mr FISHER(Mallee)(1.56 a.m.) —It is disappointing that just after five minutes to two in the morning the first real debate on the estimates for the sports portfolio is taking place, and it will probably be the last debate in this area before the Parliament-- Mr Leo McLeay —It is a wonder you are still awake. Mr FISHER —It is a wonder. I agree with the honourable member. Very briefly, in the same bipartisan way in which I have sought to handle contact with the Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism (Mr John Brown) and with the sporting community, I say that I welcome the large increases in funding that have taken place in this portfolio. I welcome most of these increases because they will provide the consolidation and in many areas will modify and rationalise many of the programs to meet the new and changing additions from experience gained following the major initiatives in the sport area by the former Government which commenced seriously in 1980-81. I wish to refer to the Budget Speech of the Treasurer (Mr Keating) in which he said: The Budget provides $65 million for sport and related programs in 1984-85, an increase of $24 million over last year. I believe this statement needs to be more clearly explained and defined to the sporting community. In real terms the actual funding for sport and recreation programs is $31.2m, which is a significant rise of $8m over last year's allocation of $22.5m. In addition, $3.5m has been allocated for the administration of the Department of Sport, Recreation and Tourism. This will allow a doubling in the Department's staff so that it can reach its full compliment following its creation in March 1983. One question which must be raised with the Minister is: What role will the Government see for the size and function of this Department when tomorrow it will announce the new Australian Sports Commission? Will there be a transfer of staff from the Department to the Australian Sports Commission or will we see a major increase in personnel and administration to the disadvantage of other programs? Individual programs as well as the sports development program and programs for the disabled have been well treated in this Budget and will, I believe, provide for further extension and consolidation of these highly successful initiatives commenced by the former Government. I must say to this Government and to the Minister that they should not intervene in the administration of our sporting associations. I believe he should allow them as much autonomy as he can and let them retain the enormous voluntary input that has been so successful in Australian sport. The former Government established the Australian Institute of Sport in 1981. It has rapidly developed an outstanding reputation and status within the local and international sporting community. It has been responsibly funded. The $8.92m allocated to the AIS will ensure its further consolidation. It will provide new specialist equipment and, importantly, it will allow the introduction of new sports and decentralisation of additional sports in the Institute. As the Minister has already announced, two new sports, rowing and water-polo, will be undertaken in the AIS in Canberra. We will see the decentralisation to Queensland of squash and diving. Mr Braithwaite —Hear, hear! Mr FISHER —The honourable member for Dawson obviously believes this move is indicative of the massive participation of that State in sport and the excellent climate and facilities that that State provides for its sports programs. As I stated in the coalition policy that I announced earlier this month, it is imperative that the program for the Australian Institute of Sport become relevant to the grass roots and to the total Australian sports community. Such decentralisation as we are seeing will contribute to the accomplishment of this, as exampled by the decentralisation of hockey to Western Australia at an earlier time. The management of the Australian Institute of Sport see this as a vital program and, through more flexibility in their national training program, in their coaching and in an expansion of their talent identification scheme we shall see them making progress and achieving even greater credibility for the Institute of Sport with the total Australian sports community. I am aware of the criticism, and the Minister would also be aware of the criticism, that is coming through from the States about a perceived imbalance in allocations for capital facilities in the sporting arena. A budget of $10.8m is to be shared between the States under the international standard sports program, while, at the same time, we see an allocation of over $20m through the National Capital Development Commission for the National Sports Centre in Canberra. I support this allocation. It is necessary to ensure that the World Cup in Canberra in October 1985 will be successful. Such a development of the National Sports Centre will raise the status of this centre and ensure that the facilities in Canberra meet the sort of international commitment that we have to give for the World Cup. The Opposition believes that sport is probably one of the only real winners of this Budget and the incentive that has been provided through our success at the Commonwealth Games, the Olympic Games and, especially, in the America's Cup is one of the reasons for it. That brings me to the Budget allocation for the America's Cup that is included in the budget of the Department of Finance; $6m for this year, with an overall commitment of $30m. I shall be interested to see the annual expenditures from this allocation to see that the money is spent so that all Australians benefit and that the exceptional service requirements and public facilities which will be needed in Perth and in the City of Fremantle will be met. It is an important allocation, but I simply raise the question as I wonder how the Australian Labor Party would have responded to