Tuesday, 10 September 1985 Mr SPEAKER (Hon. Harry Jenkins) took the chair at 2 p.m., and read prayers. Mr HOWARD(Bennelong-Leader of the Opposition) —Mr Speaker, I desire to inform the House that the Federal Parliamentary Liberal Party has elected me as its Leader. I am pleased to inform the House that the honourable member for Menzies, Mr Neil Brown, has been elected as Deputy Leader. I also inform the House that the honourable member for Indi, Mr Ewen Cameron, has been appointed as Whip and the honourable member for Wakefield, Mr Neil Andrew, has been appointed as Deputy Whip. I seek leave to make a short statement. Leave granted. Mr HOWARD —It is naturally a very great honour to be elected to lead the most successful political party in Australia's history. I start my term as Leader of the Federal Parliamentary Liberal Party by reaffirming the importance that I as Leader of the Liberal Party attach to a close and harmonious coalition with my colleagues in the National Party of Australia. In the past the partnership between the Liberal and National parties has been one of the most successful in Australian political history. I would like also at the commencement of my remarks to promise the Parliament that, as in the past, I will offer firm and aggressive opposition to the policies and performance of the Hawke Government. I do not expect to receive any quarter at all from honourable members opposite and I can say to them that none will be given in return by us. It will be my goal as Leader of the Opposition to present, at the next election, a clear choice between the policies of the present Government and those offered by the coalition. Consistent with this, I shall continue my past practice of being willing to give credit to government decisions and initiatives where that credit is due. I recognise that the Australian public expects and demands of an Opposition a willingness to do this and a preparedness, where possible, to find common ground with the Government on those issues which are not in conflict with our basic philosophy and attitudes. There are a number of issues on which I believe that that common ground, over time, can be found. I refer to our common concern about matters flowing from the drug menace, our common concern about matters relating to organised crime and our common concern, whatever our political attitudes, about the threat posed to the export markets of Australia by the predatory trading policies of such blocs as the European Economic Community and the damage that those practices are doing to the economic interests and well-being of the Australian community. So it will be my intention, in aggressively opposing the policies of the Hawke Government, to be prepared when occasion demands it to find common ground and in that fashion to present a balanced and purposeful Opposition. In that manner we will earn and retain the respect of the Australian people, so that on the next occasion when we present ourselves to the electorate we will be elected to the Treasury benches of this country. Mr HAWKE(Wills-Prime Minister) —by leave-I congratulate the honourable member for Bennelong (Mr Howard) on his election to the leadership of the Liberal Party of Australia and, therefore, on his assumption of the leadership of the Opposition. It is sometimes said that being in opposition involves very little responsibility for the governance of this country. That is a view that I do not accept. The system of parliamentary government of which we are part and to which we are all dedicated involves the very real assumption that there is an appropriate role for the Opposition, and the procedures and courtesies of this House recognise the important role of the Leader of the Opposition. I therefore congratulate the Leader on his election and we look forward to an honest and constructive relationship with him. As the Leader of the Opposition has said, there are significant differences between us and they will become apparent in the weeks and months ahead-perhaps even in the few minutes ahead. I am delighted to hear the new Leader of the Opposition reiterate what he said upon his not entirely expected assumption of the high office he now holds, that is, that he will be prepared to recognise the achievements of this Government. Given the continuing record of this Government, particularly in the areas where he was such a conspicuous failure, as Treasurer, I look forward to a continuing stream of plaudits from him. Mr HAWKE(Wills-Prime Minister) —I advise the House that the Government Whip (Mr Humphreys) has taken leave of absence from the House for the remainder of this sitting period in order to serve as a parliamentary observer at the United Nations General Assembly. During his absence, the honourable member for McMillan (Mr Cunningham) will act as Government Whip. Mr HAWKE(Wills-Prime Minister) —I move: That this House expresses its deep regret at the death on 31 August 1985 of Sir Frank Macfarlane Burnet, places on record its recognition and esteem for his meritorious public service and unique contribution to medical science and tenders its profound sympathy to Sir Macfarlane's widow and family. In this House, we customarily offer condolences following the death of parliamentary colleagues and friends formerly of this House. It is un- usual-we have only rarely done so-to move motions of condolence for distinguished Australians who have not sat in this House. It is indicative of the stature of those for whom such motions are moved that the last two so honoured in this way were Sir Owen Dixon, perhaps Australia's greatest jurist, and Sir John Monash, Australia's most able soldier. It is my sad duty but also my privilege today to propose to the House a similar motion for Sir Macfarlane Burnet. As politicians, each of us works with a vision of a future Australia in mind. We try to make that vision real by reforms, innovations, adjustments and changes. For all of us that vision means a better life for ordinary Australians. However, few, if any of us, can hope for achievements in producing a better life for ordinary Australians which could match those of Sir Macfarlane Burnet. When we talk about Sir Macfarlane, we are dealing with an Australian with a large and ambitious vision. His work has made life safer and better for generations of people in this country and right around the world. He gave his life to service-service to his profession, to his talents and to his country. That work was done quietly and with modesty, but we all know that we have been enriched by his life and his work. We are all familiar with the achievements of Sir Macfarlane's career. It was a career that was distinguished by intellectual brilliance, unswerving diligence, dedication and a determination to push out the boundaries of medicine and push forward the limits of science. The range of Sir Macfarlane's work was daunting. He work in field after field, innovating and experimenting and improving the state of science wherever he set his mind. We remember today especially his pioneering work in the study of viruses, the production of vaccines and the investigation of diseases such as influenza, poliomyelitis and Murray River encephalitis and his research into auto-immune diseases. Sir Macfarlane's unique talents were fully recognised by his peers. His Nobel Prize, his Royal Medal from the Royal Society of London, his Presidency of the Australian Academy of Science, his knighthood, his Order of Merit and his knighthood in the Order of Australia were all due and proper recognition of his quite outstanding service. It is also proper that this House should recognise Sir Macfarlane Burnet's service to his country. Australia is fortunate indeed to have enjoyed the benefits of his research, his teaching, his guidance and his experience. Sir Macfarlane Burnet brought both pride and distinction to his endeavours and to his country. We have lost one of our most intelligent, most thoughtful and most incisive countrymen. We cannot make up that loss but we can indicate to Sir Macfarlane Burnet's widow and family, to his colleagues and to the scientific community that we in this House respect, honour and commemorate what he did for all of us. Mr HOWARD(Bennelong-Leader of the Opposition) —The Opposition warmly supports the condolence motion moved by the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke). It is, as the Prime Minister said, very rare indeed for a condolence motion of this character to be moved. I say to the Prime Minister and to the House that the choice of a condolence motion for the late Sir Macfarlane Burnet is well and truly warranted, given the enormous and conspicuous contribution that that man made to attacking disease and to building and exemplifying the reputation of scientific and medical excellence in research on the part of Australians all around the world. The Prime Minister has itemised his contribution to medical science and research from the early 1930s to the late 1950s-a span of 30 years in which he was a leader in the science of virology, and particularly influenza research. His work first as Assistant Director and then as Director of the Walter and Eliza Hall Institute of Medical Research is legendary in medical research in Australia. Born in September 1899, Sir Macfarlane attended Geelong College, where he was dux, and he won a residential scholarship to Melbourne University's Ormond College. That commenced a career probably unmatched by other Australians in the field of medical research. His reputation and respect for his integrity were world wide. He received numerous honours, including, as the Prime Minister reminded us, the Royal Society and Copley medals, and, of course, the Nobel Prize. He was a foundation fellow of the Australian Academy of Science and served as its President from 1965 to 1969, He was knighted in 1951 and was awarded the Order of Merit in 1958, and he became a Knight in the Order of Australia in 1977. On behalf of the Opposition, I join very warmly in remembering and honouring this remarkable man's contribution to the relief of suffering amongst his fellow human beings, his contribution to medical research and the distinguished contribution that he made to the intellectual and research life of Australia. I join the Prime Minister in conveying our sympathy to Sir Macfarlane's wife, his two daughters, his son and his eight grandchildren. Mr SINCLAIR(New England-Leader of the National Party of Australia) —On behalf of the members of the National Party, I join with the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) and the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard) in what is an almost unique tribute by this place to one who was not within the general family of those involved in the direct world of politics. It is particularly appropriate that there should be a tribute to one who made such a notable contribution through his life to the advances of knowledge in the field in which he was so expert. There is little doubt that, as a Nobel laureate and as Director of the Walter and Eliza Hall Institute of Medical Research, Sir Macfarlane Burnet made a tremendous contribution not only to his own field of specialist technology but also to the better understanding of mankind. Sir Macfarlane was a remarkable man in every way. I think that all Australians can not only walk a little healthier but also feel a little taller for the memory of one who contributed so much to the enhancement of the status of Australians and of Australia in the field of science. Sir Macfarlane, at one stage of his life, had a theory that when the scientists of the world work on war, then war is inevitable. Perhaps in this place it is not inappropriate to say that if politicians worked a little harder in the cause of peace, the reverse might be true. Certainly he was a great Australian and one who made an enormous contribution not only to his own field but also to the status of this country. On behalf of the members of my Party, I extend our sympathy to his widow, his children and his grandchildren. Dr BLEWETT(Bonython-Minister for Health) —In paying tribute to Sir Macfarlane Burnet I pay tribute to a man whose many achievements in the world of medicine and science immortalised his name during his own lifetime. That lifetime ended 10 days ago when Sir Macfarlane died peacefully at Port Fairy, Victoria, on 31 August, after a long illness, just three days short of his eighty-sixth birthday. Much has been written and spoken about this unique Australian in the past 10 days and I do not wish merely to repeat his curriculum vitae and list all the honours bestowed on him. However, I would like to place on record my appreciation of the contribution made by Sir Macfarlane to the Health and well-being of every Australian through his work in the fields of biology, immunology and virology. In doing so, I am sure I speak for every member of this House. Sir Macfarlane Burnet was a man who gave a very great deal to the advancement of science in Australia. Through his work over more than half a century he enabled Australia to take credit for substantial contributions to the sum of world scientific and medical knowledge. One of the distressing things about the arts and the sciences-in fact, about so many fields of achievement in Australia-is the number of eminent and potentially eminent people who leave this country and do not come back. True, the scholar or the artist-in whatever field-cannot be constrained or feel constrained by national or geographic or cultural boundaries. He or she must follow his or her bent unconfined by such boundaries. Sir Macfarlane Burnet was an international figure with an international reputation, much travelled and much respected beyond Australia's boundaries. But he was devoted to Australia and gave of all his considerable talents in the service of his own country. Parochial is a term that could never be used to describe such a man, but it is of note that he was born in Victoria, educated in Victoria, worked in Victoria and, last month, died in Victoria. To generations of Australians working in science, and particularly in medical science, Sir Macfarlane's greatness was measured in many achievements and in many areas, as befits a man with the unblinkered mind of the true scientific scholar. To the Australian public, however, he is identified primarily with the Walter and Eliza Hall Institute where he was Assistant Director from 1928 to 1944 and Director from 1944 until his retirement in 1965. It was there, within the Institute, that he pursued those wide-ranging interests which were responsible for major advances in the health of a great many Australians. His earlier work on influenza, Q fever, poliomyelitis and Australian encephalitis and his later work in immunology has been of lasting public importance. So many people in this country have reason to be eternally grateful to Sir Macfarlane, as do so many successive Federal governments to whom he gave freely of his energy and talents. He left his mark especially on the National Health and Medical Research Council which this year will celebrate its 50th anniversary and its 100th session. Sir Macfarlane's association with the council began virtually when the council began. It will be a matter for regret by all involved that he will not be present at those anniversary celebrations. I regret that my own personal acquaintance with him was slight, so I conclude with a fitting quotation from Sir Gustav Nossal, his successor at the Walter and Eliza Hall Institute, who knew him well: Let us recap the unique spectrum of Sir Macfarlane's gifts: Originality, imagination, intuition, native honesty, conceptual breadth and daring and, yes, wisdom of an almost spiritual kind. No-one who has known him will lightly apply the adjective `great' to another. No one who loves Australian science will ever forget his example. I extend my condolences and sympathy to his family and friends. Mr PEACOCK(Kooyong) —I am very pleased to be given the opportunity to speak very briefly on this motion. The Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) has detailed the extraordinary record of one of Australia's greatest citizens. It is unusual for a non-parliamentarian to be honoured in this way, and no one in this century stands greater than Sir Macfarlane Burnet. It is not for me to detail all of those matters already referred to. The honours were there: The Senior Order of Merit in the Commonwealth, a double Knight, a Nobel prize winner-but of far more importance to Sir Macfarlane Burnet were the actual achievements which flowed through to humanity itself. The quotation of the Minister for Health (Dr Blewett) of Sir Gustav Nossal sums it up: it is very rare that one can refer to greatness in others when one considers the life of Sir Macfarlane Burnet. It is therefore rare that one can say with such honesty that a person's loss is incalculable. He was an essentially shy man. His inherent modesty was perhaps missed by many because of the firmness of conviction and the clarity with which he expressed his thoughts. Those who knew him will know what I mean when I mention that, unless one was aware of the enormity of his achievement, when listening to him one would have thought that one was talking with an extraordinarily brilliant man, but never was a reference dwelt upon, let alone made, to the great achievements in his life. I was very fortunate that he became a close friend of mine when he married Hazel Jenkin and moved to only a few doors from me in Canterbury. His widow is a great Australian who served my predecessor in the electorate of Kooyong and served me as a Liberal-not for Mac the taints of party politics but the expression of views privately and so frequently. On many occasions I spent time with them only a few doors from my home. I and perhaps a couple of others in this House are fortunate to have been able to share some rare moments with one of our greatest Australians. He lived for this nation. No great Australian of his standing can compare with the diligence with which he sought to serve Australia for no personal gain and no ventures overseas for better material reward. I am honoured to have been given the opportunity to express a few thoughts and to pass my condolences to Hazel and his family. Mr BARRY JONES(Lalor-Minister for Science) —I pay tribute to Sir Macfarlane Burnet's extraordinary contribution to world science through Australia. Our other Nobel prize- winners in the sciences-Sir Howard Florey, Sir John Eccles and Sir John Cornforth-all left Australia to achieve recognition overseas. Sir Macfarlane made a deliberate choice to stay in this country and declined a chair at Harvard as early as 1943. In his long life he achieved greater world-wide recognition than any of our citizens. He revolutionised the study of viral disease, was a pioneer of biotechnological research and made the decisive contribution to the study of immune reactions. Unlike many contemporary scientists, he rejected a narrow specialisation and took an intense interest in the social and philosophical implications of medical and scientific discoveries. Sir Macfarlane has left a decisive mark on the teaching of medical science in Australia and this will be a permanent memorial. He had been for many years, in my judgment, and leaving politics aside, the greatest living Australian. Most of his working life was spent at the Walter and Eliza Hall Institute of Medical Research in Melbourne, where he served as Director from 1944 to 1965. He was an unabashed Australian patriot, who took great pride that his achievements took place in his native land. He made Melbourne, as his successor Sir Gustav Nossal said, `a Mecca for medical research', and apart from his own Walter and Eliza Hall Institute, his influence, ideas and drive are reflected in the other components of the `Parkville Strip'-the Florey, Murdoch and Ludwig institutes. In 1958 he received the Order of Merit and was the first Australian so honoured. At his death, as the honourable member for Kooyong (Mr Peacock) said, he was the senior member of the Order. This was followed in 1959 by the Copley Medal, the highest award of the Royal Society. In 1960 he shared the Nobel Prize for Medicine with Sir Peter Medawar for their work on acquired immunological tolerance. Burnet created the theoretical framework in a new and major area of science, while Medawar provided the experimental proof. Sir Macfarlane published more than 250 scientific papers in the areas referred to by the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) and the Minister for Health (Dr Blewett). Inspired as a child by the writings of H. G. Wells, he had a strong urge to popularise and generalise. There were some major ironies in his career. A super-specialist, who devoted his life to investigating the smallest forms of life, he rejected reductionism and always strove to find the broadest verifiable level of generalisation and ventured bravely, and sometimes mistakenly, into broad social areas in which he was untrained. He had a very shy and retiring personality but welcomed any opportunity to speak, write and celebrate the achievements of Australian science, including his own. His industry was awesome: In retirement, between the ages of 69 and 80, he wrote 13 major books. He also delivered the Australian Broadcasting Commission Boyer lectures for 1966, and wrote some important essays. One of my most vivid recollections was a 1969 television program featuring Sir Macfarlane Burnet and Spike Milligan in dialogue. Each began from utterly different premises and knowledge. Milligan was the man of instinct, a passionate, tormented genius, close to madness, with a wild self-lacerating humour, and a brooding sense of chaos underlying human experience. Burnet saw the world through the eyes of a self-contained rationalist and experimentalist, emotionally contained, sharply focused, suspicious of the metaphysical, analytical and inquiring. They seemed an odd couple. At first Sir Mac was distinctly uneasy at having agreed to appear with Spike. However, after a few minutes, the mixture began to work and he started to laugh. Each recognised the utter integrity of the other, could see how the other's mind worked and anticipate reactions. Starting, as they did, from diametrically opposed bases, they converged in their major concerns about the world-for peace and opposition to nuclear weapons, eliminating third world poverty, the welfare of children, quality of life issues, including education and access to the arts, and the problems of drug dependence. He died just before his eighty-sixth birthday, and I express some momentary disappointment that this event passed with such slight coverage in the media, perhaps understandable at the height of the football season. His name will live in the history of world science. Mr MacKELLAR(Warringah) —As an agricultural scientist and recently as the shadow Minister for Science and as a man who met Sir Macfarlane Burnet I would like to associate myself with this motion because this special occasion serves to remind us that the man whose memory we honour today on behalf of the Australian people was a man, as we have heard, of unique and superlative achievements. As Australia adjusts its industrial culture, its economy and its national outlook to a future based on the necessity for a strong achievement in science and technology, today, in this Parliament, we record our understanding and appreciation of his achievements and give tribute to the greatest of our men of science. I think it is also fitting that we go beyond that to reflect on those qualities and characteristics which so illuminated Sir Macfarlane's life. It is a paradox which grows directly out of the nature of Sir Macfarlane Burnet and his work that his great scientific reputation was unaccompanied by any zest or interest in personal publicity. He so obviously merged the culture of a great scientific curiosity, so fully sustained throughout his life, with the most fundamental of social activities-the enjoyment of a rich and satisfying family life. The activity in one dimension drew strength from and reinforced the other. As a consequence, he was a very private person. Basically, although his work placed him in the centre of the community of world science, Sir Macfarlane never ceased to be an Australian. As we have heard from the Minister for Science (Mr Barry Jones), he had a crucial choice to make in 1943 when he was faced with the opportunity of going to Harvard. Should he accept Harvard or stick to Australia? That was his challenging decision. As we know, he decided to turn down the Harvard offer and stay in Australia. So his decision to base his scientific efforts in Australia and not to work in the midst of a world research centre was a deliberate decision to establish Australia as a world centre for medical science. It was a courage born of quiet confidence in his own distinctive scientific genius which made that decision a triumphantly successful one. As we have all heard, his base was the Walter and Eliza Hall Institute. He gave great lustre to that institution. He was an immensly courageous man. At the height of the controversy during the introduction of myxomatosis he and two other scientists had themselves injected with a severe strain of the myxomatosis virus to prove that it was not harmful to human beings. That bold and imaginative action restored public confidence. He graciously gave of his time to the promotion of science in the newly independent Commonwealth countries. As a scientist he truly wished to see our nation enlarge its confidence in itself by national effort in science and technology. He saw in our national respect for such endeavour the real future for Australian progress and confidence. In his life's work and example he truly sought to make that general vision a national reality. As we reflect on Sir Macfarlane Burnet in this Parliament we should take to our hearts something of that outlook. Mr Speaker, I extend my sympathies to his widow and family at their personal loss. May their knowledge of our gratitude as a nation truly leave them certain that his 86 years were as rare a life as ever graced the twentieth century. Dr THEOPHANOUS(Calwell) —I would like to associate myself with this motion and extend my sympathies to the relatives and widow of Sir Macfarlane Burnet. It is rare in the twentieth century and, indeed, in the whole history of science for there to be some scientists who are capable of providing a conceptual revolution, that is to say, who are capable of taking established ideas, turning them around and providing that vital breakthrough which is necessary if science is to advance. The advancement of science through such revolutionary breakthroughs makes scientific endeavour one of the great human endeavours. In this way Sir Macfarlane Burnet's contribution was revolutionary. He revolutionised the whole undertaking of immunology, of viruses. As has been mentioned, in so doing he also provided the foundations for the pursuit of medicine in Australia, because, rather than export his discoveries and approach other countries, Sir Macfarlane Burnet established them here in Australia. Last week the Australian Broadcasting Corporation's radio show, The Science Show, broadcast speeches by Sir Macfarlane in which he expressed the reasons why he decided to stay in Australia and to help establish not only the Institute but also medicine and medical research as a vital feature of the scientific community of this country. The contribution he made, not only to human scientific endeavour, but also to establishing science, and medical science in particular, in this country is awesome and, obviously, the greatest such contribution to have been made in the history of Australia. Mr SPEAKER —I am sure that the House will allow me a few moments to say a few words in support of this motion, As most honourable members are aware, I have trained in both the disciplines of medicine and of science. I did so in Victoria, at a time when great changes were occurring in those disciplines and when there were a number of world greats in various fields of endeavour such as bacteriology, physiology and other areas of the sciences, including medicine. As someone who worked in the research