such an allocation if we had made such an allocation in our time in government. In this regard, I refer to a Press release by the Minister, when he was shadow Minister, on 18 December 1981, headed: 'How About the Poor?' It stated: The elite of the Australian sportsmen can easily find $8m to finance their expensive yachts for the America Cup. Most of that money will be written off as a tax dodge, no doubt. It is strange how attitudes change when one becomes a Minister in a high spending Labor government. I conclude by referring to the Australian Games which will be held in Victoria in January. We support the Australian Games. It was an initiative of ours to see that the Australian Games were commenced to fill in between the Commonwealth Games and the Olympic Games. I do not wish to be unkind to the Minister, but I am disappointed at the fiasco that occurred in Los Angeles, where the Australia Games Committee, in attempting to promote the games on a world scene, had that announcement turned into a controversy by the Minister's non-attendance. I am satisfied with his explanation, but it is disappointing that this occurred and that the impact of the Australia Games through that Press conference is now lost on the world sporting community. The Opposition supports the sports budget. We believe that it will do much to raise the status of Australia's sports people, both at an elite performance level and at grass roots. I hope that the very important international sporting events which will take place in this country over the next two years will be successful. They will be supported by the Opposition. Mr BRAITHWAITE(Dawson)(2.04 a.m.) —I regret the fact that we are debating the estimates of local government at this hour of the morning. It probably gives an indication of the importance of local government as far as the Federal Government is concerned that it should be relegated to this late hour. I join my colleague the honourable member for Mallee (Mr Fisher) in regretting that another very important subject should be discussed at so late an hour. Mr Leo McLeay —Where is the Opposition? Mr BRAITHWAITE —I ask: Where is the Minister for Territories and Local Government (Mr Uren), whose estimates we are debating? I think he would be working hard on a sawpit somewhere, sleeping it off. This again is an indication of the unimportant position to which the Government relegates local government. This is not the only indication. In over 18 months the only pure blooded debate on this issue we have had in this chamber was on a matter of urgency brought on by the Opposition. Other than that, there has been very little comment. As I recall it, the Minister was not here to sum up at the end of debate on the second reading for the one piece of legislation which concerned local government . I want to concentrate on personal income tax sharing and the general grant to local government. In spite of a particular policy directive of the Labor Party that the real value of the personal income tax share would be no less than in the previous year, its last two Budgets have seen a decrease in real value in the grant. In 1983-84, there was a decrease of $13m. With the cumulative effect this year, the figure lost to local government is $16m. Thus from personal income tax sharing, the general grant, local government has been denied $29m. Could I say-- Mr John Brown —Here he is. Mr BRAITHWAITE —I thank the Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism very much . The Minister for Territories and Local Government has appeared. The loss I have just described is merely on consumer price index figures. Local government, which probably has a better idea of the cost increases for road making and general local government activities, says that its costs are increasing at 10 per cent a year. If we take into consideration that 10 per cent we discover a greater loss from the grant than present figures indicate. I mention also the Australian Bicentennial Road Development Trust Fund. The Government has made great play of the increase over the last two years of some 43 per cent for road funding. What it does not do is compare this year's budget allocation with last year's allocation. That comparison reveals a real decrease in actual funding. In spite of that, excise from petroleum products for the 12 months is estimated to increase by $178m in 1984-85, as compared with 1983-84. But no part of that amount which forms the indexation of the ABRD levy will flow to local government. Again, local governments have been denied funds which were morally theirs, even if not provided for in the Act. Although the government was given the opportunity to agree to an amendment to make that money flow to where it was morally due, it did not take advantage of it. I mention also the review of local government expenditure which is under way at the moment. I believe that advertisements have been placed to encourage people to come forward with submissions. I certainly encourage local government to put in submissions, because I fear that if the review goes on without some comment from local government or the Opposition this Government, in the next year's Budget might walk right away from its tax sharing obligations. Now that the Minister is here-I am sorry that I had to disturb him-I ask him to give a guarantee that the expected increase of 20 per cent in personal income tax collections over the next 12 months will flow on to local government. There is some fear and concern, after Labor's promise of a couple of years ago, that tax sharing arrangements will not maintain real values. What will be the situation for the coming estimates? Will they flow on to local government as indicated? Over the last 12 months I have visited most of the States throughout Australia and met with their local government associations. One visit that I remember very well was to the western regions of Sydney. Some nine councils came together voluntarily to form the Western Sydney Regional Organisation of Councils-WSROC. Mr Ruddock —A very good organisation. Mr BRAITHWAITE —My colleague has acknowledged that this is a very good organisation because he is a member of those combined councils. I think it is a tremendous concept to encourage local government bodies to join together to share services and the expertise of their town clerks, engineers, health inspectors and planning departments. I believe that regionalism on a voluntary basis is overcoming problems that have been created over decades through amalgamations that probably should have been made but are not being made. I would recommend WSROC to any local government organisation, on a State basis or individually, to see what can be accomplished under voluntary regionalisation. If the local government organisations are big enough they can join together to make their voices heard at State and Federal levels. The other aspect of local government that I wish to concentrate on was raised by a delegation that came to us last week from New South Wales. It was indicated that 40 per cent of personal income tax sharing-that is, their general grant-was taken up by various governments imposing additional taxes or withdrawing from services. That is a tremendous impost on personal income tax. I hope that the committee of inquiry has that pointed out to it. For instance I understand that, as a result of personal income tax sharing, New South Wales withdrew from one- half funding of the pensioner rebate and put that back on to the local government people. I agree with the Minister for Territories and Local Government when he said that many States, or perhaps all States, have plundered local government by withdrawing their subsidies and services at a time when the Commonwealth has come in. What actually is required is a full review of the responsibilities that local government has acquired. That is basically shown on page 103 of Budget Paper No. 7 indicating the direct payments and tied grants. Each of these payments made to local government under any of these headings requires local government to pick up a program, service it and probably spend a lot of its own rate funds. I believe that a complete review at State and Federal level is required to understand the changed role of local government since Federation and to see just how much it bears as far as its costs are concerned for programs that belong to other forms of government. I know that the Minister has on occasions pointed to the tremendous increase made in the total grant. What is not mentioned is that most of that grant is in specific areas and certainly not in general grants. As a result of this local government is denied the right to use that money responsibly. I believe that the committee of inquiry has a very real task in coming to grips with the problems of local government particularly as they relate not only to expenditure but also on the acceptance of Commonwealth programs. When I was in Canada halfway through the year I noted that both provincial and federal governments make a grant to local government in lieu of rates forgone for Commonwealth and State buildings. I believe this is not the case in Australia. Mr Leo McLeay —How is Disneyland? Mr BRAITHWAITE —I did not see the honourable member there. I might have expected to see him swinging from a bar or in a cage. He does that very successfully in this place. I believe that there is another reason why we should examine very closely our ties with local government as far as the Federal Parliament is concerned and that is to make sure that local government has not been denied access to the proper amounts of funds to produce the services we impose. I would like a comment from the Minister particularly in relation to how people will administer the 20 per cent increase in personal income tax as far as local government sharing is concerned. Mr RUDDOCK(Dundas)(2.15 a.m.) —I am pleased to be able to participate in this debate and I welcome the fact that the Minister for Territories and Local Government (Mr Uren) is in the chamber because the matters that I intend to raise are related directly to him and the administration of his Department. I am particularly concerned about what I regard as the gross mismanagement of an area for which he has ministerial responsibility and for which appropriations are made in the Budget-namely, the Commissioner for Housing loans scheme in the Australian Capital Territory. I am sure honourable members would want to know about this matter. In order to understand why I raise this it would be useful for members to be aware of the longstanding and intense personal interest that the Minister has taken in housing and in the administration of the Commissioner for Housing loans scheme in the Australian Capital Territory. Today I pulled out a number of Press statements by the Minister which it is useful to recall. The first was issued on 29 July 1983 and states: Housing is a high priority of the Government, Mr Uren said . . . in the first person, the statement continued: 'I will soon be announcing further steps to address unmet housing needs. He went on to refer to the provision of greater opportunities for access to home ownership, and stimulate the home building industry. Honourable members will note the use of the first person when the Minister said: 'I will be announcing further steps'. On 18 August 1983 the Minister said: An exciting agreement has been reached with the ACT Division of the Housing Industry Association . . . I have indicated that 70 per cent of these houses must be sold for less than the limit for a Commissioner for Housing Loan. He was certainly aware of the scheme and its conditions. In relation to the person who is responsible for administering his housing loan scheme, the Minister released this Press statement on 4 April 1983: Brian Rope is the ACT Commissioner for Housing and has 3 1/2 years of close