area as a young man, I must confess that the examples of someone such as Sir Macfarlane Burnet were a great inspiration to young scientists and medical trainees in Victoria in looking to the worlds of research in places such as the Walter and Eliza Hall institute, the Baker Institute and so on. I felt that, as Speaker and as a member of those disciplines, I could not but join in paying respect to a truly great world figure and Australian. Honourable members-Hear, hear! Question resolved in the affirmative, honourable members standing in their places. Mr SPEAKER —I inform the House of the following promotions in respect of the senior staff attending the chamber. Mr I. C. Harris, formerly Clerk Assistant (Committees), has been promoted to First Clerk Assistant. Mrs L. Simons, who has been Acting Serjeant-at-Arms since the beginning of the year, has been permanently promoted to that position. Honourable members-Hear, hear! Mr HOWARD —I refer the Prime Minister to the key role played by section 45D of the Trade Practices Act in defending the free choice of both employers and employees in the current Mudginberri abattoir dispute. In view of the crucial role played by section 45D in that dispute, will the Government abandon its obsequious commitment to the Australian Council of Trade Unions that this section be repealed? Mr HAWKE —There is no such obsequious commitment. I think it is strange that the new Leader of the Opposition should have asked his maiden question in the area which characterises more than anything else the abysmal failure which he exhibited when he had responsibility in this area. This Government has shown that the policies we have applied in the area of industrial relations have been conspicuously successful where the Leader of the Opposition failed. I refer not simply to the statistics, as important as they are-under the policies pursued by this Government in the area of industrial relations we have had the lowest level of industrial disputes for 17 years-but also to the fact that in the conduct of those industrial relations, allied and central as they are to our overall macroeconomic policies, we have produced a situation in which workers have been able to enjoy, as they should, a maintenance of their real living standards and to sustain those dependent upon them and, importantly in that same situation, those who employ them have had returned to a profit level which they never experienced under the previous Government and have taken the profit levels back to a situation which existed last at the end of the 1960s. That is the practical outcome of our approach to industrial relations. The Leader of the Opposition should have learnt in his period of government that this concentration upon the tactic of confrontation and the technique of trying to impose penalties to produce better relations simply does not work. This Government will rest on its record in the industrial relations field. The overwhelming majority of Australian employers approve of our approach as against the honourable gentleman's discredited approach. Ms FATIN —Is the Minister representing the Minister for Education aware that a number of young people who choose to leave school at the early age of 16 do so to enable them to claim the unemployment benefit? Can the Minister say whether the Priority One initiatives announced by the Prime Minister and the Treasurer in the Budget recently will encourage young people to stay at school and complete their education? Mr DAWKINS —I acknowledge the long interest in this question by the honourable member for Brand. Of course, it is impossible to say how many young people leave school with the primary objective of receiving unemployment benefit, but I think it is true that there are some young people for whom the prospect of receiving a higher payment from the unemployment benefit rather than the education allowance by staying at school has contributed to the unsatisfactory level of participation in our education system. Therefore, it was the decision of the Government, announced in this year's Budget, to move over the next couple of years towards removing the gap between the amount paid to those in the education system and the amount paid to those who leave the education system without finding a job. We know that the earlier young people leave school the fewer are their chances of obtaining and retaining a job. That is why we have taken this action to provide an extra encouragement for young people to remain at school. I indicated that the honourable member for Brand has had a long interest in this question. Indeed, I recall that she organised a meeting in 1983 at one of the technical and further education colleges in Rockingham in her electorate. It was my pleasure to visit that college with her to discuss these and related questions with the staff at that college. A very heavy responsibility resides with staff in schools and within TAFE colleges to inform young people of these forthcoming arrangements and to encourage young people to take advantage of these new opportunities and to remain in the education system longer. Mr HUNT —Will the Minister for Primary Industry confirm that, because of his failure to make Commonwealth meat inspectors available at Mudginberri, a $2.5m contract with Taiwan has been cancelled? Will he ensure that the 600 tonnes of meat now in store at Mudginberri receive export clearance as a matter of urgency so that a further sale to Taiwan is not lost? Mr KERIN —I deny the first part of the honourable member's question. With respect to the second part of his question, the amount involved is not 600 tonnes; it is 450 tonnes. The people who have been running around with the story that the Government has not been prepared to uphold the law on this issue now wish me to break the Export Control Act. That is how nonsensical it has become. Whatever anti-union line the National Farmers Federation or whoever else wants to run with, the Opposition runs with. This whole dispute has been exploited miserably for political purposes. The issue is a dispute between the Australasian Meat Industry Employees Union and Mr Pendarvis or the Meat and Allied Trades Federation of Australia. The Commonwealth Government tried on four occasions to get inspectors to cross the picket line. The principal dispute was not between Mr Pendarvis and the Department of Primary Industry through its Export Inspection Service. If honourable members want to go into the law of that, I draw their attention to the judgment of Mr Justice Neaves. The whole question of the export of the 450 tonnes now in cold store in Darwin has to be given some background. Mr Pendarvis killed and processed that meat totally on the assumption that it was for domestic consumption. The meat is now in a frozen condition. It cannot be stained for pet purposes and it cannot be given an export accreditation certificate when it is in a frozen form and when it has not been inspected properly for export inspection. The whole idea of sending this meat abroad puts at risk this Government's good record following the Woodward Royal Commission into the Australian Meat Industry under the previous Government. I will not be party to breaking the law, nor am I prepared to ruin the reputation that we have built up since the previous Government nearly destroyed all our meat trade. Mr DUNCAN —Is the Minister for Foreign Affairs aware of the communique issued by the Foreign Ministers of the Indo-Chinese countries and the reported retirement of Pol Pot from his position as leader of the Khmer Rouge? Do these developments suggest some possibility of movement in the situation in Indo-China and specifically in Cambodia? Finally, will the Minister outline what the prospects of settlement in Indo-China are against the background of these developments and the Australian Government's continuing efforts to facilitate a solution to a major regional and international problem? Mr HAYDEN —There have been a number of interesting developments in the past several weeks concerning Cambodia. I believe they reflect a qualitative change in certain important respects. In that regard some of those developments are to be welcomed because they seem encouraging. However, in connection with developments in that part of the world, one must always bear in mind that progress is extraordinarily slow and that often hopes held are later found to have been dashed. I trust that is not the case in this instance. The first issue I refer to is the Indo-China Ministers' communique from Phnom Penh of 15 and 16 August. That communique was qualitatively different in that it contained apparent conciliatory elements. It appeared to stress the modalities for encouraging dialogue rather than making a dogmatic stand. One rather trusts that various interested parties will be able to encourage Vietnam to continue responding politically in a way which will allow further elaboration of views being put by various interested parties affected by developments in Cambodia. Not the least of those interested parties would be Vietnam. Accordingly, that statement is being studied very closely by the Australian Government. The more recent statement concerned the retirement of Pol Pot. He is to be replaced by Son Sen. The question is whether that change is a substantive one, or whether Pol Pot will retain a powerful manipulative authority within the Khmer Rouge; only time will establish that. He will still be influential as chairman of the Technical Office for National Defence, but one may be able to conclude with some confidence that this shift implies that the Khmer Rouge believes Pol Pot to be an obstacle to progress towards settlement of the problem in that unhappy part of the world. I particularly applaud the Association of South East Asian Nations Foreign Ministers' proposals for proximity talks and compliment the Foreign Minister of Malaysia, Tengku Rithauddeen, for the contribution he made in the elaboration of this particular proposal. His earlier version of a somewhat modified proposition for proximity talks seemed to hold out much hope. Accordingly, the ASEAN Foreign Ministers have built upon that proposal. I have noted comments from Vietnamese authorities that they are interested in the proposal put forward by Tengku Rithauddeen and, therefore, we would encourage further refinement of that proposal. The efforts of Indonesian Foreign Minister, Dr Mochtar, deserve special mention. He has been indefatigable in his efforts to establish some sort of productive dialogue between Vietnam and the other Indo-Chinese countries and the ASEAN countries. As a result of his persistent industry in this area it was announced recently that talks will commence between the United States and Vietnam on the very sad issue of American personnel missing in action in the Vietnam war which concluded in 1975. One rather hopes again that this is an indication of some sorts of qualitative improvements in the general political atmospherics affecting the Indo-China situation. Finally, I stress that there is still a long way to go before anyone can be confident that the path to resolution of this problem has been set firmly; a very long way indeed. But there are qualitative changes which are very important, and in all of this I think we can be fairly satisfied that Australia has made a not unimportant contribution and looks forward to continuing to do so. Mr N. A. BROWN —Is the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations aware of an Australian Council of Trade Unions report that warns about the threat to entrenched union power resulting from the growth of non-unionised contract labour? Is the ACTU correct about that threat? Will the Minister assure the House that the Government will not implement recommendation 19 of the Hancock Committee of Review into Australian Industrial Relations Law and Systems which entails the virtual conscription of independent contractors into the union movement? Mr WILLIS —I am aware that there is such a report around, but I have not seen it. Therefore, I cannot comment on it. The recommendation of the Hancock Committee in relation to independent contractors, like all other recommendations, is a matter for consideration by the Government at the present time, and eventually we will make a full response to all of those recommendations. Mrs DARLING —I draw to the attention of the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations the great interest shown by the community in the Budget youth training strategy, entitled Priority One: Young Australia, some aspects of which the Minister for Trade addressed this afternoon. Can the Minister give me and the House further details of the Government's record in creating jobs and reducing unemployment, and how this record compares with that of the previous Government? Mr WILLIS —It is the fact that this Government's record of employment growth is very impressive and I can understand honourable members opposite not wanting to listen to it. We have had two years of strong economic growth and, associated with that, two years of strong employment growth, with 410,000 new jobs. I say especially to the new Leader of the Opposition that he should take particular note of the fact that in the last 12-month period for which one can make international comparisons the rate of employment growth in this country has been the highest rate of growth of any country in the Western developed world-higher even than the United States, which was the previous pacesetter. Unemployment has fallen from its peak of 10.4 per cent to 8.2 per cent. That has meant a reduction of 33,000 in the number of teenage unemployed. We have reversed the long term trend of declining employment for teenagers and have seen a growth of over 30,000 jobs for teenagers in the last two years. Of course the traineeship proposal to which the honourable member referred will help considerably to increase the number of teenage jobs. This situation compares very well with the record of the previous Government which, as honourable members will recall, created 70,000 fewer jobs in 7 1/4 years than we have created in 2 1/4 years. Under that Government unemployment rose by 370,000, from 5 1/2 per cent to 10 per cent. Teenage employment fell by over 30,000 and teenage unemployment increased by over 100,000 in their period of office, for most of which time the present Leader of the Opposition was Treasurer. It is also interesting at this time to look at what happened during that particular segment of the now Opposition's period of government when the new Opposition spokesman on employment and industrial relations had responsibility for employment policy, as Minister for Employment and Youth Affairs. The House will recall that he was the Minister for Employment and Youth Affairs from April 1981 until May 1982. One sees over that period a record of abysmal achievement in terms of both employment outcomes and concern for the unemployed. Let me briefly remind the House of what happened. During that period employment increased at a snail's pace, by only 16,000 jobs in that 13-month period. That is about the average monthly rate of growth of employment during our period in office. Unemployment jumped by almost 75,000, or almost 20 per cent. It is also worth noting that this was a time of decentralisation of wage fixation, and during this period, now regarded as the nirvana where there was to have been decentralised wage fixing, average weekly earnings increased by 17 per cent-the highest rate for 10 years. In regard to young people in particular, during the then Minister's period of jurisdiction we saw a drop in employment of teenagers in full time jobs of 45,000. The teenage unemployment rate went from 15.9 per cent to 19 per cent. Everyone in this House will recall that it was this Minister who demonstrated great compassion for the unemployed by announcing the abolition of the community youth support scheme in the Budget of 1981-a decision which was met with such universal rejection in the community that the Government eventually changed its mind and decided to keep that valuable program, a program which has been greatly boosted by this Government. The attitude of the present Opposition spokesman on employment and industrial relations is best summed up by a comment that he made to a young CYSS participant at Shepparton in the wake of his decision to abolish the scheme. This young lady told him of her concern about the abolition of CYSS and of the fact that she had been unemployed for 18 months. His reply to her was: `You don't need a job, you need a psychologist'. With such an abysmal record of achievement and concern, we look forward with interest to the Opposition spokesman's espousal of how it would be different the second time around. Mr CARLTON —It is nice to be back. My question is directed to the Treasurer. I refer to the Government's deal with the Australian Council of Trade Unions, announced on 4 September, in which the Government agreed to the payment of a 3 per cent productivity wage rise in the form of occupational superannuation payments to be met by employers. I ask the Treasurer: What does the word `productivity' mean in this context? How does it relate to the procuctivity of each individual shop, each factory, each office, each small business or, indeed, each abattoir? Under this deal do poor and ineffective workers and strikers get the same rewards as good and reliable workers? Mr KEATING —Back from the dead or otherwise, the shadow Treasurer fails to understand one of the basic central tenets of the operation of economic policy under the accord in the context of a centralised wage fixing system and economic policy generally. The profit share in this country, having been destroyed and therefore being inadequate to maintain investment at levels to absorb the new entrants to the labour force and to repair and maintain decent levels of employment, has been restored to its highest level for 15 years as a result of the growth in the economy which the Government has been able to secure. At no time did the previous Government have any prospect of getting the profit share back to the levels which this Government has succeeded in achieving. The question implies that having now returned to the historic peak of the gross operating surplus in gross domestic product, the Government should see that no productivity is paid to the workers and that we should go from here to another historical norm-- Mr Carlton —I did not say that. The question does not imply that. Mr KEATING —Yes, that is what it implies. The honourable member is saying that the productivity which has already been distributed to profits in the last two and a half years should continue to be distributed to profits. We on this side of the House reject that concept absolutely. We are not about moving to a new historical high for profits and therefore, not unreasonably, the Australian Council of Trade Unions, under the principles established by the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission two and a half years ago, set down a productivity hearing on the economy. With these rates of growth in productivity it is not unreasonable that some of the benefits should go to the work force. Because of the depreciation, the ACTU has failed to push its case for productivity which it had in mind-that is, pressing for costs to begin from 1 July 1985. Under this agreement, this is now deferred until 1 July 1986. Not only that, the agreement is on the basis of 3 per cent, not 4 per cent, and is spread over two years. Given the fact that not all members of the work force will pick it up, the Government has agreed to develop a safety net scheme towards the end of the process; so it is even feasible that the 3 per cent could be spread over three years or about one per cent a year. That is in the face of 5 per cent economic growth. The implicit proposition in the question is that this should not be the case. It has completely eluded the Opposition that if this 3 per cent were paid as wages, the whole onward movement of occupational superannuation, which has been on for years, would still move through the economy and the result would be that the level of wage restraint and cost restraint which the ACTU has agreed to in this arrangement with the Government would not be there and, therefore, there would not be an appropriate wages response to the depreciation. Because the Government has established a centralised wage fixing system again, because it has a planned approach to the whole question of national income shares, because it has repaired the profit shares which the `great men of business' opposite were unable to do and because the trade union movement has enough good sense to sit down with a government that is interested in speaking to the unions and say `yes, we have had strong economic and employment growth from this Government and we see an advantage in moving occupational superannuation through the economy so that all workers, privileged or otherwise, should enjoy it' the introduction of such a scheme will now be at a pace which allows the economy to afford it and will provide flexibility so that it moves first in the industries which are most able to afford it and to pay it. It is on that basis that the difference between this Government's policies and the policies of the former Government, enshrined in every attitude expressed by the Leader of the Opposition and his shadow spokesman for the Treasury, provides such a stark contrast in the management of the macroeconomy and the shares which go to the growth operating surplus, to companies, to investment and to the work force. Because there will be no recanting by honourable members opposite from their lunatic policies of the 1970s and early 1980s, the Australian public will always have a very clear choice between the politics and the policies of prosperity and the politics of gloom and disaster typified in the honourable member's question. Mr DUBOIS —My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Veterans' Affairs. The Minister would be aware of some misinformed criticism in the community of this Government's commitment to maintaining an effective repatriation system. Will he reassure the veteran community that the changes that have been announced will not disadvantage the needy and the deserving and will enhance the Government's ability to improve the benefits and services now provided? Mr HOLDING —I am happy to give the honourable member the reassurance that is sought and to indicate that this Government does not flinch in any way from its commitment over many years to maintain an effective and generous repatriation system for servicemen and their wives and children. Some mischievous allegations have been made in respect of this matter, and the facts ought to be brought before the House. In the three Budgets introduced by the Hawke Government, spending on veterans' affairs has increased in general terms by 40 per cent and, after allowing for inflation, has involved an increase of 20 per cent-one of the largest increases in any portfolio in this Government. In real money terms, that amounts to an extra $1 billion, of which approximately $450m extra has been allocated to the payment of service pensions, $120m extra has been allocated to the payment of disability pensions, and $140m extra has been allocated to the payment of war widows' pensions. Most of the remainder has been allocated to medical treatment and urgent upgrading of repatriation hospitals, many of which fell into a disgraceful state because of the attitude of honourable members opposite. As an illustration of the generosity of our repatriation system-because it must be looked at in a broad context-I point out that Australia pays between two and three times as many war widows' and disability pensions, relative to the size of our ex-service population, as does Britain, New Zealand, Canada or the United States of America. On the repatriation hospital side, the Government readily acknowledges its commitment to veterans. We are committed to the development of facilities necessary to meet the inevitable increase in demand for treatment of the aging veteran population. The Government commissioned the Brand report on the repatriation hospital system, which recommended upgrading of facilities and increased staffing. The Minister will shortly be placing those recommendations before the Government for further consideration. In the last two Budgets spending on hospitals, including civil works, increased by 26 per cent to $56m. In 1985-86 there will be a further increase of $19.8m. In the honourable member's own State, developments at the Repatriation General Hospital, Concord, announced in the Budget, include the following: An operating suite of six theatres and support facilities, a central sterilising and supply department, an extended pathology department and a new store. Total spending on improvements at the Repatriation General Hospital at Concord is $17.6m. Tenders and work are to commence in 1985-86. Clearly, spending of this magnitude can be sustained only if the Government takes steps to ensure that resources are concentrated on the needy and the deserving. I can reassure the honourable member that amendments to the legislation will substantially enhance the Government's capacity to assist such beneficiaries in the future, just as we are doing at present in this Budget. Mr SINCLAIR —I ask the Treasurer the current status of the Prime Minister's pre-election undertaking and his April commitment that interest rates would fall this year. Mr KEATING —I have made it plain on a number of occasions in the House that I make no prediction about interest rates, particularly since the depreciation of the Australian dollar. It is a measure of the dishonesty of the Leader of the Opposition that, in sharing the platform with me where I was asked a question, he knows perfectly well, in the context of the remark to which this question refers, that I said that I agreed with most market commentators at the time. This was before the depreciation. This is a fairly typical question from the Opposition. What is surprising is that this new dry Opposition, this Opposition which is about to see prices set in the market, is apparently not prepared to see prices set for money in the market. At the drop of a hat it will wallow in opportunism to suggest to the Government that by implication and explicitly in the past that the Government ought to rule interest rates by driving them down in the market. In other words, having regulated-- Mr Sinclair —You ought to have proper economic policy. Mr KEATING —We all know about the right honourable member's role in Cabinet. He was one of the greatest regulators of all time. He is always in there with the levers in his hands. The Opposition is now arguing that the so-called self-proclaimed champions of free enterprise should be proposing to the Government that in one of the most important markets of all, that is the market for money, there ought to be some action on the part of the Government to rule the market and not to let interest rates find their own level. This is in marked contrast to the former views proposed by the now Leader of the Opposition who has been saying all year that the Government has been running a loose monetary policy. In fact in July he said that the M3 figures: . . . show an alarming collapse in monetary discipline by the Hawke Government. . . . This loose monetary policy . . . He is urging a credit squeeze, seeking to have interest rates higher to respond to the economic demands, and the questioner is seeking some action by the Government to reduce interest rates. We, on this side of the House, believe that interest rates will be set on commercial criteria in the market. That has always been our position. Of course the Government has met the current economic conditions with the appropriate policy response. We have seen a dramatic decline in the Commonwealth Budget deficit of $1.8 billion to around $5 billion for this year in prospect, or down from 3.3 per cent of gross domestic product to 2.2 per cent. In other words we have more than halved the disastrous fiscal imbalance and fiscal inheritance of the former Treasurer and diminished demands by the Commonwealth on markets. We got the Loan Council into