experience with the ACT housing situation. He has been seconded full-time to the Enquiry. On 2 December 1983 the Minister announced an increase of $400 in the upper limit applying to homes purchased under the Commissioner for Housing loans scheme. On 5 December 1983 the Minister made further announcements in relation to interest rates in the area of housing. On 22 March 1984 the Minister, aware of the situation, I believe, that the funds under the Commissioner for Housing loans scheme had not been readily advanced to people interested in purchasing homes, convened a conference and had this to say: The Minister for Territories and Local Government, Tom Uren, said today he accepted advice from today's Land and Housing Conference that changes should be made to the Commissioner for Housing Loans Scheme. He had decided that the existing $62,000 dwelling limit value would be abolished and that the maximum total loan borrowing permitted would be raised from $50,000 to $60,000. He also decided that no assistance would be given to applicants whose incomes were too high without specifying a means test. He went on further and said that the existing barrier on the applicant's cash and readily converted assets would be lifted from $15,000 to $20,000. He said that total repayments on all housing loans would be normally set at 25 per cent of household income. The definition of household income would be revised to exclude income of dependants and he made a number of other changes. The Minister announced those decisions himself; he took the decisions in relation to the scheme. On 8 June 1984 this Press release appeared: Mr Uren also announced at this afternoon's news briefing on housing that early next month he intended reconvening the Land and Housing Conference. He said that the results of the first conference were very successful indeed and that he intended to do all he could to ensure the continued success of initiatives to overcome the land and housing shortage in the ACT. If it were the position in the Australian Capital Territory that there was a scheme in which the Minister was involved, which was well administered and which was not going to get into difficulty, one could have little quarrel. But the fact is that come the Budget-- Honourable members interjecting- Mr RUDDOCK —I am disappointed that so many members are uninterested in this important question. The fact of the matter is that last month we became aware that the housing loans scheme in the Australian Capital Territory had exhausted all its funds and had exhausted all the funds-- Mrs Kelly —Under your Government nobody could buy a house. Mr RUDDOCK —I heard the honourable member for Canberra. I acknowledge her interjection because she may accept some responsibility for those who may not be able to get loans in the future either. She claims success in the administration of a scheme which ensures that those people who have needs will not be able to have them met because all the funds have been exhausted in relation to those needs. But the fact of the matter is that all the funds were exhausted last year. All the funds that were intended to be allocated this year were exhausted. The Minister for Territories and Local Government had to go cap in hand to his Cabinet colleagues to seek an additional $6m, I understand, to ensure that the outstanding applications up to 22 August could be met. Of course that means that , after 22 August, no funds are available to meet any future needs in Canberra. If that is the successful administration of a scheme the Government is sorely in wanting and the Minister himself is quite culpable in relation to this matter. The Minister has issued two statements since that time. On 31 August he issued a statement and honourable members will notice that the tense used in that statement has changed. The Minister now speaks not in the first person as he did before but in these terms: Housing has been our Government's major priority in Canberra, as we fully recognise the importance of and need for an adequate and stable supply of housing to the community. Then, of course, aware of this shortcoming he went on to say that a review is now being conducted. He said he would be seeking urgent Cabinet consideration of funding for Commissioner for Housing loans and asking for Government support for a solution. He also said that it would be inappropriate and possibly misleading to make further comment until a review and Government consideration was complete . On 3 September he announced that the government had agreed to provide additional funding for the housing scheme to honour commitments made by the Department, under the scheme he had specifically approved and taken responsibility for, to applicants who received specific approval for loans up to 22 August 1984. He fails to acknowledge that no funds are now left for anybody in the Australian Capital Territory to obtain a loan who is in need and would not be able to get funds from any other financial institution. He fails to acknowledge that people who may have purchased land and who are under threat and penalty of losing that land because they are unable to build a house on it and who may have been in expectation of a loan under this scheme will no longer be eligible to obtain a loan. There is a gross failure on the Minister's part. There is an absolute failure on the part of the Government in relation to this scheme and an absolute failure on the part of the Minister in particular. I think it is important that the Minister answers the question that I have put on notice dealing with a number of matters particularly in relation to the briefings that he personally received relating to the scheme after he authorised the new scheme, after he put the scheme in place that would ensure all the funds were exhausted. One wants to know whether or not those reports were made on a regular basis. One wants to know what he did when he got those reports. I am as certain as I stand here that the Department would have been briefing the Minister. If not, let us hear from it in the Estimates in another place as to why it fails to give briefings. That is an important matter that needs to be addressed and clarified. It is important also that the Minister tells us about the inquiry he is conducting, the nature of it, its terms of reference and when we can expect it to report. The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN(Mr Keogh) —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. (Quorum formed) Mr UREN(Reid-Minister for Territories and Local Government)(2.27 a.m.) —The honourable member for Dundas (Mr Ruddock), who was speaking just prior to the quorum being called, made certain accusations about the Commissioner for Housing loans scheme. Let me say first of all that I am always amazed when a member of the Liberal Party of Australia attacks the role played by this Government in housing, particularly in the Australian Capital Territory. No Liberal has the right to criticise the Government in this area or to shed the crocodile tears that we have seen from the honourable member. Let us examine the economy in Canberra when we took office. When we came to government the unemployment rate in Canberra was 9.2 per cent. As a result of the economic policies of the Labor Government, particularly in respect of land servicing, housing and office accommodation, the economy of Canberra is the most prosperous in the whole of Australia at present. The unemployment rate is now 4. 1 per cent and it is falling. This is what has happened under the Labor Government. Housing commencements in the last year in which honourable members opposite were in government were down 20 per cent. In the first year of the Labor Government they were up 37 per cent and this year they are up 50 per cent. Only 54 blocks of land were serviced in the last year of the previous Government's administration. We serviced 2,200 blocks in our first year of office. This year we will be servicing something like 3,600 blocks. So that is the record of the previous Government. In fact, the previous Government inherited a land bank of 7 ,500 blocks of land yet, during its term of office, very little money was invested in this area. The Fraser Government lived on the serviced land that was available in 1975. On the matter of public housing when we left government, when we were struck down in 1975-- Mr Carlton —Struck down? Mr UREN —We were struck down by the treacherous elements on the now Opposition side. In those days 18 per cent of housing in Canberra was owned by the public sector. Now it is down to 13 per cent. There was very little public housing construction until two years before we came into government. Then 300 homes were started in one year. In our first year in office we lifted the figure to 519 homes and this year it is 650 homes. As honourable members know, because of the shortage of office accommodation, the Australian Federal Police were forced to take over Havelock House, which should be used for public housing. That serious situation developed because very little office accommodation had been built during all those years. These issues are all interrelated. That is why we are attacking the situation on a broad front. By attacking it on a broad front-housing, office accommodation and land servicing-we have brought about prosperity here in Canberra. The whole private economy has responded to our Government's action. The honourable member for Dundas (Mr Ruddock) mentioned the Commissioner for Housing loans scheme. There is no doubt about it that at the beginning of last year, and particularly about half way through the year, because of rising land prices due to the previous Government's policies and a lack of land-- Mr Ruddock —Come on, Tom. You had been in office for more than 12 months by then . Mr UREN —We cannot work miracles on such matters. The honourable member said that we had been in government for 12 months. The fact is that the previous Government decimated this city's land bank and allowed land prices to run at a record level. It has to take responsibility for its actions. It is very shallow of the honourable member not to take that responsibility. He sheds crocodile tears about the Commissioner for Housing loans scheme. Towards the end of the year I encouraged the Commissioner for Housing to make funds available to people . In fact, we lifted the loan limit to $62,000. During last year we spent $18.1m on loans. Already this year we have spent $26.5m. That is a substantial increase , a 46 per cent increase on the figure for last year. The Department did overspend its allocation. This matter was brought to my notice and I submitted it to Cabinet. Cabinet approved a further allocation of $7.9m so that all commitments can be honoured to those people who have had loans approved under the Commissioner for Housing loans scheme. There is a waiting list, but there are waiting lists for subsidised housing loans in every State of Australia, be they under a conservative or a Labor government. We have set up an inquiry to be conducted by the Auditor-General, the Public Service Board and the audit section of the Department of Territories and Local Government. I will give further details to the Parliament when that inquiry is finalised. I will not be rail-roaded into giving any details on this matter beforehand. I say quite clearly that the record of this Government on land servicing, housing and public housing is outstanding. Let me quickly reply to the honourable member for Dawson (Mr Braithwaite) who raised the matter of the 2 per cent of the preceding year's collection of personal income being returned to local government. As the honourable member is aware, an inquiry is being carried out into local government finances. It will look at many of the aspects raised by the honourable member and will consider the situation in which, on the one