some sort of equilibrium after the former Government allowed the States to run wild in terms of their borrowings, and we re-established the global limit. For our second year we have again secured agreement by the States to reduce their borrowings. The result will be that the public sector borrowing requirement will be reduced by about 1.5 per cent of GDP to 5.6 per cent. Bank lending is still running very strongly in the economy. I notice that for the month of July it ran at a rate of 25 per cent higher than that of a year earlier. In other words, interest rates have not slowed down the real economy. It takes two to set a price. Obviously, people have been prepared to pay the price by borrowing to invest. That is in contrast to the situation during the honourable member for Bennelong's tenure as Treasurer when people were paying high prices to hang on and when they were borrowing money from the non-bank financial sector at very high rates simply to stay solvent. Now, they are borrowing by choice to invest. Interest rates are always one of the tools which ration money in the market. With the strong growth facing the economy now, that rationing in the market is appropriate and, therefore, our interest rate structure is set in the market in the face of all of those conditions. Mr O'KEEFE —Is the Minister for Communications aware that the new Leader of the Opposition has foreshadowed a proposal to subject Telecom Australia operations to taxation? If so, will the Minister advise the House of the consequences that would arise from such a policy? Mr DUFFY —I thank the honourable member for Burke for his question. I am aware that the Leader of the Opposition has indicated his willingness to impose taxation on Telecom, although, as with so many of the other statements relating to the privatisation argument, the details are characteristically vague. As many honourable members would be aware, the Vernon Commission of Inquiry into the Australian Post Office in recommending the establishment of Telecom and Australia Post as independent, commercially orientated statutory authorities also recommended that both bodies be tax exempt. This recommendation was based on the desire to obtain the lowest possible charges for telecommunications and postal services within this country. The honourable member for Bennelong, in a recent speech at the National Press Club before he became Leader of the Opposition, asserted that he would make Telecom subject to taxation. As a result of that statement, I found it necessary to ask for some estimates to be prepared on the effect of such a proposal on Telecom's revenue and the consequent increases in tariffs that would be necessary to maintain telecom's capital works and other maintenance programs at current levels. Mr Simmons —What does the National Party think of this? Mr DUFFY —I will deal with that in a moment. I have been informed that imposition of taxes would have subjected Telecom to an additional liability of at least $400m for the financial year 1984-85. I am also advised that to say the least, this would require a substantial increase across the board in Telecom's tariffs, including, using conservative estimates, an increase of 6c in the cost of local calls. that is an increase of approximately 40 per cent. That would involve the largest increase in telephone charges in the history of the telephone services in this country. The most recent household expenditure survey has shown that increases in telephone costs fall more regressively across income groups than do most other items of private consumption. In other words, the implementation of the proposal of the Leader of the Opposition would penalise the poorest and least privileged members of Australian society. Leaving aside the consequences following the destruction of the cross subsidy, about which there has been discussion and there will be plenty more in this place, one wonders when the new Opposition spokesman on communications will make a statement on this matter or whether he will passively accept this hard right doctrinaire nonsense. Honourable members will await pronouncements with considerable interest. There was an interjection from the honourable member for Calare. I cannot help but ask: When will members of the National Party stand up to be counted on this issue? Apart from the Leader of the National Party who, in a knee-jerk reaction, came out supporting privatisation, the silence from the National Party on this issue has been deafening. Opposition members interjecting- Mr DUFFY —We have one spokesman opposite who is prepared to say to his constituents that he will privatise and thus probably increase bills per subscriber every year by between $200 and $400. Let them know about that! That unofficial pronouncement, on behalf of the National Party, is probably a very appropriate point at which to end the discussion. Mr HOWARD —I ask the Prime Minister whether, in an address to a business luncheon in Adelaide on 20 November 1984, he said: Australia and Australians will during 1985 reap the interest rate rewards that are flowing from the successful policies of the past 20 months. I also ask him whether he went on to say: We've ploughed the fields and sown the seeds. In the very near future we will harvest the crop. In view of the fact that interest rates have gone up across the board by at least one per cent to 2 per cent since November 1984 and the Prime Minister reaffirmed that promise after a substantial devaluation of the Australian dollar, will he please tell us when the crop will be harvested? Mr HAWKE —There are very few areas on which we need to be lectured in any way by those opposite, particularly the Leader of the Opposition. If he wishes to talk about the harvesting of the crop, let us look at the crop that is being harvested. I remind honourable members that when I spoke on that occasion I was not speaking about just one element of the total range of macro-economic policy; I was talking about the whole range. So I am quite happy to have an accounting of the harvest of the application of that total economic policy. Not only am I happy to have that accounting; I am also more than happy to have that accounting of our harvesting compared with the miserable returns when Opposition members went out to reap. The people who suffered when they went out to collect the results of the application of their policies were the 160,000 additional people who, in the last 12 months of their stewardship, had their jobs taken away from them. The people who harvested the results of the application of Opposition members' policies in the last 12 months they were in government were the additional 250,000 unemployed. At the same time as Opposition members were adding to the list of unemployment in their harvesting they achieved the unique distinction-unique in the literal sense of the word-that never before in the history of this country had there been simultaneous double digit inflation and double digit unemployment. Opposition members talk about bringing in a harvest of reduced inflation. That was the way they were going to solve the unemployment problem. They failed not only on the inflation front, because when they left office they left us with double digit inflation of 11.2 per cent; at the same time they left us with the highest harvest of unemployment, as a result of the application of their policies, that this country had seen in 50 years. Any time that the Leader of the Opposition wants to have an accounting-a harvesting, if you like-of the application of economic policies, we will give it to him. We will not only rely on our account of what is happening in this country. We will also do what Opposition members suggested in this area in 1983-84-we will ask them to look at the judgment of the harvesting by the international community. Opposition members said in 1983 and 1984 that the international community would mark Australia down because its economic policies would fail. They know that the fact is that the international community is now saying that this economy is operating better than any other economy in the rest of the world. I am quite happy to go back to what I said in a speech I made in Adelaide in 1984. All the predictions we made in regard to the overall impact of our economic policies were right. I give one example of how members of the Opposition could never get it right. They were the worst economic predictors when they were in office and they have kept their record going in Opposition. I remind the Opposition of what it said on 23 September 1983 in a statement relating to the national wage increase which was the first post-pause rise. This was the Opposition's area of expertise-wages policy and employment. It said: the inevitable result must be that more people will lose their jobs . . . Today's outcome must put the Government even further from its election promise to create 500,000 new jobs in three years. We are harvesting the result of our policies now. We have created 410,000 new jobs since we have been in office. We will more than exceed our target of 500,000 new jobs. The Leader of the Opposition could not get it right when he was in government. He cannot get it right in opposition. The ultimate tragedy of his not being able to get anything right is that he has not learnt. He is promising now that, if ever the people of Australia are mistaken enough to give him the opportunity again, he would give them exactly the same prescription. They have experienced the harvesting of his policies. They do not want it again. Fortunately, they will not be given the opportunity. Mr SPEAKER —Pursuant to statute, I present the report of the Auditor-General dated 9 September 1985 on audits, examinations and inspections carried out under the provisions of the Audit Act and other Acts. Motion (by Mr Young)-by leave-agreed to: (1) That this House, in accordance with the provisions of the Parliamentary Papers Act 1908, authorises the publication of the report of the Auditor-General upon audits, examinations and inspections under the Audit and other Acts-September 1985, and (2) That the paper be printed. Mr SPEAKER —Pursuant to section 17 of the Ombudsman Act, I present special report No. 1 of the Commonwealth Ombudsman. The special report concerns the Ombudsman's investigation of the Cotton case involving the Australian Broadcasting Corporation. Motion (by Mr Young)-by leave-agreed to: That this House, in accordance with the provisions of the Parliamentary Papers Act 1908, authorises the publication of Special Report No. 1 of the Commonwealth Ombudsman and; Motion (by Mr Young) proposed: That the House take note of the paper. Debate (on motion by Mr Sinclair) adjourned. Mr SPEAKER —For the information of honourable members, I present the annual reports of the Department of the House of Representatives and the Joint House Department for 1984-85. Mr WILLIS(Gellibrand-Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations) —For the information of honourable members, I present the annual report of the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet for 1984-85. Mr WILLIS(Gellibrand-Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations) —For the information of honourable members, I present the report of the Australian tripartite mission to study the training of skilled workers in the metal and electrical trades in Fiji and New Zealand. Mr YOUNG(Port Adelaide-Special Minister of State) —For the information of honourable members, I present a revised charter of the objectives and priorities of the Australian Federal Police. Motion (by Mr Peter Morris) proposed: That the House take note of the paper. Debate (on motion by Mr N. A. Brown) adjourned. Mr BEAZLEY(Swan-Minister for Defence) —Pursuant to Regulation 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 1984, together with the Auditor-General's report and audited financial statement and balance sheets. Mr PETER MORRIS(Shortland-Minister for Transport) —Pursuant to Section 32 (1) of the Interstate Commission Act 1975, I present the Interstate Commission annual report for 1984-85. Mr HOLDING(Melbourne Ports-Minister for Aboriginal Affairs) —For the information of honourable members, I present a report by the Aboriginal Land Commissioner on the Cox River (Alawa-Ngandji) land claim. Motion (by Mr Young) proposed: That the House take note of the paper. Debate (on motion by Mr N. A. Brown) adjourned. Mr HOLDING(Melbourne Ports-Minister for Aboriginal Affairs) —For the information of honourable members, I present a report on the review of the Aboriginal Benefits Trust Account and related financial matters in the Northern Territory land rights legislation. Mr N. A. Brown(Menzies) —Mr Speaker, I wish to make a personal explanation. Mr SPEAKER —Does the honourable member claim to have been misrepresented? Mr N. A. Brown —Yes, I do. Mr SPEAKER —The honourable member may proceed. Mr N. A. BROWN —During Question Time, the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations (Mr Willis), on answering a question from a member on his side of the House, attributed to me certain remarks made at the time when I was Minister for Employment and Youth Affairs as the portfolio was then called. I simply want to say that what the Minister attributed to me was untrue. I did not say what he attributed to me. With a modicum of research the Minister would know that because the misattribution of those words was corrected on numerous occasions at the time. As far as I know, the Minister was not present on the occasion; the honourable member for Murray (Mr Lloyd) was present. I suggest that next time, before the Minister takes such a course, he check his facts. Mr WILLIS(Gellibrand-Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations) —Mr Speaker, may I make a personal explanation. Mr SPEAKER —Does the Minister claim to have been misrepresented? Mr WILLIS —Yes. Mr SPEAKER —The Minister may proceed. Mr WILLIS —The quotation that I used in Question Time was taken from the National Times of 20 September 1981 and was headed `Just the job'. The quotation that I used is as- Mr N. A. Brown —Does that make it true? I have given you a chance to withdraw it-very generously. Mr WILLIS —If the honourable member shut up for a second he might get somewhere. The quotation that I gave is quite accurate as it was reported in the National Times. According to that report, the statement was made in front of 40 people. However, if the report is not true, as the Minister now says, I am prepared- Mr N. A. Brown —I am not the Minister yet. Mr WILLIS —If the report is not true, as the then Minister now says, I am prepared to accept his word. If he wants to get that kind of acknowledgment in the future he might go about it in a more civil way. The Clerk-Petitions have been lodged for presentation as follows and copies will be referred to the appropriate Ministers: International Year for Repairing the Earth To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. This petition of concerned Australian citizens respectfully points out: That, for our survival, an effective World peace Initiative needs to be established which will work towards mutual understanding, world disarmament, economic well-being for all, fulfilling employment, a sustainable society conserving natural resources and revitalising soils essential for growing a plentiful and healthy food supply and tree cover. By achieving these objectives, Australia can set an example for the rest of the world to follow. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that your Honourable House will: 1. Create an Australian Ministry for Peace specifically devoted to peace-building and the non-violent resolution of conflict; 2. Convene a national Summit for Survival to discuss the issues of world disarmament, security and national and international co-operation; 3. Fully support the United Nations World Disarmament Campaign by allocating the equivalent of at least 10% of the defence budget to fund peace activities; 4. Actively assist the International Year of Peace in 1986 by initiating programs for peace education, self-help development and environmental repair; 5. Develop national employment programs to give priority to the planting and growing of forests, food-producing trees and other crops; 6. Implement national recycling programs to reuse water and to compost all presently wasted sewage-sludge and organic garbage into hygienic humus, a natural fertiliser, for use in rehabilitating impoverished soils; 7. Propose to the United Nations General Assembly that 1989 be declared International Year for Repairing the Earth. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Baldwin,Mr John Brown,Mr Cohen,Mr Gayler,Mr Howe,Mr Hunt,Mr Lee,Mr Simmons and Dr Theophanous. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. This petition of concerned Australian citizens respectfully points out: That, for our survival, an effective World Peace Initiative needs to be established which will work towards mutual understanding, world disarmament, economic well-being for all, and full employment. This Initiative will help to ensure a sustainable society conserving natural resources and revitalising soils essential for growing a plentiful and healthy food supply and tree cover. By achieving these objectives, Australia can set an example for the rest of the world to follow. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that your Honourable House will: 1. Propose to the United Nations General Assembly that 1989 be declared International Year for Repairing the Earth. 2. Implement action programs leading up to 1989 which will include: a. Actively supporting the International Year of Peace in 1986 by reallocating at least 10% of our military expenditure to fund environmental repair programs. b. Implementing National Recycling Programs to reuse water, and to compost into hygienic humus all presently wasted organic garbage and sewage-sludge mixed with fine ground powder from mineral-rich gravels and rocks, to use as a natural fertiliser in revitalising impoverished soils; c. Developing National Employment Programs to give priority to irrigation systems and the planting and growing of healthy forests, food-producing trees and other crops and vegetation to assist the greening of Australia. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Blunt,Mr Cohen,Mr Gayler,Dr Klugman,Ms McHugh,Mr Ruddock,Mr Staples,Mr West and Mr Wilson. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. This petition of concerned Australian citizens respectfully showeth: That, for our survival, an effective Worldpeace Initiative needs to be established which will work towards mutual understanding, total disarmament, maximum employment, conservation and recycling of all presently wasted resources, developing healthy soils, growing a plentiful food and achieving ample tree cover. Australia can set an example of national harmony for the rest of the world to follow Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that your Honourable House will: 1. Convene a national Summit for Survival to discuss the issues of world disarmament, security and national and international co-operation; 2. Create an Australian Ministry for Peace specifically devoted to peace-building and the non-violent resolution of conflict; 3. Give full support to the United Nations World Disarmament Campaign; and its implementation; 4. Actively support the International Year of Peace in 1986 and proclaim that United Nations Day, October 24, be observed each year as Worldpeace Day; 5. Implement programs to recycle and hygienically compost all presently wasted sewage-sludge, selected garbage and other organic materials into humus for sale and use in agriculture, forestry and rehabilitating impoverished soils; 6. Develop national employment programs to give priority to repairing the environment by the planting and growing of trees; 7. Propose to the United Nations that 1988 be declared International Year for Greening the Earth. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Uren. To the Honourable Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives, the petition of the undersigned respectfully showeth: That the recent cuts announced in the Mini-Budget to Preschools and Day care Services are a reversal of A.L.P. policy to make child care services available to all at an affordable cost. Further, that the fee rises arising from the cuts will cause great hardship to the majority of families using these services. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that your Honourable House fully restores all Federal funding to children's services in Australia, and your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Blunt,Dr Harry Edwards,Mr Free,Mr Peter Morris,Mr Ian Robinson,Mr Simmons and Mr West. 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 the recently announced cuts to children's services in New South Wales will impose a heavy burden upon parents with children in child care centres. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that full Federal funding is restored for all our children's sakes. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Maher. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned Citizens of Australia respectfully sayeth; That we the undersigned are totally opposed to any taxation change which involves a tax on Health Fund contributions, health charges or benefits; That we are already required to pay a 1 per cent levy to partly finance the Medicare scheme and that we would regard any further taxation of our health insurance arrangements as unfair and unreasonable; That therefore we urge the Government to ensure that there is no taxation on illness and no special taxation on those who seek to insure themselves against the cost of private health care. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Blunt,Mr Fife,Mr Gayler,Mr Ruddock,Mr Spender,Mr Uren and Mr Wright. To the Honourable Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled: The petition of certain citizens of Australia shows that there is a need to end the current discriminatory application of sales tax on confectionery and the other anomalies existing in sales tax law. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that this tax should be replaced by a broad-based consumption tax with a uniform ad valorem rate, without any exemptions whatsoever. by Mr Adermann,Mr Braithwaite and Mr Uren. 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 the current policies of the Community Arts Board of the Australia Council are disadvantaging rural residents with regard to access to the Arts. Your petitioners, therefore, humbly pray that the Federal Government will allocate sufficient funds to the Australia Council specifically to ensure ongoing funding to State Arts Councils to enable those organisations to maintain access to performing and other arts activities in country areas. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Braithwaite and Mr Ian Cameron. 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 the current policies of the Community Arts Board of the Australia Council are disadvantaging regional residents (country and outer metropolitan) with regard to the provision of access to art forms, in particular to tours of professional performing arts. Your petitioners, therefore, humbly pray that the Federal Government will allocate sufficient funds to the Australia Council specifically to ensure ongoing funding to State Arts Councils to enable those organisations to maintain access to performing and other arts activities in country and outer metropolitan areas. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Peter Fisher. To the Honourable the Speaker and the Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of citizens of Australia shows- That the people of New Zealand and the New Zealand Government have given an example to the world in their efforts to achieve a nuclear free South Pacific, and such decision being endorsed by the people at a general election. Your petitioners therefore pray that the Australian Government support the principled stand taken by the New Zealand Government and urges it to condemn any efforts by the U.S. Government to impose economic or other sanctions on New Zealand in retaliation for their stand on nuclear vessels. We further urge the Australian Government to urgently implement its policy to promote the development of zones of peace and nuclear free zones in the Indian and Pacific Oceans. by Mr Kent,Mr Staples and Mr Uren. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia showeth 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 Beale and Mr Shipton. 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 the future; That the presence of the Union Jack on the flag represents not a subservience to Britain, but a reminder of our inheritence 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 Robert Brown. To the Honourable the Speaker and members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned 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. by Mr Fife. 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 the future; That the presence of the Union Jack on the flag represents not a subservience to Britain, but a reminder of our inheritence 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 Ruddock. The petition of the undersigned citizens respectfully showeth that they are opposed to the proposals contained in the Government's White Paper for the reform of the Australian Tax System in so far as they relate to the imposition of further Capital Gains and Wealth Taxes. Your petitioners humbly pray that the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled will call upon the Government to reject any proposal to increase the burden of Capital Gains and Wealth Taxes on the Australian people. And your petitioners as in duty bound will every pray. by Mr Blunt and Mr Cohen. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned citizens respectfully showeth that: 1. the Hawke Government's retirement incomes policies are piecemeal, inequitable, and discriminate against people who save towards achieving reasonable self-relience in their retirement and 2. the Government's assets test legislation is particularly inequitable and its effects are especially discrimninatory against farmers. Your petitioners humbly pray that the House of Representatives, in Parliament assembled, will call upon the Government to: 1. repeal the assets test legislation; 2. institute a broad inquiry into Australia's retirement income and taxation systems; and 3. following the receipt of the report of such an enquiry implement a retirement incomes policy which is fair and equitable, encourages self-provision and will be non-discriminatory in its operation and impact. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Burr and Mr Miles. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. We, the undersigned electors, are deeply concerned at the possibility of an increase in indirect taxation currently being considered by the government. To pose a broadly based consumption tax would mean a proportionately greater burden on low income groups and worsen their already precarious and impoverished position. Women who are supporting mothers, together with their children, are acknowledged as the largest single group forced to exist below the poverty line. As beneficiaries of an already inadequate government pension, their futures would be even more jeopardised if there were to be a change towards increased broadly based consumption taxation. Your petitioners therefore pray that the Federal government not adopt the proposed shift towards increased indirect taxation. And your petitioners as in duty bound will every pray. by Ms Fatin and Mr Staples. The Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in the Parliament assembled. The petition of concerned people respectfully showeth their desire to have the wild horses of Queensland and the Northern Territory declared a protected species. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that your Honourable House set aside a National Park for these horses and ensure that killing of feral animals be undertaken in a humane manner with proper legislation and enforcement. And your petitioners in duty bound ever pray. by Mr Gayler and Ms McHugh. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of we, the undersigned citizens of Australia, respectfully showeth: That the government reverse its decision to cut pre-school funding in the mini-budget. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Jacobi and Mr Scott. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petitions of the undersigned citizens respectfully showeth: That we wish you to reverse the decision to cut funding to children's services. (a) Further cuts in Pre-School Education funding at the Commonwealth level will make it increasingly difficult for kindergartens to continue providing preventative, developmental education support to young children and their parents. (b) Cuts to Fee Relief and services in the Child Care system are going to impose hardship on the middle and lower income earners. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Federal Government will reconsider these cuts. by Mr Holding. 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 proposed service tax on all accommodation provided by hotels and the proposals to disallow legitimate entertainment expenses as a deduction for taxation purposes will lead to a dramatic fall-off in tourism, business travel and will have a deleterious effect on restaurant patronage. This will threaten present employment and extensively curtail job opportunities in the industry. Measures as proposed will seriously jeopardise the livelihood of Australians engaged in the accommodation and hospitality industry. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that a service tax not be imposed on short-stay accommodation and that a deduction for tax purposes for legitimate entertainment expenses remain. by Mr Katter and Mr O'Neil. 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 proposed service tax on all accommodation provided by hotels, motels, caravan parks, etc. will lead to a dramatic fall-off in tourism and business travel and will threaten the loss of jobs for employees in such establishments. Such a service tax will in fact be a bed tax and will seriously jeopardise the livelihood of Australians engaged in the Accommodation Industry. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that a service tax not be imposed. by Mr Hunt. To the Honourable the Speaker and members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled, the humble petition of the South Australian Country Women's Association Incorporated and the undersigned shall showeth: The necessity to restore the concessional price of fuel in rural areas-without which there will be increased freight and production costs. Your petitioners therefore pray that your Honourable House will restore concessional price of fuel in rural areas for the benefit of all Australians. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr O'Neil and Mr Porter. To the Honourable the Speaker and members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of we, the undersigned citizens of Australia, respectfully showeth: ``No cuts for kids''. We deplore the proposed cut-back of funding for pre-school and child care in the mini-budget as the proposal adversely affects young families, women's employment prospects and children's development in their most formative years. We urge you to reverse proposals for cuts in children's services. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Porter. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of we, the undersigned citizens of Australia, respectfully showeth: We deplore the proposed cut-back of funding for pre-school and child care in the mini-budget as the proposal adversely affects young families, women's employment prospects and children's development in their most formative years. We urge you to reverse proposals for cuts in childrens's services. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Young. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of we, the undersigned citizens of Australia, respectfully showeth: ``No cuts for kids''. We deplore the proposed cut-back of funding for pre-school and child care in the mini-budget as the proposal adversely affects young families, women's employment prospects and children's development in their most formative years. We urge you to reverse proposals for cuts in children's services. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Young. 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 we are greatly concerned with the extent to which serious crime including murder, major drug financing and massive tax frauds have penetrated into the highest levels of Australian society as shown by the investigations of various Royal Commissions and in particular by Mr Frank Costigan Q.C. That we are concerned that the National Crime Authority has too many restrictions and possible lines of veto placed upon it for it to be an effective successor to the Costigan Enquiry and that this will allow major criminals to avoid prosecution. And your petitioners humbly pray that the Federal Government negotiate urgently with the Victorian Government on the reactivation of the Costigan Commission and to extend its term to at least the 31st March 1985 and also to provide the Costigan Commission with whatever resources it may need to successfully conclude its investigations into organised crime in Australia. Further we believe that the issue of organised crime in Australia is so important that the Parliament should not be dissolved until at least the interim Costigan Report has been received and fully debated in both Houses of the 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. 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 and therefore its price, eliminates the opportunity for public or parliamentary debate on a tax increase, perpetrates inflation, reduces job opportunities in the hotel and brewing industries, And your petitioners humbly pray that the House of Representatives, in Parliament assembled, urge the Government to: immediately repeal those legislative provisions that automatically increase the excise on beer when the C.P.I. increases. 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 the Prime Minister, the Hon. R. J. Hawke, answer and not ignore correspondence requesting that he as Minister for the Bicentennary not waste taxpayers money on a $500 000 subsidy for a 130 foot passenger yacht in Western Australia duplicating existing facilities and sending private charter yacht operators bankrupt; and in a time of economic restraint the Prime Minister, the Hon R. J. Hawke, spend this valuable taxpayers money more wisely on much needed essential items not already provided and not on toys for the people of Australia. by Mr Blunt. To the Honourable the Speaker and members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned citizens of the Commonwealth of Australia respectfully showeth: That in the light of the Labor Government's failure to act to correct the anomalies in the Assets test on pensions, brought to its attention prior to the Assets Test's introduction on 21st March 1985, this legislation should be repealed before it has an unduly unfair impact on pensioners. Your petitioners must humbly pray that the Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled should immediately seek the passage of the Social Security and Repatriation Assets Test Abolition Bill to repeal the Labor Government's iniquitous and unfair Assets Test. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Blunt. To the Right Honourable 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. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth that: We hail as a victory for the not-so-silent majority the decision of the Federal Government to now conduct an inquiry into the effects of hard-core pornography and violence upon people and especially children. We view with grave concern and deplore the decision of the Hawke Government to allow the sale of this objectionable material to continue and become more widespread during the period of the inquiry. Request the federal Government to immediately re-enact the previous laws which banned the entry into Australia and the sale of hard-core pornography and violence in video and publication form. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Blunt. To the Honourable Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled, we the undersigned call upon all Members to pay due respect to all returned service personnel. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that all changes to benefits for veterans, and conditions of service for military personnel, as announced in the May Economic Statement, be withdrawn as to allow sufficient time for sensible community debate before any veteran or service person can be unfairly disadvantaged. by Mr Blunt. 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. To the Honourable Speaker, and members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned electors of Australia respectfully showeth: that ABC radio transmission from 4QA Mackay is antiquated and operates on transmitters installed in 1947-48 to service a region in which the area and population has doubled in the intervening 36 years, the signal from 4QA is below strength so that station 4QN at Townsville has a far better signal strength into the Mackay hinterland than 4QA, a distance of only 70 km from Mackay and over 300 km from Townsville, the 4QN news programmes are of no interest in the Mackay region and in emergency situations such as cyclones, the 4QA frequency has limited penetration within the region, that while FM programmes are available in Rockhampton and Townsville, Mackay, with a regional population of 100 000 people, has been by-passed when towns of smaller size have the advantages of FM radio. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Government and the Department of Communications will move urgently to rectify both these anomalies. 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 this humble petition of citizens of Australia respectfully showeth. The richest 2000 people own as much as the poorest 2 1/4 million . . . It is a travesty in these circumstances that 2 million people are living in poverty in this country (Bob Hawke 11.7.81 Sydney Morning Herald) The present provision of Social Benefits is absolutely inadequate . . . locking recipients into poverty (including 800,000 children of those on social welfare pensions or benefits). To enable all Australians to share in the wealth of their country we call on the Australian Government in the forthcoming taxation reform to . . . 1. Raise the tax threshold to $10,000. 2. Double the permissable income ($30 to $60) plus indexation. 3. All pensions and benefits to be raised to 30% of the male average weekly earnings and indexed to C.P.I. 4. Full standard pension to be paid on an individual basis to eliminate the discrimination against married couples currently losing $30 per week. Furthermore . . . we strongly oppose the introduction of a broad based indirect tax, thereby shifting the tax burden onto those dependent on social welfare and low income earners . . . further increasing their poverty while allowing continuation of high income earners and tax avoiders to pay little or no tax . . . by Mr Charles. To the Honourable the Speaker and members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully shows that: We request the Right Honourable Robert Hawke, Prime Minister of Australia to convene a meeting with representatives of the major sugar exporting countries of the world (Australia, Brazil, Cuba and the E.E.C.) to initiate meaningful negotiations to reach agreement on world sugar on policy and price. Further that the Prime Minister commence urgent talks at international levels to formulate a new international sugar agreement to be based on the existing productions levels of the exporting countries adjusted by whatever percentage necessary to reduce the difference in world sugar stocks between supply and demand to within 25 per cent. That the Prime Minister request the State and Commonwealth Governments to provide across the board assistance measures for Cane Growers by way of a guaranteed minimum average price as previously requested for raw sugar production within mill peak in the 1985-86 season. The amount of direct assistance to cane growers should be on a per ton of cane basis so as to bridge the difference between the price of cane actually paid and the price which cane growers would receive at the sugar price of $240 per ton 94nt. That unless financial assistance is provided in the short term the long term viability of many efficient producers will be sacrificed. If this happens the very fabric of communities along the northern-eastern coast of Australia will be destroyed. by Mr Everingham. To the Honourable the Speaker and members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned respectfully showeth: Introduction of any additional capital gains taxes, wealth taxes or death duties is opposed on the grounds that: they adversely affect the small and medium size businesses in Australia, including farms, destroying incentive and discouraging investment in this important area of the economy; the Australian economy, and employment in particular, is heavily reliant on growth in small businesses; any capital gains that might result when owners of small enterprises finally sell these assets are not ``windfall gains'', but the result of many hard years of work and sacrifice, with very little being taken out of the business or farm by way of salaries so that the maximum amount of money can be ploughed back into the business or farm to create growth and jobs; the owners of small businesses and farms often depend on a capital gain-which are simply deferred salaries-when they eventally sell these assets to sustain them in retirement; Your Petitioners request that the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled, will protect the rights of private enterprise and reject any inequitable additional taxes. And your Petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Fife. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled: The petition of the undersigned citizens respectfully showeth: 1. We are completely dissatisfied with the pricing policy of petrol in this country. 2. We are aware that it has an adverse affect on the living standards of the average wage earner of this country. Your petitioners therefore pray that your Honourable House will: Propose and pass a motion that the price of petrol be reduced by 3c a litre in line with a commitment given by the now Prime Minister of Australia during the 1983 election campaign. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Goodluck. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The Petition of the undersigned respectfully showeth: 1. THAT we are completely dissatisfied with the frequent and substantial increase in the price of petrol and diesel fuel. 2. THAT we are aware that these price increases have an adverse affect on the living standards of the average Australian wage earner. 3. THAT increases in fuel prices adds to farm costs and further reduces the average income per farmer which has already fallen to one-third of national earnings. Your Petitioners therefore pray that the Government will immediately reduce the price of petrol by three (3) cents per litre in line with the commitment given by the now Prime Minister of Australia during the 1983 election campaign and take all possible action to prevent further increases occurring. And your Petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Fife. To the Honourable the Speaker and members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. We the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: That in November, 1983, Silverton residents, being within the thirty-two (32) kilometre range of the service town, Broken Hill, petitioned to have country-wide charges revoked. Information was subsequently received from the Honourable Member of Parliament, Mr. Noel Hicks, in December, 1983, stating that Silverton telephone calls had been returned to local charges. In August, 1984, a Telecom statement was received to the effect that following the installation of the automatic telephone exchange, calls to our service town would again be charged under country-wide calling rates. As we are well within the thirty-two (32) kilometre limit and Broken Hill is our employment centre and service town, we feel that it is discriminative both against the residents of Silverton and those who have personal and business dealings with said residents. As Telecom conceded that these charges were punitive, we respectfully suggest that the situation has not changed with the installation of the automatic telephones and that local call rates should still apply. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Hicks. To the Honourable the Speaker, and members of the House of Representatives assembled in Parliament. This petition of Australian residents shows that we strongly oppose the introduction of the ``Australia Card'' or any form of compulsory identity cards. We believe that the introduction of identity cards will erode civil liberties; will create an increased risk of invasion of privacy; and will not result in any significant increase in Government revenue. We call on the Parliament to immediately reject any proposals for the introduction of compulsory identity cards. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Holding. To the Honourable the Speaker and members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned respectfully showeth: We are concerned that the closure of the Enterprise Migrant Hostel will be detrimental to the long-term settlement prospects of migrants in Victoria as well as detrimental to Ethnic Communities who have settled in the Springvale area. In addition, the long-term development of commerce and industry in the area will be adversely affected. We urge the Government to reverse this decision. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Kent. To the Honourable, the Speaker and members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled: In a country of Free Education it is confirmed that the Federal Government is now planning drastic fees increase for overseas students next year. The intention is to impose ``full cost fees''-about $10,000 per annum-possible by 1988. We the undersigned, citizens of Australia and overseas students, respectfully declare our opposition to the discriminatory fees policy. Our reasons are: 1. the Overseas Student Program brings in a multitude of benefits in cultural, political, educational and other terms. These benefits are gained on top of a net financial gain of A$5 million p.a. in foreign exchange; 2. the overseas student fees is a stepping stone to reintroduce fees for all students whereby the principle of education as a right for everyone will be subverted. We believe there should be free education for all; 3. overseas students are not rich. 62% of overseas students come from families with annual combined parental income of less than $15,000; 4. overseas students do not displace local students. They only make up a mere 3.4% of tertiary students (Goldring Report); and 5. as a developed country, Australia has an obligation to assist the Third World countries. We call upon the House of Representatives to, as a matter of urgency, repeal the legislation imposing the discriminatory fees on overseas students. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Ms McHugh. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. We the undersigned citizens of the Commonwealth of Australia do humbly pray that the Commonwealth Government will consider the plight of the father in the Family Court. Fathers, according to the Laws of Australia, should have equal rights to their children, in both Custody and Access applications before the Family Court. It should be made possible for fathers to be able to continue to be involved at all times throughout every stage of their children's development, thus being in the best interest of the children themselves, without incurring exorbitant legal costs. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Macphee. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of we, the undersigned citizens of Australia, respectfully showeth: That we are concerned at the proposed withdrawal of Federal Funding from pre-school education. This is 20% of the pre-school budget. Thus it will be difficult to maintain existing programmes and impossible to provide pre-school education for those children not receiving it now. We urge the Commonwealth Government of Australia to maintain this funding. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Porter. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled in Parliament. The Petition of certain citizens, do strongly request the Federal Government to re-consider the proposal to cut funding for Pre-School Education. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray by Mr Porter. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled: The humble Petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia, undersigned electors of the Division of Barker respectfully showeth- The quality of commercial television in the area, which is deplorable, has been further affected by the recent boosting of Victorian TV signals. Channels 9 and 10 have been almost obliterated by this boost. The impending introduction of Channel 8 to the area does not compensate, as its content is largely Victorian. South Australians wish to watch South Australian television. Your Petitioners therefore humbly pray that the signal from Adelaide commercial television be boosted to cover a wider area and to regain channels lost by boosted signals from Channel 6 at Ballarat. And your Petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Porter. 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 on 28th February, 1985, the Senate passed a resolution that read: (i) that Australia, as a member of the United Nations should fulfil its obligation to promote and encourage respect of human rights and fundamental freedom, and should support the European Parliament's Resolution in respect of the Baltic States. (ii) that in order to do so the Australian Government should, on its own initiative, and by seeking the support of like-minded governments, bring the question of human rights and self-determination for the Baltic States before all appropriate forums of the United Nations and especially before the United Nations Human Rights Commission, and, (iii) that the Department of Foreign Affairs should be directed to take all necessary steps in order to implement this Resolution. Your petitioners humbly pray that the Members and the House of Representatives will concur with that resolution. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Ruddock. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The Petition of certain concerned citizens of Australia. Respectfully showeth that the actions of trade unions have gone beyond their traditional goals of protecting workers' conditions and rates of pay and have reached the point where they are seriously affecting the economic health of the nation and its people. Your Petitioners therefore humbly pray: 1. That all Governments throughout Australia acknowledge and protect the Right to Work on behalf of all Australians; 2. That the total sovereignty of individual governments be recognised as a fundamental requirement of a workable, balanced federal system of government; 3. That all necessary steps be taken to protect the citizens of Australia from any compulsion, threat or intimidation to join any trade union; 4. That the supremacy of elected governments over the sectional interests of trade unions be recognised, and 5. That the provision of essential services be maintained, free from industrial disruption. And your Petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Ruddock. To the Honourable the Speaker and the Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. We the undersigned citizens of the Commonwealth do humbly pray that the Commonwealth Government: 1. Uphold the principle that the seeds and cuttings of plants are a public resource and a common heritage to all and that accordingly seeds should be freely available to all, freely multipliable, able to be sold, exchanged, exported and imported by anyone who wishes. This is seen as a matter of national food security. 2. Recognise that plant breeding is a highly co-operative venture often involving private enterprise at the very last stages after basic seed collection, storage, and research has been publicly funded. 3. In view of the aforementioned paragraphs, recognise that any system giving `property' or ownership rights over seeds to individuals, organisations or enterprises is inappropriate and unjust. 4. Recognise that legislation establishing plant patenting schems overseas has had serious adverse effects, namely; (i) a slowing down of scientific information exchange and exchanges in basic plant breeding materials, that is, germ plasm, (ii) subordination and/or curtailment of public breeding programmes, (iii) farmer unrest at seed prices, (iv) monopoly control of seed production and sales has passed into the hands of giant petrochemical and drug corporations also marketing crop chemicals, (v) increased uniformity of crop varieties leading to a vulnerability to pest and disease attack. 5. Reject any proposal to legislate for any system such as the drafted Plant Variety Rights Act, which gives exclusive ownership rights over seeds to individuals, organisations or enterprises. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Staples. To the Honourable Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament Assembled. We the undersigned citizens of the Commonwealth of Australia do humbly pray that the Commonwealth Government, in re-structuring the taxation system, upholds as fundamental the principle of an equitable distribution of wealth among the people of our nation, and 1. That the Government does not levy any form of broadly based indirect or consumption taxation, and 2. That the Government does levy gift and death duties, excluding the family home from the latter, and a substantial tax on realised capital gains and wealth. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Staples. To the Honourable the Speaker and members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens respectfully showeth that: 1. They call on the House of Representatives and the Government of the Commonwealth to reject the recommendations of the Commonwealth Schools Commission contained in `Funding Policies for Australian Schools', concerning proposed increases in State aid to private schools and the proposed community standard for education funding. 2. They call on the House of Representatives and the Government of the Commonwealth to declare a three year moratorim (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 Staples. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled: The petition of certain citizens of Australia shows-The plight of aged pensioners who reside in Nursing Homes. We believe that they are being discriminated against by virtue of their age and ill-health. Your petitioners therefore pray that the Government should means test Nursing Home patients so that only those with the ability to pay have to pay any extra charges in addition to their pensions and the Commonwealth benefit. by Mr Young. To the House of Representatives in Canberra. The Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled this petition of concerned Australian citizens respectfully points out: 1. Australia presently lacks a National Folklife Centre, a facility available in most western countries; 2. Federal and State government agencies currently lack coherent and informed policies pertaining to folk art, folklife and folk heritage; 3. Australia presently lacks any facility for the study of folklore at tertiary level, a facility available in most western countries. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that your Honourable House will act to redress the longstanding neglect in this area. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Young. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled, the humble petition of the undersigned citizens of South Australia showeth that: Without any warning and at the worst possible moment, the Federal Government has abandoned the pensioner patients in South Australia's Nursing Homes. These people are suffering undeserving hardship and trauma as a result of the Federal Government's decision to freeze the nursing home benefit levels in South Australia. The pensioner patients and those on fixed incomes now cannot expect any relief from recent significant fee increases approved by the Department of Community Services and which have coincided with the decision to freeze benefits. Eighty-five per cent of nursing home patients are pensioners and the majority are now required to pay in excess of their pension for their nursing care for the very first time. Some are paying over $5 per day on top of their pension. Many are looking for cheaper nursing care that does not exist. We request that the Federal Government: 1. alleviate the distress of South Australia's nursing home patients and their families by effective restoration of the principle that pensioner patients should not have to pay more than their pension for nursing home care 2. restore the review of the benefit rates in November 1985 3. resolve its concerns over health care costs with the South Australian Government rather than inflicting unnecessary suffering on nursing home patients. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Porter,Mr Scott and Mr Young. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representative in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned electors of Queensland respectfully shows public concern at the leniency of courts toward child abusers. (1) there is no place in our society for child abuse, particularly that of a sexual nature, and courts must not allow it to become condoned, (2) too much consideration is being given to the offender and insufficient to the victim. (3) severe, mandatory, minimum terms of imprisonment should be laid down for each proven case of sexual child abuse and the prison terms should not be served concurrently. (4) repetitive offenders should be locked away for life. Your petitioners humbly pray that the Government ensure that minimum penalties be made sufficiently severe so as to deter future child abusers, and put this deplorable act where it should be placed, as a most serious and heinous crime. by Mr Braithwaite. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of certain citizens of Queensland, Australia, respectfully showeth that we are totally opposed to any change in the Australian National Flag as declared in the Flags Act (1953). Your petitioners humbly pray that Parliament in its wisdom will take no action to change the Australian National Flag. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Braithwaite. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled: The petition of certain citizens of Australia, electors of the division of Kennedy, show their dissatisfaction at the Federal Government's recent fuel increases in charges for fuel/oil in remote areas. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Government of Australia sees the injustice to rural Australia of the recent enormous increase in fuel and oil prices and takes action in the spirit of consensus to have this inequity rectified. by Mr Katter. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled: The Petition shows: That certain citizens of the State of Victoria are concerned by the Australian Government's failure to adequately fund the Australian Broadcasting Corporation. The ABC, both in radio broadcasting and television, has in spite of a history of severe government cut-backs over the past years, given Australia wide broadcasting of excellence and balance. Your petitioners therefore pray that the present government take positive steps in the next budget to halt the destruction of ABC programming, without forcing the Corporation to introduce commercial advertising, as we believe this will certainly destroy the Australian Broadcasting Corporation's quality and independence. by Mr Lamb. To the Honourable the Speaker and members of the House of Representatives, in Parliament assembled. The Petition of the undersigned in the State of Queensland respectfully showeth: That the decision of the Federal Government to abolish funding for preschool education is contrary to the wishes and best interests of the majority of Australians; That education is essential for the proper development of the country; That preschool education is an important and integral part of the education process; and That preschool education should not be elitist but available to all children. Your Petitioners, therefore, humbly pray that the Parliament of Australia will restore funding for preschool education and maintain funding at least at the current level. And your Petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Moore. To the Right Honourable the Speaker and members of the House of Representatives, in Parliament assembled: The humble petition of electors of the Division of Ryan respectfully showeth: The post box was removed from the corner of Gresham Street and Piddington St, St John's Wood some years ago. Now that traffic lights have been installed at the entrance of St John's Wood and because of the advancing age of many residents of that suburb; Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that a post box be installed on the corner of Gresham St and Piddington St, St. John's Wood. by Mr Moore. To the Honourable the Speaker and members of the House of Representatives, in Parliament assembled. The Petition of certain citizens of South Australia respectfully showeth: That the price of petrol per litre in South Australia has risen several times recently beyond reasonable bounds, and that the Federal Government is receiving a benefit of $700 million per annum in wind-fall profits resulting from devaluation of the Australian dollar on international markets; That the removal of rural freight subsidies on petrol products has also increased the price to consumers of petrol and diesel products. Your petitioners humbly pray that the price per litre of petrol should immediately be reduced and that the Federal Government should no longer follow the principle of International Parity Pricing. Your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Porter. To the Honourable the Speaker and members of the House of Representatives, in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned citizens of the Federal Division of Fisher, in Queensland respectfully showeth: Introduction of any additional capital gains taxes, property or wealth taxes, death or gift duties is opposed on the grounds that: they adversely affect the small and medium size businesses in Australia, destroying incentive and discouraging investment in this important area of the economy; the Australian economy, and employment in particular, is heavily reliant on growth in small businesses; any capital gains that might result when owners of small businesses finally sell the business are not ``windfall gains'' but the result of many hard years of work and sacrifice, with very little being taken out of the business by way of salaries so that the maximum amount of money can be ploughed back into the business to create growth and jobs; the owners of small businesses often depend on a capital gain-which are simply deferred salaries-when they eventually sell their business to sustain them in retirement. the people of Australia are already being subjected to the oppressive tax policies of the highest taxing government in Australia's history-the Hawke Socialist Government. Your Petitioners request that the House of Representatives, in Parliament assembled, will protect the rights of private enterprise and reject any inequitable additional taxes. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Slipper. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled; the humble petition of the undersigned citizens of the Shire of Pine Rivers in Queensland respectfully showeth: That we deplore the discriminatory tax proposals as outlined in the Government's ``White Paper'' and the Government's preferred option on proposed new and widened tax proposals as so outlined, namely: Capital Gains tax Hidden Death tax described as ``Capital Gains tax after death'' Gift Tax Increased Company tax Employer taxes on employees' employment benefits. All such taxes will discriminate against and inhibit progress, growth and employment throughout the nation. They will attack hardworking people who have built up their assets; they will discourage thrift; they will inhibit development; they will treat unfairly all who plan for the future; they will cause trouble and expense in arriving at the value of their assets; they will discourage industry and punish achievement. We ask that the tax proposals be rejected. And your petitioners as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Slipper. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of certain citizens of the Shire of Pine Rivers in Queensland respectfully showeth: That the Hawke Socialist Government be called upon to remove the unjust and cruel Assets Test; That the Assets Test discriminates grossly against those people living on acreage blocks or in rural areas; That the introduction of the Government's grab for the assets of senior citizens is condemned as un-Australian; That the Government is requested to reconsider the Assets Test. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Slipper. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of certain citizens of the Shire of Pine Rivers in Queensland respectfully showeth: 1. They are completely satisfied with the design of the existing Australian National Flag. 2. They are aware it properly reflects the immutable characteristics of Australia, namely: (a) The Union Jack, itself the creation of 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 remains sacrosanct from change'. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Slipper. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of certain citizens of the Federal Division of Fisher in Queensland respectfully showeth: That the Hawke Socialist Government be called upon to remove the unjust and cruel Assets Test; that the Assets Test discriminates grossly against those people living on acreage blocks or in rural areas; that the introduction of the Government's grab for the assets of senior citizens is condemned as un-Australian; that the Government is requested to reconsider the Assets Test. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Slipper. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of certain citizens of the Federal Division of Fisher in Queensland respectfully showeth: 1. They are completely satisfied with the design of the existing Australia 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 the 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 remains sacrosanct from change'. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Slipper. Petitions received. Motion (by Mr Young)-by leave-agreed to: That Mr N. A. Brown be discharged from attendance on the Committee of Members' Interests and that in his place Mr John Spender be appointed a member of that Committee. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mrs Child) —Mr Speaker has received a letter from the Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Mr N. A. Brown) proposing that a definite matter of public importance be subsmitted to the House for discussion, namely: The damage to employment prospects arising from the new prices and incomes accord between the Government and the A.C.T.U. 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 N. A. BROWN(Menzies)(3.44) —The new prices and incomes accord now agreed to by the Government and ratified by the Australian Council of Trade Unions must be the final capitulation of this Government to the power of the ACTU. It represents the abandonment of any semblance of economic responsibility that this Government had. This Government's Budget strategy must now be in tatters, particularly insofar as the prospects for employment growth are concerned. It guarantees that Australia will now have high inflation and substantial wage increases-wage increases that will price Australia out of markets and our people out of jobs. It guarantees that unemployment will remain at high levels. Let it be said at the outset, before the Government starts crowing about this matter, that the Government's record on employment growth is nothing to be proud of. Any government which after such a period in office is still faced with unemployment levels of around 8.2 per cent should be more concerned with taking positive steps to improve employment than with scoring political points. When we look at this tattered situation of the Government's policy we see what a capitulation there has been. Who can forget-this is as recently as 20 August-those noble words in the Budget Speech delivered only three weeks ago? The Government was parading its economic responsibility on the devaluation of the Australian dollar. It said that it was a bonus which it would use to turn around the Australian economy-a bonus that would restore our competitiveness and generate thousands of jobs. Above and beyond that, it was the first real test to which the accord between the Government and the ACTU was to be put. Who can forget the noble words of the Treasurer (Mr Keating) setting out the Government's response as it faced this real challenge? The Treasurer told us that the devaluation had restored our competitive edge. He said: . . . it has made our goods cheaper in world markets and it has made it easier for our industries at home to compete with imports. He went on to say: If we are to do that, we cannot afford to allow our production costs to rise above those of our competitors. Who could disagree with that? But the Treasurer went on to say: If the initial and full price effects of the depreciation were to be transmitted to wages via indexation decisions, our cost increases would noticeably exceed those of our major competitors for years to come. That is what the Treasurer said in his Budget Speech on 20 August, putting it without any equivocation whatsoever. He said that if the effects of depreciation of the dollar found their way into wages our cost increases would exceed those of our competitors, with all the economic disasters that that would entail, particularly the economic disaster of increased unemployment. The Treasurer put it as plainly as anyone could in that statement of the Government's economic policy for the whole of the Budget year. He said that the full price effects of the depreciation must not be transmitted into wages and that if that did happen we would lose our competitive edge. Listen to these prophetic words of the Treasurer at that time: That is why, temporarily, we must modify our normal support for full wage indexation. Of course, that was tepid enough, and we said so at the time. But has the Government lived up to that? Has it modified its normal support for full wage indexation? Of course it has not. It has not modified that support at all. It has done far worse than that; it has given its support for full wage indexation in the current national wage case; it has given away the next national wage case to boot and it has given away the productivity case. Let us look a little at each of those in turn. What is the situation with regard to the present national wage case? The Government has entered into an alliance with the ACTU to argue before the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission that there should be full wage indexation. It has committed itself to argue for full wage indexation knowing the consequences that must follow from that decision. In the course of doing so, it has thrown away all of the advantages that the devaluation gave us and all of the competitive edge that it was so keen to crow about on 20 August. Our cost increases must now exceed those of our major competitors. That must affect employment; it must affect investment. It will affect those things adversely and permanently. This is exactly what the Government, hand in hand with the ACTU, has argued that the Arbitration Commission should now do. The Government, together with the ACTU, is going to the Commission to argue in favour of exactly what the Treasurer warned us against in August-allowing the price effects of depreciation to be translated into wages and allowing full wage indexation. Let there be no doubt that this is what the Government has agreed to with the ACTU. Let us look at the words of the agreement. It states: The Government and the ACTU will propose to the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission that . . . full wage indexation apply in the current National Wage Case. . . There can be no doubt that the Government has abandoned the position that it put in its Budget. It would be disastrous from an investment and employment point of view that the benefits of depreciation should find their way into indexation and that there should be full wage indexation in the current national wage case. There is no doubt that the Government has abandoned the position which it put in August and no doubt whatsoever that that abandonment is completely irresponsible and will give rise to very far reaching and serious economic consequences in this country. What has intervened in this period to explain this remarkable turn of events? What has happened is that the Government has gone along, hand in glove with its paymaster, and has done another of its sordid deals. With this deal the Government has thrown away the competitive edge about which it was so keen to talk. It has not lowered our production costs, but increased them; it has not made our goods cheaper on world markets, but made them more expensive. It has not made it easier for our industries at home to compete with imports; it has made it more difficult for that to happen. It has guaranteed that Australia will have higher inflation eating away at people's savings and discouraging investment. Above all, it has dealt a cruel blow to those who had hoped that there were prospects for substantial employment growth as a result of the devaluation. No doubt the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations (Mr Willis) will stand up and say in reply: `It is not as bad as this; we will have a 2 per cent discount from April 1986'. Let us look at what the Government has agreed upon with the ACTU. The agreement states that this 2 per cent discount relates to the direct contribution made by the depreciation to the increase of the consumer price index in both the first and second halves of the calendar year. The Government has given its endorsement, with all the authority of the national Government, to inflation roaring ahead until April 1986 and then will discount it by only 2 per cent of the inflation caused by the depreciation. There will full indexation for all other wage induced inflation, no matter how high it is. The Government has clearly committed itself to that and all of its consequences. Even then, there will be a discount of 2 per cent only for devaluation. What a flimsy defence that is. By then the damage will have been done. The Government has given its full endorsement to wage inflation from the present national wage case and well into 1986. It has given away any arguments for less than full indexation and full discounting for devaluation. The Minister will say: `Look at what we have saved on the productivity case'. What has the Government saved on the productivity case, which was a claim for 4 per cent by the ACTU? The Government says, `Don't worry about the Arbitration Commission', but this will result in an increase of 3 per cent to be paid by superannuation from as early as July 1986. Call it what you will, a 3 per cent rise still will have to be paid. It is still a cost to industry which will dull the competitive edge, put up our costs and make it harder to compete and harder for employers to invest and employ. How absurd is the whole package in total. The Government has committed itself to 3.8 per cent full indexation now; at least 2 1/2 per cent in April next year; and a 3 per cent productivity superannuation increase hot on its heels in July. That is a total of 9.3 per cent as an increase in wage costs between now and July next year. On-costs, holiday pay, loadings and the like must add at least 3 per cent, because it is common ground that on-costs are at least half of any wage cost. In total, the Government has committed itself to a labour cost increase of 12 per cent and it has locked our industrial and commercial systems into that agreement. It has locked them into that increase in costs of around 12 per cent. I challenge the Minister to name one country with which we compete that has labour cost increases of anything at all like this. The Government said that we had to be wary of losing our competitive edge, but where is the country competing with us that has an increase in labour costs of anything like those dimensions? The Government has thrown away all its bargaining power, all the benefits of devaluation and all the competitive edge. Why? Because it is suborned by the ACTU. It is worse than that, because the Government has made this agreement with the ACTU and it will go along to the Arbitration Commission and say: `Here it is, we have agreed with the ACTU. We do not care about your obligations under your Act to examine this case on its merits'. The Government will say to the Commission: `We hold a gun to your head and you will sanction this agreement we have made with the ACTU'. That is a complete abandonment of the responsibilities of the Arbitration Commission. It holds a gun to the head of the Arbitration Commission in a way in which no government in the history of this country has ever done. At a time when there is about to be appointed a new President of the Arbitration Commission, the Government will go along with its handmaiden to the Commission and say: `Hands up those who want to be President of the Arbitration Commission. If you endorse this agreement, you are well on the way; if you reject it, there is no hope for you'. It is seeking to turn the Arbitration Commission into nothing more than a rubber stamp. That is the whole situation so far as this agreement is concerned. The agreement is an abrogation of economic responsibility. It destroys the competitive edge, of which there were early signs, that we might have had as a result of the devaluation, and it is a positive step which can result only in a stifling of our economy and employment growth. That is what is wrong with the Government's attitude to employment growth in this country and that is what is wrong with the accord, on which the Government places so much reliance. The objective of the accord is inconsistent within itself. Reductions in unemployment can be achieved only by a decline in per unit labour costs, as everyone should know. Yet the accord tells us that it is doing exactly the opposite of what is needed. The accord states that workers' living standards and real wages must be maintained. We know, of course, that productivity improvements would reduce unit labour costs, but the accord tells us that real wages should increase in line with productivity improvements, which will prevent any such fall. What is the totality of this situation? We say that the new accord is inconsistent with the Government's Budget position. We say it is economically bad and indefensible. We say that it indicates, if anything was ever needed to indicate it, that the union movement and the ACTU dominate this Government in their own interests. We say that it is a complete abuse of the arbitration system. This country cannot afford full wage indexation now, if we want full employment growth. We cannot afford this extravagance which the Government is foisting on industry and we cannot afford the Hawke Government. Mr WILLIS(Gellibrand-Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations)(3.58) —We have just heard a farrago of fantasies and falsities from the Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Mr N. A. Brown) which is typical of the stuff we have been hearing from his predecessor as Opposition spokesman on employment and industrial relations, the honourable member for Tangney (Mr Shack). I must say that there has been no improvement whatsoever. The reality is that many statements are made by Opposition spokesmen which are absolutely wrong. The essential untruth is that the agreement between the Australian Council of Trade Unions and the Government in relation to wages, taxes and other matters is the essence of economic irresponsibility. That is what has been alleged here today. The matter of public importance states, although it was not addressed by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, that the agreement will have damaging effects on employment. This was all said 2 1/2 years ago when the accord was first established. We have seen over the last 2 1/2 years that the accord has enormous strength and has been the basis upon which this Government has been able to generate a sustained economic recovery which has enabled us to have strong growth and to reduce significantly the level of unemployment. Of course, we still have an untenably high level of unemployment, but it is much lower than it was when we came into office. If we continue with the policies which we have pursued successfully for the last couple of years, which we certainly intend to do, we will continue to get that unemployment rate down and generally improve the economic state of this nation. That totally escaped the previous Government. In its seven and a quarter years of writhing with the levers of power in this country, it was totally unable to come to grips with controlling inflation and increasing economic growth and employment. Over the course of its seven and a quarter years in office, it simply staggered from crisis to crisis and finished up with unemployment being virtually double the level that it was when it came to office. It is with that background that we now get lectures from the Opposition about what the Government should be doing to improve the economic situation, despite the fact that we have dramatically improved the situation in this country by having substantially got down inflation, having greatly increased the level of economic growth and employment and having significantly decreased the level of unemployment. Now we are told that we have messed things up because we have thrown away the potential gains of devaluation and destroyed the competitive advantage which devaluation gave us, which therefore means that we will return to a period of low economic growth and rising unemployment. Of course all of that is an absolute figment of imagination of honourable members opposite, in particular of the Deputy Leader of the Opposition who today sought to make his mark by being utterly extravagant in most of the things he had to say. The reality is that this agreement between the Government and the Australian Council of Trade Unions cements the process which began two and a half years ago. It cements it particularly in respect of enabling us to overcome effectively the challenge to this country which was posed by the devaluation. Let me say something about that devaluation. It occurred as a result of the success of this Government. The imbalance in the balance of payments, the current account weakness, has obviously existed for a long time and has been growing over the years. Under the previous Government it was hidden by the fact that that Government was totally unable to generate sustained economic growth. Once economic growth got underway we found, with the weakened competitive position of our industries, that we had a big increase in imports and that exposed the structural weakness in the balance of payments left by the previous Government. When that became obvious it was inevitable that we would face a substantial devaluation. That devaluation is a challenge to this nation but it also offers us enormous potential. We have certainly viewed it in that way. We have seen it as a way in which we can consolidate and greatly improve our growth prospects. We can overcome the competitive disadvantage that we have had in the past by consolidating on that devaluation and in particular by absorbing the inflationary impact, by getting it out of the system and not building it into our level of inflation. That will enable us to capitalise on the advantages which devaluation potentially will give us. That is the way in which we have set about dealing with this matter. We have said that, within the context of the prices and income accord, we can resolve this issue. The line that came from the other side was that great incompatibility is caused by deregulating financial markets and exchange rates and having a centralised wages system. That is totally untrue. We have now seen that the accord is strong enough to handle that, and this agreement does give us the capacity to absorb that inflationary impact, to get it out of the system and thereby capitalise on the devaluation advantages made available to us. We achieved that because we said to the ACTU that it was our strong position that there had to be some adjustment of wages policy if we were to overcome the impact of devaluation on the economy and be able to capitalise on all the advantages. The ACTU accepted that there had to be some impact on wages policy but there certainly was a lack of willingness in the early stages to contemplate discounting on wage indexation increases. As we saw it, the wages policy had to be adjusted either by way of indexation or by way of forestalling productivity increases which were allowable under the principles-at least the case on that basis was allowable under the principles-or a combination of both. As we considered fully the impact of that devaluation and saw the likely extent of it on our price levels, we took the view that we would have to have a combination of both; we would have to have some discounting of wage indexation increases if we were to be able in a credible way to absorb that inflationary impact and not have it built into the system. So we talked to the ACTU. Because of the accord we were able to do that in a way that the other side would never have been able to do. We put our view and argued it through and eventually the ACTU accepted that there had to be some discounting of wages. It is untrue to say, as I think the Deputy Leader of the Opposition said, that we did not get discounting. Of course we do have discounting, to the extent of 2 per cent off the case after the current one. That was obtained on the basis that an offsetting tax cut would come in at some time later. That tax cut will be introduced about five months after the wage discount is taken from the case in April next year-at least that is what we will propose to the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission. It has been said by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition that there has been some inconsistency in our position in regard to what was said by the Treasurer (Mr Keating) in his Budget Speech. That is absolutely and totally untrue. The Treasurer said: . . . in the next two wage indexation cases the Government will argue before the Full Bench of the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission that the price effects of depreciation be taken into account- He went on to elaborate on that. In this current case and in the next case we will be putting to the Arbitration Commission that there will have to be discounting from wage indexation increases, as the Treasurer said in the Budget Speech. We are saying that it does not have to happen in this current case but 2 per cent has to be taken from any increase after the next case. So there is no inconsistency whatsoever with what was said by the Treasurer and what is being done. Mr Tuckey —It won't happen in the next one. They will fix you up when they're ready. Mr WILLIS —We said, if honourable members would only read the Budget Speech-- Mr Tuckey —Read it again. Mr WILLIS —Mr Deputy Speaker, are you going to do something about these idiots? Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Blanchard) —Order! I have warned the honourable member for O'Connor. Mr WILLIS —The Government said that it would argue before the Full Bench of the Arbitration Commission that the price effects of the depreciation be taken into account in the next two wage indexation cases. We will argue that in this case and in the next case, and there will be 2 per cent off the case after this current one. The impact on inflation of taking the 2 per cent off the next case as compared to, say, taking 0.8 per cent off the present case and 1.2 per cent off the next one is virtually identical once one goes about a year down the track. For 1986-87, the inflationary impact is virtually the same. Certainly between now and the next case there will be a slightly higher level of inflation as a result of there being no discounting in this case but a year or so down the track we are looking at no identifiable difference. So it is not a matter of not being able to combat by this means the impact of the devaluation on the inflation level; we will combat it as effectively as if there had been discounting in this case. The other side of the matter is that we will have a postponement of the productivity case in terms of both the hearing of the case, which could have come on at any time from 1 July this year, and an outcome. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition has totally misunderstood, or deliberately distorted, the position. He suggested that when the productivity case comes on we will support, with the ACTU, an outcome of 3 per cent but for that to be implemented over the course of the subsequent two years. So there is to be no 3 per cent addition to wage costs as from 1 July but an implementation over the course of the next two years so that in the financial years 1986-87 and 1987-88 there will be in each of those years as a result of the productivity case an impact on wage costs of about 1 1/2 per cent. So it is not a matter of the 3 per cent coming on now, as the Deputy Leader so falsely said. Of course that makes a nonsense of his figures based on 12 per cent. They are absolutely dreamed up figures with no credibility whatsoever. We are looking at increases through the Commission of 3.8 per cent in the current case and something in the order of 2 per cent or a little more in the next case. Those are the likely outcomes in the course of this financial year and nothing will come out of the productivity case this financial year. As I said, there will be an increase of 1 1/2 per cent in each of the subsequent two financial years. It is quite clear that the substantial deferral of the productivity case outcome, in combination with discounting, will enable us to overcome totally the effect of devaluation on inflation in this country, to grasp the competitive gain which that gives us, to redress the balance of payments problem through that means and, most certainly, to increase greatly economic growth in this country. The devaluation will have a substantial plus effect on employment and economic growth. It will do so in this financial year and, most certainly, in the subsequent financial year. Because of those perceived employment pluses, particularly in manufacturing industry, the ACTU has been so willing to co-operate with us in enabling us to overcome the impact of the devaluation. We can contrast that with what the Opposition would have been able to achieve, had it been in government when this occurred. Of course, it would not have had two years growth, but let us assume that by some miracle it did have that growth and was then faced with devaluation. How would it have coped with that? Would it have been able to negotiate with the ACTU for discounting? Of course not. What would the Opposition have done? It would have tried to stop the price effect being built into wages by the standard economic approach, which is to depress the economy, take tougher budgetary and monetary policies, apply them in such a manner as to depress the level of economic activity, create more unemployment and by that means squeeze the inflation level down so that the inflationary impact from devaluation does not get built into the system. That is how the Opposition would have overcome the problem-by creating more unemployment and by increasing the recession. That kind of approach was a standard element of the previous Government. That is the only approach that the Opposition would take. We have avoided all that and the people of Australia must understand that, through these negotiations with the ACTU, we have avoided the standard economic approach which would mean depressed economic growth, reduced living standards and, most certainly increased unemployment in this country. We have taken the approach which maximises the gains for the people of this country. The ACTU is to be congratulated for being so economically and socially responsible in co-operating fully with the Government and thus enabling this situation to come about. It is an enourmous irony that this has occurred at a time when trade unions generally are being denigrated by conservative forces in this country as being utterly irresponsible. As a body, the ACTU is this day in the Sydney Town Hall taking a decision which is the most economically responsible decision taken by the trade union movement in this country's history. Yet, the unions are denigrated as utterly economically irresponsible. The reality is that the decision that they are taking today is absolutely historic. Today's decision means that this country will continue on a high growth path and will continue to have high employment growth-the Budget forecast for this year was for a growth of 180,000 jobs-and that this kind of growth will continue next year and the year after unless some international disaster occurs. The bases of economic policy are sound. Real unit labour costs are down. The Opposition spokesman referred to the need to get real unit labour costs down. We have got them down to the levels at which they were in the late 1960s and early 1970s-- Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Blanchard) —Order! The Minister's time has expired. Mr ROCHER(Curtin)(4.13) —Last election the Hawke Government went to the people on its record. It was a government with a record of the highest taxes we have ever known in this country, the highest expenditure and the highest deficits with accompanying borrowings. Since then it has become the all-time world champion government for the number of broken election pledges. As my colleague the honourable member for Menzies (Mr N. A. Brown) has already pointed out today, it has broken new records in its subordination to the Australian Council of Trade Unions. What many of us on this side of the Parliament foresaw and predicted as the outcome of agreement by the Hawke Government to the demands of the ACTU in the form of the prices and incomes accord, seems to be dawning on an increasing number of Australians. This is especially so since the agreement announced last week to extend the so-called accord for another two years with new and somewhat foreboding provisions. Until the greed of the ACTU and the Government's weak-kneed compliance with union demands bring about the inevitable collapse of the accord, the outlook for a return to economic stability is out of the question. There can be no return to significant employment opportunities in the private sector while this Government remains the puppet of its unrepresentative union masters. The deal to extend the term of the accord in return for partially discounting the inflationary effects of our devalued dollar has been hailed as a victory. But it has been hailed as a victory mainly by the beneficiaries. Remember that any victory must produce a loser or losers. The real victors will be those in work; the losers those who are unemployed, particularly unemployed youth. The victors will include ACTU office holders, the losers being the majority of Australian men, women and children. The winners again will be union officials and the losers the proprietors of 730,000 small businesses around this country. We all know something about the growth of repetition strain injury in some occupations but it is nothing compared to the repetitive strain and enormous injury to be done to employment prospects brought about by secret deals struck behind closed doors by a weak government totally outclassed by its masterful union masters. The latest repetitive strain is this diabolical cave-in and failure to discount recent consumer price index increases of 3.8 per cent by at least 0.8 per cent. That failure is just one of the symptoms. While our dollar plunges and inflation surges, we will now have to suffer the effects of a full 3.8 per cent indexation of wages and salaries which will serve to depress even more the brass razoo which is our dollar. At the same time, the inflationary cycle will be prepetuated. Economic management in Australia today is already firmly in the hands of the ACTU and every deal made with it by this Government sees those grasping hands tighten that grip even more. How is it that many unions and the ACTU generally have been given powers and privileges which no other institutions or groupings possess? Before the Hawke Government only elected governments had the right to exercise powers over economic decision taking, which the ACTU and its cohorts have now largely assumed for themselves. This assumption of power is in addition to its unchallenged monopoly rights to control the supply of labour. All that exists in concert with what is now almost accepted practice-that is, enabling some unionists to break agreements, contracts and provisions of awards without penalty. It includes, amongst other powers, the power of veto over economic and taxation policy and practice. This sad and serious state of affairs has developed under the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) and the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations (Mr Willis) both of whom were and remain essentially trade union officials. It is as simple as that. They connive to try to sell the line that full wage indexation is somehow synonymous with maintenance of living standards. What a load of rubbish! Full wage indexation will have the opposite effect. No-one could have conceived a more certain way to reduce the purchasing power of wage and salary earners. The costs of production will rise in full measure, of course, but not the purchasing power and standards of living of wage earners. Why is this so? First, higher money wages do not translate into commensurately higher take home pay-income tax and bracket creep will see to that. Secondly, and also inevitably, higher money wages equate with higher inflation and higher labour-saving investment to ensure lower employment and real wages in Australia in the months ahead. To predicate wage indexation on economic growth figures without pointing out that growth is being measured from the depths of a recession is just about plumbing new depths in deceitfulness. Nevertheless, that is precisely what the Government is doing, no doubt at the urging of its masters in the ACTU. Mr Hodgman —Simon says. Mr ROCHER —Simon says, indeed! While they refuse to concede the contribution of the Fraser Government's wage pause to our modest economic growth from exceptionally low levels, the Government and the ACTU, encouraged by their supporters and members, paint a false picture, which, in turn, encourages irresponsible demands which are such to further impoverish our farmers, our small businesses and our unprotected industries. Because governments like to exaggerate, the Australian public is being misled about our economic performance and prospects. Once again, wage and salary demands are to be made in anticipation of better times ahead, and when successful, as guaranteed by the accord, such demands will make certain, as sure as night follows day, that those better times in prospect will never come. Employers are being required to pay, in the form of indexed wages, for something that has not happened and is increasingly unlikely to happen. That is just part of the madness of it all. The capacity of employers to pay is just not taken into account, and in all too many cases that capacity is unlikely ever to be there. Let us look at only some of the economic indicators that have been ignored by the Government in its haste to buy industrial peace and union blessings at any price. There is the $10 billion deficit on our current account for the year to last June. Add to that another billion dollars or so for the deficit for the month of July. There is also the growing public and private sector foreign debt. What about the blow-out in the supply of broad money and an absence of knowledge among investors about what the Government is likely to do about it? Interest rates are moving strongly upwards, and business expansion will suffer accordingly. Regulated housing interest loans provided by banks will cause lenders' deposits to be transferred to unregulated building societies in large lumps. Employment in the housing sector will fall away as potential house buyers retreat from the market because of interest hikes. Finally, extravagant government spending will not offset counter- measures to be taken in the private sector. As private employers look to cut costs by investment at the expense of employment, the full import of slowing economic growth will be there for all to see. Is it any wonder that we should want to caution all Australians today about the damage to employment prospects arising from the new prices and incomes accord between the Government and the ACTU? The new prices and incomes accord is only new in a couple of ways. First, it is hoped by the Government-but by hardly anyone else-that it will last another two years. Secondly, it makes even more concessions to its ACTU masters. At Question Time today we heard the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke)-and no doubt the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Kerin) and other speakers will be tempted to do so-refer to reduced strike figures. I remind the House that throughout the building industry most strikes are no longer recorded because they are so commonplace. The everyday homers on metropolitan building sites just do not get reported, so they are not included in the figures. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Blanchard) —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr LANGMORE(Fraser)(4.23) —This is a historic day for it is the first parliamentary sitting day for the new Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard) and the new Deputy Leader of the Opposition, the honourable member for Menzies (Mr N. A. Brown); also, it is the first sitting day since announcement of the agreement between the Government and the Australian Council of Trade Unions. In Parliament it may look as though the new appointments are more important, but, in the context of history, it is likely that this agreement will be recognised as being far more important. After all, Labor is likely to win the next election, and another batch of Opposition front bench members will have to be appointed and the lot who have just started their careers today will be forgotten. The honourable member for Menzies was obliged to attempt to undermine the significance of the agreement in order to try to establish himself in his new position, but he failed dismally. He has raised an astonishing matter of public importance which has no basis in reality. He simply made assertions, failing completely to back them up with logical argument. He shouted to cover the hollowness of his argument, to hide the fact that he was calling black white. Perhaps his is an example of the new extremism which can be expected from the Opposition now-this time, extreme misunderstanding and misrepresentation. This agreement between the Government and the ACTU is the most important contribution to sustained economic and employment growth that any government could make at present, and certainly it is the most important contribution that the Hawke Government has made since winning office in March 1983. Most of the arguments of the honourable member for Curtin (Mr Rocher) were irrelevant to the subject of his Deputy Leader's matter of public importance. Contrary to the implication of that, the agreement improves employment prospects. The agreement is supportive of strong, sustained economic growth. Before the agreement was signed, the Treasurer (Mr Keating) estimated a 5 per cent growth in gross domestic product in 1985-86. That growth may well be stronger now, because the agreement enhances both investor and consumer confidence. The agreement allows for full discounting of wages for the inflationary effects of devaluation-2 per cent in the wage case next year, and the other proportion through postponement of the productivity case. That will lead to a decline in inflation rates in 1986-87 to around the level of the last two years, and a further decline is possible after that. The agreement will also lead to a reduction in labour costs. The Opposition likes to paint a picture of labour costs as having risen under this Government. The fact is that in 1982-83 the index of labour costs was 106.2-using the period 1966 to 1972 as a base-and in 1984-85 it had fallen to 98.8. Those accord achievements will be able to continue as a result of this agreement. Also, the agreement enhances consumer confidence, which is essential to maintaining growth of total demand. Real after-tax incomes will be maintained as a result of the agreement because the 2 per cent discounting in March-April will be offset by tax reductions in September which will be sufficient to compensate employees. Also, employees are able to expect an extension and improvement in superannuation to the equivalent of a 3 per cent wage increase in the couple of years after the middle of next year. So, the effects of this agreement will be to enhance stability in the economy, and probably nothing is more important to business than stability. It certainly makes for predictability, because it allows business to predict what will be happening to wage costs, to know with some confidence that the inflation rate is likely to fall, and to know also that economic growth is likely to continue. The agreement also enhances security for employees. The Opposition likes to attack the idea of full wage indexation; however, if the Opposition's arguments were accepted, the impact of that would be to reduce living standards. If there were not full indexation, employees would be forced to accept reductions in real wages, and that would cause growth of insecurity. That would lead to a reduction in consumer confidence, reduction in demand and, therefore, slower economic growth. So, on every count, this is one of the most historic agreements that this Government could possibly have produced, and it will enhance employment growth. In the forecasting associated with the Budget it was estimated that 180,000 new jobs would be created this year-a 2 3/4 per cent employment growth. This agreement not only will ensure that that growth occurs but will probably enable even faster growth to occur. It is interesting to note that the agreement is consistent with the post-devaluation package suggested by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development in its recent report on Australia. The OECD wrote: It would appear that some partial adjustment of the CPI combined with a delay of, say, one year in the productivity case would greatly diminish the inflationary pressures while having only a very small impact on real incomes. The benefits to the community would flow from improved medium term growth propects, implying higher employment, reduced interest rates and an improved environment for tax reform. So the OECD is commending the course which the Government has chosen to adopt, because it will improve prospects for economic and employment growth-totally the reverse of what the honourable member for Menzies was asserting. The OECD is certainly capable of making mistakes, mainly because of its excessively cautious ideological position, but that conservatism should appeal to the honourable member for Menzies. He should take account in this case of the OECD's comments even if he refuses to accept the comments of Australian commentators on the value of this agreement. There was general editorial welcoming of the agreement, and that is important too. It is essential that the effects of devaluation be discounted. Both the union movement and the business community have recognised that. This agreement is an ideal means of achieving that goal because it accommodates the needs of union members while at the same time ensuring that full discounting occurs. It has received the unanimous agreement of the Australian Council of Trade Unions and it can expect to receive overwhelming endorsement at the ACTU congress. The agreement will certainly reassure businesses that the Government is in control, that it knows what it wants and that it is able to get it. As the Treasurer said in his Press statement at the time this agreement was announced, this is a `can do' government, it is a government which honours its commitments made under the accord mark 1 and which knows how to move on to the next round to achieve something which must be regarded as historic. It is certainly the first time in Australian history that an agreement such as this has been reached. The previous accord was negotiated before the Australian Labor Party came to office. This is the first time an agreement such as this has been made by a government in office. One of the most important elements of the agreement is that it creates a framework for a most expansionary economic policy because the only alternative to this type of incomes policy which the Opposition has been able to come up with is one which would increase instability, confrontation and fragmentation in exactly the way that happened in 1981-82. It is important to remember that. The consequence was that the Fraser-Howard Government had to adopt a deflationary and contractionary economic policy which drove the economy deep into unemployment. This agreement creates the conditions for steady expansionary economic policies that will maintain the strong economic growth that has been occurring over the last two years, and therefore strong employment growth. This is a voluntary, comprehensive and equitable prices and incomes policy. It covers the whole community. It has been achieved through negotiation with not only the union movement but also the business community, the Economic Planning Advisory Council and the Advisory Committee on Prices and Incomes. It involves a negotiated settlement rather than the confrontation being recommended by the Leader of the Opposition and therefore it should have overwhelming support from the Australian community. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mrs Darling) — Order! The time for the debate has expired and the discussion is concluded. The following Bills were returned from the Senate without amendment: Aboriginal Lands Rights (Northern Territory) Amendment Bill 1985. National Parks and Wildlife Conservation Amendment Bill 1985. Assent to the following Bills reported: Building Industry Bill 1985. Wheat Marketing Amendment Bill 1985. Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Amendment Bill 1985. National Parks and Wildlife Conservation Amendment Bill 1985. Social Security and Repatriation Legislation Amendment Bill 1985. (Budget Debate) Debate resumed from 23 August, on motion by Mr Keating: That the Bill be now read a second time. upon which Mr Peacock had moved by way of amendment. That all words after `That' be omitted with a view to substituting the following words: The House condemns the Budget because- (1) it is only half a Budget which fails to outline any approach to the urgent problems of tax reform and tax relief; (2) it fails to remove the threat of new taxes on investment and jobs, such as a capital gains tax which will include death duties and gift taxes; (3) it condemns 750,000 Australians to higher marginal tax brackets during the year; (4) it fails to address the fundamental problems facing the Australian economy, particularly high inflation, the lack of international competitiveness and the need for further cuts in Government spending; (5) it fails to provide clear direction on the Government's approach to discounting wage indexation for the effects of depreciation of the dollar and so potentially destroys its employment benefits; (6) it fails to move towards the deregulation of labour markets required to give all Australians the chance for a job, and (7) it burdens Australia with the threat of continued high interest rates which hurt not only homebuyers but hit business investment and jobs. Mr DOWNER(Mayo)(4.35) —The Government's half Budget and its total economic strategy is the strategy of anachronistic corporatists playing out the last acts of the Industrial Revolution long after that era of economic history has truly passed. It is a strategy which, for all the rhetoric of the Treasurer (Mr Keating), is a strategy based on those tired old policies of big spending and deals with union bosses; a strategy which shows that the Government and indeed the Australian Labor Party as a whole are painfully ignorant of the inexorable socio-economic changes now taking place in Australia. Gone are the days when the Australian economy dependent on mass produced, low technology manufactured goods, an economy which spawned the corporatist institutional structure so favoured by the Labour Party. Today's and tomorrow's economy will depend increasingly on small efficient enterprises producing high quality mid-technology products and providing services and recreational facilities. This trend is already apparent in the United States of America. It is no coincidence that most of America's new jobs are in enterprises which employ fewer than 20 people. In Australia the growing community pressure for deregulation and wage flexibility, the vociferous demands for tax relief, and the manifest frustration with government, particularly in the small business sector, are all symptomatic of the changing nature of the Australian economy and the failure of the Government and our institutional structure to recognise and encourage this change. The Government's economic strategy, only partly revealed in the Budget, will in the longer term hold back our economy and guarantee for Australia a second rate future because it is based on public sector growth and deals made with the Australian Council of Trade Unions. The results already are that the dollar has plunged and we have a $10 billion current account deficit. Inflation is intensifying, the foreign debt is increasing and spending by governments is also increasing. So we have a growth generated by the public sector which is narrowly based and it is no surprise to hear small-business people all over Australia asking: `Why aren't I involved in this growth? Why am I not benefiting from what the Government describes as an upturn in the economy?' If the Government recognised the transmogrification of the economy it would have acted in its Budget to assist small business. It would have reduced small business costs through lower taxes, through initiatives to reduce interest rates and through lower taxes, through initiatives to reduce interest rates and through a more flexible approach to wages. It would have provided investment incentives for business, not taken them away. It would have made a clear commitment to economic stability through an appropriate monetary and anti-inflationary strategy. Instead, this corporatist Government offers almost the reverse. It has budgeted for a growth in government spending of 1.3 per cent in real terms, bringing the increase in spending since March 1983 to a staggering 41.3 per cent. This has ensured an excessive public sector borrowing requirement which this financial year will be 5.6 per cent of the gross domestic product, about twice that of the United States. It has also led, since 1983, to a 43 per cent increase in the public debt, which this year will attract an interest liability of $6.7 billion, or $20 a week for every employed person. The consequences of Labor's spending spree for Australia's emerging, wealth generating small enterprises, are twofold. The concomitant public sector borrowing has forced interest rates up to their highest level in 50 years. Even the Labor Premier of South Australia recognised this when he said last week: They- meaning interest rates- are getting to the stage where they are threatening the economic recovery . . . and they are `threatening business expansion . . . ' That is the view of a Labor Premier whose own record on spending is no better than that of the Federal Government's. Obviously high interest rates have a deleterious effect, in particular on the capacity of small business to borrow for investment. Whilst big business is relatively unconcerned, although it is not happy, about rising domestic interest rates because of its use of foreign currency and Euro-Australian dollar borrowing facilities, small business has none of these advantages. It is trapped. That is why last financial year business investment as a proportion of GDP was at a 10-year low, and it is why, in Budget Statement No. 2, Treasury has stated: The recovery in business investment to date and in prospect in 1985-86 has not been strong historically . . . The handmaiden of big government, which is of course high taxation, is also imposing unacceptable burdens on small enterprises. Pay as you earn tax receipts this year are to rise by 13.3 per cent. They will have risen by 29 per cent in just two years. On top of this massive increase in personal income tax at the end of the month we will have a tax package of what have been described by many as option A nasties. How can we motivate small entrepreneurs and the work force with a tax burden like that? How can we motivate small enterprises with the imminent capital gains tax, a tax which, on American precedent, has proved to be an investment destroyer for small businesses? How can small enterprises be expected to prosper and to grow if employers who are already operating on narrow margins have to pay a fringe benefits tax? Mr Hand —What is your experience of running a small business? Mr DOWNER —But those are the consequences of Labor's corporatist big government strategy. A representative of that Party is rudely interjecting from the other side of the House. These are the consequences of its strategy and its passion for spending on the pet projects of vested interest groups, all at the expense of the wealth creators of the future. A government which recognised our changing society would have looked for ways to assist, not hinder, small enterprises. It would have produced constructive reforms to business taxation in order to help enterprises invest for the future-something this Government has not even considered even in its options A, B and C. It would have taken steps to eliminate invidious anti-business double taxation by reintroducing the dividend rebate. Yet this Government's strategy offers none of those things. Apart from spending, the other centrepiece of Labor's corporatist strategy is its prices and incomes accord. The world of the accord is not the world of Australia's small, entrepreneurial, wealth-generating enterprises. No small enterprises participated in the recent negotiations on wage discounting and the future of the accord. The only role for small business in Labor's corporate structure is at the table of the Economic Planning Advisory Council, that long-forgotten and superfluous relic of the first summit. Indeed, so forgotten is EPAC that many of its senior staff are seeking alternative employment. The new deal on wage discounting and productivity negotiated by the Government with the ACTU is a gutless surrender by the Government to the ACTU. So complete was the surrender that I am surprised that there are any members of the Government in this House today. I see there are only four. I assume that the rest of them are away at the annual conference of their high command in the Sydney Town Hall. The Treasurer, in his Budget Speech just three weeks ago, stated unequivocally that the Government would support discounting for inflation at the next national wage case hearing. He told us that it was central to the Government's economic strategy. We now know that not only will he fail to proceed with his commitments but also, as a result, his total economic strategy is now in tatters. To use the words of the Confederation of Australian Industry, the Government `has failed to grasp the nettle'. The CAI stated: . . . the ACTU has once again exploited its privileged position'. The Government promised negotiations on discounting between the ACTU and the employers. The employers were not even consulted. The deal was struck at the behest of the ACTU. The Government has granted it a productivity increase in arrogant disregard for any opinions that the so-called independent umpire, the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission, may have in the future. It has granted the productivity increase, despite the fact that over the last two years productivity per hour worked has fallen by 0.4 per cent. But, above all, the deal has been done with no thought whatsoever for our wealth-creating small business sector. The new wages deal will exacerbate inflation. The Treasurer has implicitly admitted that. It will push up interest rates as inflationary expectations are relit, and that is already happening. It will destabilise our international reputation, as can be seen already in the further slump in the Australian dollar. It will impose an additional crippling burden on Australia's forgotten wealth creators, the small business sector. The recent wages deal is another example of the Government's arrogant, anachronistic corporatism, a corporatism which is defying the inexorable evolution of the Australian economy. The tide of change-that tide which will generate long term prosperity and jobs for the whole community-is being resisted by the Labor Government. By resisting such change it is damaging our prospects for the future. But make no mistake, that inexorable tide will ultimately wash Labor's corporatism out into the ocean and the small enterprise based entrepreneurship will open up the future for all Australians. Mrs CHILD(Henty)(4.45) —The 1985 Budget is very much a good news-bad news Budget. It is good news for the people of Australia and bad news for the doomsayers in the Opposition. The third Keating Budget is built on the solid foundation of 2 1/2 years of spectacular economic growth, considerably reduced unemployment and inflation and a marked improvement in the competitiveness of our industry. Given the morass into which the economy had sunk by the start of 1983, the recovery brought about by this Government has been astounding. However, before I look at the Government's record and its proposals for future development, it is worth while climbing abroad the memory train-the bad memory train-and revisiting those seven wasted years of coalition bumbling and fumbling. Who can forget the rubbery figures Budget, the now you see it now you don't tax cuts, the cold showers and bread and water philosophising? Who can forget the grandiose promises of Fraser on the campaign trail, the born to rule assurance that everything would be set to rights once our patrician betters were restored to their rightful position? What a blow it must have been for the Ministers of the Fraser Government to discover that the country no longer ran itself as it did back in the halcyon days of Sir Robert. How shattering it must have been to find that governing an industrial nation at a time of international economic turmoil meant making hard, often unpalatable, decisions. It is small wonder that the Fraser Government was long on rhetoric and short on performance; small wonder that crackpot economic theorising abounded. After all, it is a great deal easier to win an esoteric argument about the virtues of the Laffer curve than to frame an economic policy that actually works in the real world, rather than in an academic wind tunnel. Many coalition members, presumably those who had not heard of the Laffer curve, spent most of their time searching for scapegoats. Naturally, the Whitlam Government came in very handy for a long time. The union movement proved good value, as it always has for conservatives. At one stage, the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission was very much in vogue for scapegoat bashing. It was attacked by timid employers who were not prepared to be human sacrifices on behalf of the Government's wages policy, such as it was. Even Treasury was not exempt. Everyone copped the blame at some stage-everyone except the people who were elected to take the responsibility. In 1983, the Australian electorate recognised that the coalition parties, far from being the sound and reliable managers of legend, were actually, in the words of the Treasurer (Mr Keating) a bunch of `mugs and hillbillies' who had frittered away seven years of power. The voters wisely chose to elect a government which was prepared to adopt a sensible economics strategy and stick to it. The fruits of this approach are now obvious. Let me say something about the prices and incomes accord. A great deal of discussion has taken place in recent weeks concerning discounting of wage increases coming out of the national wage case. The Opposition parties-there is only one member of the Opposition here now-- Mr Hawker —Two. Mrs CHILD —I am sorry; the honourable member was hidden from view. The Opposition parties have been scarcely able to contain their delight because of their belief that conflict over the discounting question could have spelt the end of the accord. I did not believe that this was likely to happen, but is it not odd to note the Opposition's reaction? When the accord was first proposed, the Opposition opposed the concept bitterly. When the accord was put into operation, we were told that it would be the ruination of the country. When Opposition members perceived it as being threatened, they hoped to shed crocodile tears at the funeral. In reality, there is nothing magical or mystical about the accord. It is simply a concrete recognition of a philosophy of government-the philosophy that it makes good sense to try to get the various interest groups in this community to sit down in a civilised manner to look for ways to work together. The philosophy is based on the recognition that the men and women who lead the trade union movement and the men and women who run Australian industry are essentially people of good will who have the interests of their country at heart. It simply would never occur to a coalition government to try to hammer out a consensus approach to important community issues. Conservatives automatically assume that everyone else in the community has the same cynical and grasping approach as themselves, and would never be prepared to give a little for the benefit of all. Their other consideration would be, of course, that open public discussion might oblige them to actually argue their point of view, rather than relying on speeches written for them by their advisers. As the saying goes: `It is better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak and remove all doubt'. I think it reflects great credit on the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) and the Treasurer in particular that they have been prepared to adopt such an open approach to these matters rather than hiding in their offices and concocting policies in the dark. It is never going to be possible to get total agreement on very complex issues, but it cannot but help if one can persuade people to put their cards on the table. This is a high risk strategy in that any error one makes is more likely to be on public display. However, when all is said and done, what really matters are results and, on this score, the Government has much to be proud of. I want to say something about the Opposition's new glamour issue of privatisation. To put it in a nutshell, privatisation appears to encompass taking efficient, profit making organisations in the public sector and selling them so that someone other than the taxpayers can make money from them. Apparently, the taxpayers are going to be grateful for this, but is a bit difficult to understand why. As I understand it, the traditional criticism of the public sector from the conservative parties was that public enterprises were inefficient and cost the taxpayers money to subsidise their operations. Now it appears that inefficient public enterprises are quite all right, it is the efficient ones that are to be disposed of. The privatisation policy is justified by a good deal of rhetoric about the role of the state as against the individual, the dangers of monopoly power and a lot of other pretentious nonsense, but the real point of the exercise is apparently to allow the coalition parties' mates to make a quick quid. John Valder pretty much gave the game away when he pointed out on one of his famous tapes that one should only dispose of bodies that made a profit. He could not see any point in selling the others. I suppose that if the Opposition was to argue that all government activities that could feasibly be undertaken by private enterprise should be sold off, it would at least have the virtue of consistency. However, it is quite clear that what is intended is that the eyes will be picked out of bodies such as Telecom and Australia Post. Everyone knows that Telecom and Australia Post are obliged to provide an enormous range of services to the whole community. Some such as the Australia Post courier service and the Sydney-Melbourne subscriber trunk dialling routes are highly profitable. Others, such as telegrams and telephone connection in outback areas, operate heavily in the red. I would imagine that the National Party would be interested in that. Nonetheless, these services are still provided because of the clear social need for them. They cannot be provided at cost because almost no-one could afford to pay the huge amounts involved. Accordingly, cross-subsidisation is employed; that is, the profits from those services which do make money are used to subsidise those which do not. That seems to me to be a fair and reasonable situation. What will become of this system under privatisation? What will become of unprofitable, but essential, services if the profitable services are sold to private enterprise? There are only two possibilities: The economic cost could be charged, imposing heavy burdens on people outside the capital cities. Again, let us hear from the National Party on this matter. That would go down well in National Party seats. The alternative is for the taxpayer to be slugged in order to subsidise uneconomic services. I thought that the so-called economic rationalists on the Opposition benches were in favour of less taxation, not more. If Opposition members really believe that privatisation is going to capture the imagination of the Australian electorate, they may have another think coming. Most Australians are sensible enough to recognise that there are some services which are simply not appropriate for private interests to handle. When profit becomes the prime motive, someone has to pay the price. By and large, public enterprises in this nation do not have any record of massive inefficiency compared with private enterprises. Conservatives always talk about the railways as an example. Because the Australian Government runs the railway systems they lose money. Of course they do. So does every railway system in the world, public and private. Some services that governments are obliged to provide in the public interest are such that they cannot be expected to run at a profit. Surely the concept of the public interest still means something to those who sit opposite. If it does not, they are going to sit opposite for a long time. However, that is not an argument that needs to be put in defence of the record of organisations such as Qantas Airways Ltd, Trans Australia Airlines or the Commonwealth Bank. These are all organisations which more than pay their way and have no need at all to be embarassed about their commercial performance. To sell them off, probably to foreign interests, would be short sighted economic vandalism. I made mention of the National Party a couple of minutes back. Perhaps some more comments would be appropriate. Members of the National Party in this House talk loud and long about the wastefulness of government spending. They say: `Slash the deficit. Sack the public servants! Cut spending to the bone!' One might be inclined to take all this fervour about government extravagance seriously, but it always pays to look below the surface of the National Party. We are all aware of the desire of members of the National Party to-in the classic phrase of I think it was Kim Beazley senior-`socialise their losses and capitalise their gains'. Are they really serious about economising and cutting government spending? The honourable member for Cowper (Mr Nehl) cannot be very serious. He has a motion on notice calling on the Government to build aged units and provide more hostel and nursing home beds in no less than nine cities and towns in his electorate. What is more, he would like it all this year. He may not be aware that the average cost to the Commonwealth for the establishment of a nursing home is $15m, and he wants nine this year. The honourable member for Gilmore (Mr Sharp) is a little less ambitious. He wants us to spend only $15m to upgrade and seal a trunk road in his electorate. The honourable member for Fisher (Mr Slipper) does not muck about. He wants the Government to upgrade to four lanes the Bruce Highway from Brisbane to at least as far north as the Kenilworth turnoff. It is a commendable idea, but the cost would be staggering. Given the hilly terrain and the number of bridges required the Government would need to spend between $600m and $1 billion. When one adds amounts like this to the endless list of subsidies and bounties always being demanded by the National Party spokesmen, it is easy to see what would happen to the deficit with them at the helm. One of the most interesting features of this Budget has been the reaction of the media. The nature of the media is such that it generally accentuates the negative. Bad news is usually thought to be more interesting than good news and criticism thought to be more newsworthy than praise. This Budget has proved to be an exception to the rule. It is not often that Labor governments attract a lot of praise from the Press, especially on economic issues. So I am sure that the House will bear with me if I share with it some of the views of the Press. Terry McCrann, business editor of the Age, and generally an acerbic critic of this Government, said: Mr Keating-and Cabinet-deserve great credit for last night's document. All things considered, especially the political realities, so often ignored by economic purists, and setting aside the inevitable quibbles, Mr Keating has brought down just about the best Budget he could have. Peter Cole Adams, of the same newspaper, said: Last night's was not an exciting Budget, but it made a lot more sense than most that were brought down over the past 15 years. The Australian Financial Review described the Budget in the following terms: As realistic a document as could sensibly be expected under current circumstances . . . a serious and largely non-ideological effort to put a responsible philosphy into effect. Even the Australian could not bring itself to be unkind: It would be unfair to suggest that, on balance, this Budget does not evidence a serious attempt to confront our basic economic problems. The view of the Canberra Times was as follows: Overall, last night's Budget represents a good effort by the Government to build on Australia's economic recovery so far and to make substantial gains during the current financial year. Would not one know that the only real sour note would come from the discredited former Treasury Secretary and intellectual guru of the new Right, Mr John Stone? Mr Hand —He is losing credibility, eh? Mrs CHILD —Yes, he is. Writing in the Sydney Morning Herald, Mr Stone said: Why therefore, reading the Budget Speech and its associated papers, does one have this strangely uneasy feeling? . . . Basically the queasiness derives from the other theme so predominantly displayed in the Speech-Stepping up welfare spending . . . No less than six full pages are devoted to a wearisome catalogue of how much more of our money the Government now proposes to spend in a bewildering array of new so-called job creation programs. How typical of Mr Stone to find job creation programs wearisome. In conclusion, I refer to the extraordinary events which took place in the Liberal Party last week. I picked up a newspaper-I think it was the Melbourne Sun News Pictorial-which blared on the front page ` ``Howard's Out'' says Peacock' and which said on the back `Snedden Out'. I became quite disoriented. I did not know at which end to start. There have been many suggestions that many Liberal members of parliament did not understand the consequences of their vote on the deputy leadership. If that is really the case, I can readily understand why the honourable member for Kooyong tossed it in. Who would want to lead a pack like that, a pack who did not even know what the result of their vote would foreshadow? Now that some of these masterminds have caught up with the news they have convinced themselves that they have done the right thing after all. Certainly, the Opposition's previous conveyance was looking a little worse for wear. However, the new one already has a lot of miles on the clock. The Leader now is the same man who was Malcolm Fraser's right hand man and who presided as Treasurer over five of the most dismal years in this country's economic history. It is hardly the wave of the future. I commend the Government and, in particular, the Treasurer (Mr Keating) on this Budget. It is one which I am sure will lead to greater prosperity and security for all Australians. Mr HODGMAN(Denison)(5.04) —Madam Deputy Speaker, honourable members and fellow Australians: If moving to a new seat on the back bench of this honourable and historic chamber is the price I have to pay for my loyalty to my former Leader, the honourable member for Kooyong (Mr Peacock), it is a price I pay gladly. I have no regrets whatsoever. I am not a whinger; I am not a squealer. I do not turn back and I do not look over my shoulder. I have offered precisely the same loyalty to the honourable member for Bennelong (Mr Howard), who is the new Leader of the Parliamentary Liberal Party. As I said earlier today, being returned to the back bench is a bit like a sort of parliamentarian's purgatory. Mr Uren —It is good for humility. Mr HODGMAN —It is good for humility. I will do my time, and I will bide my time. I come from a family whose parliamentary involvement in Tasmania goes back to 1893 when the first Hodgman was elected to the Tasmanian House of Assembly. The Honourable T. C. Hodgman, MHA, was a very great member of the Tasmanian Parliament. It surprised many when he opted to remain in State politics and declined the gilt-edged invitation to enter the House of Representatives at Federation. He continued to serve with very great distinction in the Tasmanian Parliament until World War I. The Honourable T. C. Hodgman, MHA, was one of the old school. He had strict and very fundamental principles and values. They were basically the values of Australian politics for his generation. Honour, loyalty, character and propriety were the order of the day. Of all these values, honour and loyalty were placed highest. I acknowledge the presence in the chamber of my very close colleague and friend the honourable member for Franklin (Mr Goodluck), whose loyalty to me over the last few days has been a very great strength to me. When upheavals occur in party politics it is traditional for the victims to take their punishment in silence, to go quietly and not make a fuss. What a lot of bunkum! At the request of my former Leader, the honourable member for Kooyong, I have pledged my loyalty to the new Leader, notwithstanding any private views I have