hand, the Commonwealth has been paying moneys to local government and, on the other, the States have been syphoning off finances from local government. The honourable member reluctantly mentioned all the States, but made certain accusations against the State of New South Wales. I have received strong criticism of the attitude of the Queensland State Government, as well as the attitude of other State governments, to local governments, so let us be even-handed in this. That is one of the reasons the inquiry into local government finances is being carried out. All I am saying is that the Government's policy is to give to local government 2 per cent of the previous year's personal income tax collection and I do not see that position changing before the inquiry is completed. In fact, even after the inquiry has finished I do not see the situation changing. We have made an electoral commitment. We all know that after the review the Government will hold discussions with State and local governments on matters arising out of the inquiry. There has been no review of local government finances since the introduction of the Local Government (Personal Income Tax Sharing) Act of 1976, and the inquiry will examine the situation in depth. The honourable member mentioned the Western Sydney Regional Organisation of Councils and commended its role as a voluntary regional organisation. The Labor Government of 1972-75 enabled the formation of WSROC. It is to the great credit of WSROC that it has continued to develop in the years since, even though the Government supported by the honourable member for Dundas, whose electorate comes within the orbit of WSROC, never gave it one penny during the seven years of its Administration. Mr Braithwaite —We gave it PIT. Mr UREN —It is a voluntary organisation, and I am glad that the honourable member interjects to criticise the Fraser Government for not making any moneys available. No money was given specifically to WSROC during all those years. In our first year in office we made money available not only to WSROC specifically but also to the western Melbourne and north-western Melbourne areas. We made available $1.5m to carry out certain studies. A further $5m is being made available to those three regions this year and that funding will be extended to other regions throughout Australia, including the Hunter Valley, the south- eastern region, New South Wales and many other regions in Australia. I did not want to keep the Committee at this late hour. I just wanted to answer the criticisms levelled at the Government by those two honourable members in the early hours of the morning. Mr JOHN BROWN(Parramatta-Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism)(2.39 a.m.) —Honourable members will be pleased to know at this hour of the morning that I will be mercifully brief. My counterpart in the Opposition, the honourable member for Mallee (Mr Fisher), is a true sports lover and subjects his base political ideas to an appreciation of what this Government has done for sport, and I thank him for that. Mr Fisher —I did not go that far. Mr JOHN BROWN —I thought the honourable member did. He was very laudatory. Realising that in this Government's two Budgets funding for sport has seen an improvement of 150 per cent or more, he finds great difficulty in criticising it . I would like to answer a couple of the things he did ask about. First of all, the honourable member's questions about the Australian Sports Commission will be answered tomorrow at 11 o'clock when some of the glitterati of Australian sport, 20 of the big names in Australian sport, will gather here when the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) will have a Press conference and tell people exactly what the Sports Commission is going to do for Australian sport. I am sure that the honourable member will be hanging on every word of that. The honourable member asked a question about the America's Cup. He read a Press release of mine dated 18 December 1982 in which I referred to the fact that the Government should not be financing millionaires' yachts. I can assure the honourable member that not one cent of all of the money that has been given in this Budget to the promotion of the America's Cup in Perth in 1987 will be spent on any of the Australian challengers. That money will be spent on upgrading the facilities in Fremantle to cope with the huge increase in international and domestic tourism which will be going to Fremantle and Perth for that great event . So that $30m will be seen in lasting investments. I think that the honourable member for Mallee would agree that the America's Cup will be in Australia for a long time. There will be many challengers. So we need to provide those facilities-marinas, roads, airports, et cetera. Of course that is all important from the point of view of Australian tourism. It is quite significant, and I am sure that members of the Government have noticed, that the Opposition did not put up one speaker to question the Government's tourism policies, and neither it should. I might add that in contrast to the shadow spokesman on sport the shadow spokesman on tourism is the most negative, carping, stupid man I have ever met. All he does is criticise vehemently what is a highly successful policy in contrast with this shadow Minister, who is sufficiently good-natured and well- mannered to understand that great things have happened for sport. The only other thing to which I would like to refer is the question concerning my non-appearance at that nefarious Press gathering in Los Angeles for the Australia Games. I can assure the honourable member that if 140 countries are in Los Angeles and all call Press conferences to publicise their national games, all of whom have them by the way, except Australia, no Press would gather at all . The only Press who gathered for our conference called by Mr Barry, who is the Chairman of the Australia Games Foundation, was the Australian Press. The Press conference was so significant that the only story that emerged from it was that I was not there. Of course, I am glad to see that the honourable member has accepted my explanation that I was having a conference with our advertising agency about the new Paul Hogan advertising campaign on the west coast of America. What should be remembered, when Mr Barry makes criticisms of the Government and the Minister, as apparently he did on that day to his own detriment, is this: This Government has put up the $1.3m which has enabled the Australia Games to go ahead. The other members of that Foundation who were in Los Angeles at the time, Mr Patching, Mr Gosper and Mr Cheffers, know exactly what the score was and they are deeply embarrassed by Mr Barry's intemperate, stupid and mischievous outburst. I can assure honourable members that when the Australia Games Foundation Committee meets next week, Mr Barry will be clearly admonished by his peers. In conclusion, I think that all members of this House tonight-I know that they are all great sports lovers-will know that this Government has done more for sport to provide leadership in this country than any of its counterparts. The great effect of that is that all the States now-I take the New South Wales Budget as a good example-have responded and are also funding sport in a much more generous fashion than they have ever done before. So if the honourable member is deeply embarrassed about his Government's failure to do anything for sport, he can take solace in the fact that this Government has taken up the cudgels on behalf of all of Australia's sportsmen at every level. Proposed expenditures agreed to. Department of Communications Proposed expenditure, $426,386,000. Progress reported. House adjourned at 2.45 a.m. (Wednesday) The following notices were given: Mr Hurford to present a Bill for an Act to amend the Loan (Income Equalization Deposits) Act 1976 and for related purposes. Mr Hurford to present a Bill for an Act to provide for certain payments consequent upon the enactment of the Loan (Income Equalization Deposits) Amendment Act 1984 and related legislation. Mr Hurford to present a Bill for an Act relating to financial assistance to the States and to the Northern Territory for the purpose of housing. Mr Young to present a Bill for an Act to amend certain provisions relating to electoral and referendum advertising and to ensure that sub-section 273 (20) of the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918 applies for the purposes of the Representation Act 1983. Mr Kerin to present a Bill for an Act relating to the marketing of wheat, and for other purposes. Mr Kerin to present a Bill for an Act to amend the Wheat Marketing Act 1979. Mr Kerin to present a Bill for an Act to amend the Wheat Research Act 1957. Mr Kerin to present a Bill for an Act to amend the Canned Fruits Marketing Act 1979. Mr Peter Morris to present a Bill for an Act relating to an agreement between the Commonwealth and Tasmania in connection with a sea passenger service across Bass Strait. Dr Blewett to present a Bill for an Act to amend various laws relating to health, and for other purposes. Dr Blewett to present a Bill for an Act relating to social security, repatriation, and related purposes. Mr Barry Jones to present a Bill for an Act to amend the Petroleum (Submerged Lands) Act 1967, and for related purposes. Mr Hodgman to move- That this House (1) expresses its grave concern at the figures tabled on 7 September 1984 by the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs disclosing massive drops in European and United Kingdom migration to Australia, and (2) calls upon the Prime Minister and the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs to publicly explain now why they have repeatedly claimed that there has been no change in immigration policy since the election of the Government. The following papers were deemed to have been presented on 11 September 1984: Australian Bureau of Statistics Act-Australian Bureau of Statistics-Proposal for collection of information-1984-No. 7-New topics to be included in the population survey-October and December 1984. Defence Act-Determinations-1984- No. 36-Allowance for Loss on Sale of Furniture and effects. No. 37-Recreation Leave and Settling In and Settling Out Allowance. Export Control Act-Export Control (Orders) Regulations-1984-No. 4-Meat orders ( Amendment No. 4). Health Insurance Act-Statement of particulars of disqualification pursuant to section 19C in respect of Dr Gurcharan Singh, dated 2 September 1984. Public Service Act-Determinations-1984-Nos. 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 35, 36, 37. Remuneration Tribunals Act-Remuneration Tribunal Determination-1984/23-Holders of public office on the National Crime Authority and other bodies. The following answers to questions were circulated: (Question No. 1590) Mr Andrew asked the Minister for Primary Industry, upon notice, on 7 June 1984: For each horticultural product (a) which countries set down what export inspection is required and when were these most recently agreed, (b) what export inspection is done in Australia and (i) who does it, (ii) what are the inspectors' qualifications, (iii) where are the inspectors based, and (iv) how many inspectors are there, (c) what is the annual cost of export inspection in Australia for (i) salaries, (ii) overtime, (iii) travel expenses and (iv) other, and (d) is it a requirement for government to carry out export inspection or can this be done by (i) industry self-regulation, and/or (ii) contact inspectors employed by the industry. Mr Kerin —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (a) Importing country requirements for horticultural products are principally of a quarantine nature involving phytosanitary (plant health) considerations. Inspection and certification of Australian horticultural products for such phytosanitary (plant health) requirements are generally carried out in accordance with the International Plant Protection Convention to which Australia is signatory. As each country has individual import quarantine requirements, inspectors are provided with summary requirements for 145 countries. The summary is updated as information on new or changed requirements comes to hand. It is 700 pages long. If the honourable member would like a copy of this summary, I would be glad to arrange it. (b) (i) Export inspection is done to ensure compliance with both importing country phytosanitary requirements and, in the case of fresh and processed fruit and vegetables, standards and requirements imposed under the Export Control Act. (b) (ii) State departments responsible for agriculture carry out export inspection of fresh horticultural products on behalf of the Commonwealth, and are reimbursed for the cost of this activity. Export inspection of processed horticultural products is done by Commonwealth inspectors. (b) (iii) Commonwealth inspectors receive in-service training including periodic refresher courses. The States generally set qualification standards for their staff and may require appropriate formal qualifications. In addition, State inspectors, like their Commonwealth colleagues, are required to undergo in-service training with periodic refresher courses. (b) (iv) Inspectors are located in the major horticultural areas within the States and are responsible for covering export operations within those areas. (b) (v) There was a total of 60 full-time Commonwealth fruit inspectors as at 3 September 1984. In addition, a total of some 230 full-time and seasonal State fruit inspectors have some involvement in export inspection. (c) (i), (ii), (iii) and (iv) Total costs for export inspection of horticultural crops in 1983-84, were $4,202,000 and budgeted costs for 1984-85 are $4,537,600. Of this budgeted figure, $1,575,300 is attributed to salaries, $ 75,000 to overtime, $261,300 to travel and $2,626,000 to a category including a $2,584,000 reimbursement to the States. (d) Export inspection arrangements and standards for quality and packaging are the subject of a comprehensive review in consultation with industry and State departments concerned with horticulture. The question of industry self-regulation, or the use of contract inspectors is being addressed as part of the review process. It is a requirement under the International Plant Protection Convention that phytosanitary certification be on a government to government basis by duly authorised officers. (Question No. 1594) Mr Blanchard asked the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 21 August 1984: (1) Is it a fact that there has been a fall in the number of apprenticeship vacancies available in (a) Australia and (b) the Defence Force in 1983-84 compared with 1982-83. (2) Will he take steps to ensure that the Defence Force leads the way to recovery by increasing the number of apprenticeship vacancies in ensuing years. Mr Scholes —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) I draw the honourable member's attention to the news release (157/84) by the Federal Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations on 4 July 1984 which shows that, following the introduction on 1 March 1984 of a $19m Federal Government package to encourage employers to take on more apprentices, there has been an upward trend in the number of apprenticeship vacancies available such that this year's intake in Australia should exceed 40,000 compared with 34,000 in 1982-83. (2) Within the Defence Force there has been a fall of 92 in the number of apprenticeship vacancies available in 1983-84 compared with 1982-83. The number of Defence Force apprenticeships offered at any time reflects the assessed operational/Defence requirement. (Question No. 1637) Mr Ruddock asked the Minister for Primary Industry, upon notice, on 21 August 1984: (1) How many houses held, for any purpose, by the Minister's Department or any agency or statutory authority responsible to the Minister in the Australian Capital Territory were vacant on 18 June 1984. (2) Does the Minister's Department control any other premises in the Australian Capital Territory which are presently unused which could be occupied for residential purposes; if so, (a) where are these premises, (b) what were their previous uses and (c) are there any plans for their future use. Mr Kerin —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) Neither my Department nor statutory authorities responsible to me hold any houses in the ACT. (2) No. (Question No. 1770) Mr Howard asked the Special Minister of State, upon notice, on 10 September 1984: (1) Has he directly, or indirectly, requested the Australian Electoral Commission to expedite its inquiry into the redistribution proposals in New South Wales. (2) If so, is this request aimed at enabling the Government to call an election even earlier than 1 December 1984 in order to prevent the report of Commissioner Costigan being presented to the Parliament before its dissolution for an early election. (3) Why has the Electoral Commission gone to the lengths of hearing objections in Sydney to 20 proposed electoral divisions on Monday, 10 September 1984, and a further 14 on Tuesday, 11 September 1984, both being days on which the Parliament is sitting in Canberra. (4) Did he play any role in encouraging the Commission to hold its hearings on Parliamentary sitting days, even though it is not required to report before 5 October 1984. Mr Young —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) No. (2) In light of (1), question does not arise. (3) The question of the timing of meetings of an augmented Electoral Commission to hear objections against proposed redistributions is, as provided for by sections 71 and 72 of the Commonwealth Electoral Act, a matter for the Chairman of the Electoral Commission to determine. (4) No.