as to his election to the highest office the Parliamentary Liberal Party can offer. That I remained totally loyal to the former Leader is something of which I am proud-very proud indeed. I can look him in the eye and say with an utterly clear conscience that he had my total loyalty-150 per cent-from start to finish, until the moment he directed me to transfer that loyalty to his successor. What must have hurt the honourable member for Kooyong tremendously is the obvious fact that some of those close to him and, I might say, senior to me, did not maintain their loyalty. I believe that the honourable member for Koo- yong took his demise with very great character, very great grace and extraordinary dignity. That he did so when he must have known in his inner- most heart that he had been brought down by disloyalty, dishonour and downright treachery will stand as an abiding monument to his total and absolute commitment to the Liberal Party of Australia which he has served with great distinction since he first joined at the age of 15 years. For my own part I salute him. I believe that he has been overgenerous to those who brought him down. It is the closest thing that I have seen in my life to the great imperative `To err is human, to forgive, divine'. Before members of the Hawke socialist Government opposite feel pleasure, let me remind this honourable House and the people of Australia that nothing which has occurred within the last few days can come within cooee of the brutal, unprincipled and sadistic assassination of the honourable member for Oxley (Mr Hayden) at the hands of the usurper and imposter who currently holds, by fraud, the office of Prime Minister of Australia. The despicable assassination of the honourable member for Oxley in the shadows of the ides of March in 1983 will go down in the history of Australian politics as probably the greatest case ever of infamy, disloyalty and treachery. I mentioned earlier my compliance with the request by the honourable member for Kooyong that I transfer my loyalty to the new Leader. This I have done, as he well knows. He, for his part, has stated that if he fails to deliver the goods anybody-I repeat, anybody-can covet his position. I have noted his comments with interest. I accept the conditions which he has laid down. If he delivers the goods he has nothing to fear. He is now set on a course which should, in my opinion, take him and the Liberal Party to victory at the next Federal election. In that he will have my total and absolute support because nothing is dearer to my heart than to participate in not just the destruction but the utter annihilation of the Hawke socialist Government at the earliest possible opportunity. I am already relishing it in anticipation. When the Government goes it will not just be a defeat; it will be a rout. It will be absolutely decimated as it deserves to be. If the new Leader delivers the goods, as I anticipate he will, it follows therefore that he will be victorious and his position will be secure. If, however, he does not deliver the goods not only will I covet his position but also, as the natural and logical alternative to him, I will take it from him. Let me make that absolutely clear so that nobody is in any doubt at all as to precisely where I stand. What has happened to me in the past 24 hours is just a hiccup in my parliamentary career. I continue as the Federal member for Denison, proud to represent the finest electorate in Australia. Notwithstanding the Hawke socialist Government's electoral redistribution injustice of 1984, I held that seat against all the odds. The most sophisticated computer print-out before last year's Federal election rated my chances of holding the seat at only 31 per cent. In truth I am proud to be a Liberal representative of what on paper is clearly a Labor seat. At about 8.20 p.m. on election night at the Australian Labor Party headquarters members of that Party were popping the champagne corks with the jubilant cries: `Hodgman is gone'. By 9 p.m. they were struggling to put the corks back into the bottles as they realised to their dismay that I was not gone at all. Later that night the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) was reported as having described me as the `Harry Houdini of Australian politics'. I have said many times before that winners never quit and quitters never win. When the going gets tough the tough get going. That is precisely what I will do from this point on. I am just 46 years of age-I think a very young 46 years of age. When the great R. G. Menzies was 46 years of age he was Prime Minister of Australia. The year was 1940 and Australia was at war. In 1941, just one year later, his Government fell and Menzies, in disgrace, was replaced as Prime Minister of Australia by John Curtin. Just eight years later, in December 1949, Menzies rose like a phoenix from the ashes and again became Prime Minister of Australia, going on to set the record, which will never be broken, as Australia's longest serving Prime Minister. Coming close to home, in 1971 the Rt Hon. Malcolm Fraser, by his own resignation, plummeted from the very high position of Minister for Defence to the lowly back bench. Many so-called experts predicted at that time the demise of his parliamentary career. His future looked bleak and it was claimed around the corridors of Parliament House that he had just one friend in the entire parliamentary Liberal Party-the honourable member for Corangamite, the Hon. Tony Street. History shows that, just four years later, Malcolm Fraser became Prime Minister of Australia, inflicting upon the ALP the most devastating defeat it had ever suffered. He won government in an election which set a record with the largest government majority since Federation. People had said that he was gone and they had said that he was finished but he proved them wrong. I am not gone. I am not finished. I will endure this hiccup in my parliamentary career. I will see it through. Mr Uren —Madam Deputy Speaker, I take a point of order. I would like to know when the honourable member will stop talking about himself and start talking about the people and poverty. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mrs Darling) —Order! There is no point of order. Mr HODGMAN —We have a soft spot for the Minister for Local Government and Administrative Services but the sooner he is put into an old men's home the better for all of us. As I have said, I am young and virile. I repeat: I am not gone; I am not finished. I will endure this hiccup in my parliamentary career. I will see it through. I have been in State and Federal parliaments since 14 May 1966. Mr Goodluck —My birthday. Mr HODGMAN —The honourable member for Franklin's birthday and my father's birthday. On the subject of my father, I would just like to say, in case honourable members opposite think I am friendless, when I arrived at the Sheraton Hotel in Brisbane last night there was a telegram for me which simply said: `Some people have no taste. We still love you. Mum and Dad'. I thank them very much. Next year I will celebrate the twentieth anniversary of my first parliamentary election victory. In 1976 I was branded a oncer. In 1977 my electoral defeat was universally predicted. In 1980 I was confronted by the toughest opponent the ALP put into the field for the House of Representatives in the entire Federal election-the Honourable Ken Wriedt. Mr Goodluck —The big white hope. Mr HODGMAN —That is right, the big white hope. Ken Wriedt was Leader of the Opposition in the Senate and was said to be the best Minister in the dismissed, disgraced and discredited Whitlam Government. I do not overlook the fact that the present Prime Minister, the honourable member for Wills, was also a candidate in that 1980 Federal election. In 1983 I was again marked by the media for political extinction. Last year, with the new and incredible-I repeat, `incredible'-electoral boundaries for Denison, members of the media said with confidence: `This time Hodgman will certainly go to the gallows'. As my record proves, I am a survivor. Like those well known T-shirts which proclaim `I don't get angry, I just get even', my motto should be more appropriately `I don't get upset, I just get more determined'. So there it is. Without rancour or emotion I have got off my chest what I felt I must say. I turn now to two fundamental matters which I believe are absolutely critical for the future of Australia. The first is the destruction and defeat-the total annihilation-of the Hawke socialist Government and the second, which is its natural corollary, is the election of a coalition Liberal-National Party government at the earliest possible opportunity. Madam Deputy Speaker, Australia is bankrupt. Putting it bluntly, Australia is broke. The economic vandals who constitute the Hawke socialist Government have created a situation in which Australia's overseas debt has doubled in less than two years. The so-called world's greatest Treasurer-the man to whom, Hansard will show, I referred once as `the world's only two-faced ferret'-is shortly to find that his gold medal, awarded last year, will be repossessed. He has created a situation in which in overseas debt terms, Australia now ranks with countries such as Mexico, Argentina and communist Poland under that military dictator Jaruzelski. We are in debt and we are hocked to foreign creditors. I am delighted to note the presence in the chamber of the honourable member for Kooyong, the man for whom my loyalty went right through to the bitter end. The men and women of Australia realise that we will be spending $7 billion plus in interest repayments this year, which is more than we are spending on the defence of this nation. This discredited Treasurer (Mr Keating), the world's only two-faced ferret, proudly proclaimed that he would float the Australian dollar and, following the MX missile betrayal of our most trusted ally, the United States of America, the Australian dollar promptly sank. The Treasurer said it would float and it sank. The present Treasurer, this incompetent economic manager, by his policies has created a situation in which Australians are now paying the highest interest rates in real terms since the Great Depression. Did honourable members see him today trapped like a ferrett, wriggling and twisting when people reminded him that last year, not just once, not just twice but over and over again, he promised the people of Australia, particularly the young home purchasers, that interest rates would come down in 1985? In that conspiracy to defraud and deceive his major accomplice was the honourable member for Wills, the present Prime Minister of Australia. When will the interest rates come down? When will that promise be honoured? Will it be yet another of the promises upon which the Government conned its way back into power? I will ease up on him a little bit. The present Treasurer, this charlatan economist, proclaims-- Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! I ask the honourable member to withdraw those comments and in future to refer to the Treasurer or any other Minister by his title. Mr HODGMAN —The honourable member for Blaxland, like a charlatan economist, proclaims his so-called financial wizardry with egocentric zeal. But it is under his mismanagement that Australia is now tragically headed for a massive credit squeeze in the first half of 1986. It will be to the honourable member for Blaxland that the home owners of Australia will turn over the next few months to ask this frank question: `How on earth will we be able to meet our mortgage instalments-or is it the wish of the Hawke socialist Government that we walk off our properties and abandon our homes?'. Is it the truth that both the Prime Minister and the honourable member for Blaxland still secretly adhere to that well-known socialist dogma of the late Mr Dedman that the home owners of Australia are all little capitalists? There has been treachery and betrayal of young home owners in this country. This Government promised that it would maintain the same level of activity in new housing commencements in 1985-86 as occurred in 1984-85. There were 151,000 new housing commencements in 1984-85. The report of the Indicative Planning Council, headed by Professor Fred Gruen, for 1985-86 put the figure at 140,000. Young people who were conned into going into their homes now face the situation of rising interest rates. The Government will be 11,000 houses short of its target. The Building Workers Industrial Union of Australia states that there will be 41,000 retrenchments in the building industry. We have seen the rate of desecration in my State of Tasmania with a cut of $20m at the Premiers Conference. The Leader of the Opposition in the State Parliament says that we can live with a $36m cut. But 2,000 Tasmanian jobs have been lost by a Government which has taken every opportunity to belt over the head Australia's tiniest but most beautiful State. This Government is as dead as Julius Caesar. It is a government on the way out. It will not be defeated; it will be annihilated. It will be decimated and its ranks will be thin. That day is one to which I and all Australians look forward with very great enthusiasm. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mrs Darling) —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr LAMB(Streeton)(5.23) —It is always very entertaining to listen to the honourable member for Denison (Mr Hodgman). He talked about the last election when the workers of the Labor Party of Australia stuffed their champagne corks back into the necks of the bottles on his re-election. All I can say is that on Monday the champagne flowed freely; the corks were certainly pulled out and a whole crate or two of champagne disappeared as Opposition members said goodbye to the honourable member for Denison in his move from the front bench to the back bench. It is also interesting to note that the person whom he would follow over hot coals, the honourable member for Kooyong (Mr Peacock), came in to hear his few words. The young colt from Kooyong, now the retired hack, will have more time to deliberate on what they might have done if they had remained in a place of some authority in the Opposition. Mr Peacock —I will remind them that you were with me at school, and that will lose you some support. Mr LAMB —The honourable member was a year behind me at school and he is 10 years behind this Government. The egocentric speech of the honourable member for Denison was very entertaining. He still has a few rows to go back. Pledging his loyalty is just the way to go backwards. I fear that he doth protest too much. Before the honourable member for Moncrieff (Mrs Sullivan) leaves the chamber I want to make one comment about the composition of the Opposition front bench. I refer to the absence of women from the new front bench of the Opposition. One should understand why once again women have been excluded from the front bench. There is talent there but it is not recognised for one good reason-that the very dryness, the aridness of the Opposition in its shift to the far Right has no place for a woman. I will tell the House why. It is because the prehistoric, archaic economic policies that the Opposition wants to put forward in this chamber will hurt most the women of Australia. The Opposition wants to cut back the single parent benefit. It has gone on the airwaves and in print as saying that it would be one of the first welfare measures for the axe. It wants to cut back on child care. In fact when the Opposition was not so dry it cut back child care by half. What would it do in its full dryness, its full aridity? It wants to see women out of the work force because it considers they are taking places from young people and some men. It wants women back in the homes. There will be no choice. Is it any wonder that the women of Australia will not bear that? The women of the Liberal Party, even those of the Right, could not bear that sort of policy. It is a blight on the Opposition that it could not find a place on its front bench for a female member of its ranks. I predict not the demise of this Government, as did the honourable member for Denison, and not a cutback in our numbers or a turn in opposition; I predict that the Opposition will be the first to be rejected by the women of Australia because of its turn to the Right. I wish mainly to speak today in support of the Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 1985-86, the Budget Bill. I dismiss the amendment that has been put forward by the Opposition, I suppose we still have the same amendment put forward by the honourable member for Kooyong. I suppose we are dealing with the same sort of economic policies. I have not seen any change to the Opposition amendment. It is predicted by the new Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard) that things will be different, that the Opposition will have a harder look at government enterprises and that there will be a shift in its economic policies. Yet we are still left with the same amendment put forward earlier. We will have to give the Opposition some time to show its paces to see whether indeed it has changed from the Peacock led Opposition to the Howard led Opposition. The Budget is only one of the several measures which any responsible government, such as the Hawke Government, puts into operation. We do not rely on monetary economics. We are not Friedmanites. We do not control the economy simply by manipulating the money supply; we also employ budgetary economics. This Budget is continuing for the third successive year the most successful pathway to recovery that this country has seen since the deep recession of the 1930s and the late 1970s and early 1980s. There is another plank which is a first for an Australian government's policies in this country. Added to the monetary policies, added to the budgetary policies, it is the first time that Australia has had an incomes policy, which is known affectionately on this side of the chamber as the accord. It is welcomed, understood and supported by and has received the co-operation of the trade union movement in this country. It is this triple approach-with the accord, correct monetary policies and tight budgetary policies-which has turned the economy around from the disasters of a few years ago under the Howard treasuryship and under the Fraser Government. Let us look at a few economic indicators of that successful turnaround of the economy, putting it on the right road to economic revival. Take the case of employment. In the last Fraser-Howard Budget year that Government lost 160,000 people from the work force; 160,000 jobs were lost. Yet in two and a half years this Government has created 410,000 jobs, which is 160,000 a year. It is a complete reversal of the disasters of a few years ago. Unemployment rose to 10.4 per cent. One in 10 people in the work force was out of a job. The figure has now dropped to 8.2 per cent. We do not think that is good enough but at least we have reduced it by that much. Now only one person in 12 is out of a job. The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development predicts that in the next financial year we will be even more successful and will drive the figure down to 7.2 per cent, which is even better. That represents one person in every 13 out of a job. With regard to inflation, which is another reliable economic indicator, we have almost halved the chronic high level of inflation, which under the last year of the Fraser-Howard Administration stood at over 11 per cent. It is now down to almost half that figure at 6.5 per cent. If we look at the deficit and how much money we spent, as was asked earlier by the Opposition member at the table, the honourable member for O'Connor (Mr Tuckey), we can see who spent the money and who owed the money. Who was going to put the Government into debt? It was none other than your current leader, the honourable member for Bennelong and the then Treasurer, who in the last week of the election campaign was honest enough to admit to his Leader and the people that the Budget deficit had blown out in excess of $9 billion. Mr Tuckey —That is a lie. Mr LAMB —If the honourable member for O'Connor checks the facts, he will see that it was at 5 per cent; one-twentieth of the gross domestic product at the time. Yet under this Government's successful policies we see that it has declined to 2.1 per cent of the gross domestic product; under $5 billion. One lesson which the Opposition has never learned is that the Government can use the deficit and government spending to create growth and employment. As that happens and the economy grows successfully, as it has done under this Government, so the deficit shrinks and the deficit as a percentage of GDP shrinks. The Opposition has never learned that. The Opposition thought that if it could cut back on government expenditure and make smaller government, somehow some miracle would occur under this dryness and aridity of economic understanding and there would be growth in the economy. That never happened. Year after year the economy shrank; it went backwards. The Budget deficit grew, yet the Opposition still did not understand that Australia has a mixed economy which needs co-operation and understanding between the public and private sectors; they both need each other. This Government knows that. This Government has wound back the Budget deficit-something the Opposition could never do-and at the same time has created growth. In doing so, it has used government spending in the first instance as a catalyst to accelerate growth. In no time at all, because of that reversal from deflationary economics to expansionary economics, growth has taken place in the private sector as well. Whereas last financial year one-third of the growth was in the public sector, this financial year public sector growth will decline to one-sixth, and 70 per cent of the total growth will take place in the private sector. For sustained economic recovery there needs to be an understanding of the mixed economy. In no way will Thatcherism, Reagonomics and Australia's new dryness and aridity ever come to grips with that. If the Opposition by some tragic mistake or miscalculation of the electors, ever got back to this side of the chamber we would be headed back to the dry, barren, shrinking years of the Fraser-Howard Government. Fortunately, this Government has got the recovery going so well that it can now start responsibly to increase the standard of living for all Australians. We are doing that through our incomes policy-the accord-and also through a pattern of government expenditure. Where the money is spent is as important as how much is spent. We do not want to spend money on unemployment benefits or the welfare of the rich; we want people on unemployment benefits to be back in jobs, to have a choice of jobs and to earn their own income. We want the welfare needs of the poorest people to be met first. They are the big consumers in our society, the ones who turn over the money and, through the multiplier effect, get further growth into this economy. The pattern of government expenditure is as important as the level itself. This Budget has done a remarkable thing. As I mentioned earlier, if government spending grows less quickly than the growth in GDP-one of the planks of the trilogy announced by the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke)-then there is not a percentage increase in government expenditure, something which the Opposition still does not understand. Whilst this Budget has maintained real spending for important social programs, it has reduced government spending by a whole one percentage point, from 30.8 per cent of GDP down to 29.8 per cent. Also, this is the lowest increase in government spending for six years, including the last few years of the Howard-Treasurer, Fraser-Prime Minister Government. The essential services provided by government include health, education, social security, community services and housing. Let us look at what happened in the years up to 1983 in this group of essential services, which is known throughout the union movement and by those who understand economics as the social wage. The understanding and agreement in the accord is that the Government will increase the social wage-social security, welfare and education and the infrastructure of the quality of life-for all Australians, provided that the trade union movement maintains its members standard of living not in excess of the growth in inflation or the increase in the cost of living. We have managed to do both things. The people in the trade union movement who are employed have maintained their standard of living. The Opposition wanted to cut back that standard. At the same time, we have been able to increase the social standard of living for all Australians. Yet in the years up to 1983 the Opposition, then in government, cut back unemployment benefits, halved child care facilities and slashed the real expenditure on health and public schools. It cut real government spending on these essential programs by 10 per cent in real terms over seven years. In other words, the social wage, that component of the standard of living provided by government, in 1983 was only 90 per cent of what it was when the Opposition took over government at the end of 1975. I conclude by saying that the important message I had today was to show the Opposition that its aridity and dryness of economic policies will fall hardest on women in this community. No wonder there are no women on the front bench of that Opposition. Secondly, its idea of cutting back government expenditure in a mixed economy like Australia is out of place and destructive. The Opposition will follow that course again if it ever should get back on to this bench. I thoroughly support this Budget. I endorse the negotiations that have taken place between the trade union movement and this Government on strengthening the accord and I totally reject the sterile, dry amendments that have come from the Opposition. Mr COWAN(Lyne)(5.39) —The thrust of the Budgets over recent years has concerned me very greatly. I see no change in the general direction of the Budget that we are now debating before the Parliament. I see no hope of looking into the future and saying that we as a country will overcome the great economic problems that confront us now. The Budget is a typical socialist, big spending Budget. We must remember always that if a government intends to spend, it must tax accordingly. It is of interest to note that in 1984-85 the revenue was $52.4 billion and for 1985-86 it will be $58.6 billion; an increase of 12 per cent over the year before. It is of interest to note also that the pay as your earn taxpayer, who is paid for his or her work in the community, will pay an extra 13 per cent in tax as a result of this present Labor Budget. Over the last two years the PAYE person has paid an extra 29 per cent in tax. This high taxation is alarming, and it is even more alarming when we realise that an extra 750,000 Australians will go into higher tax brackets this year. Of those 750,000, two-thirds will move from the 30c bracket to the 46c bracket and 250,000 will move from the 46c bracket up to the 60c bracket. I wonder whether the average Australian today realises just how high taxation is and what extra taxes will be paid not only by the PAYE person but also every one of those 4 1/2 million people paying tax in Australia. I can recall that years ago the morning after the Budget one looked for the extra tax on cigarettes, fuel and liquor. Let us not forget that the first action ever taken by this Government after it came to power in 1983 was to index the tax on those three important items. In other words, twice a year they will increase anyway. They are not included in the Budget. We are looking now at the important issue of PAYE tax and other taxes, including taxes on essential commodities, that are facing the people of Australia. I believe that the people are very concerned. I do not want to be a pessimist but as I go around my electorate and elsewhere it strikes me that many people are concerned as to the way Australia is heading, not only from an economic point of view but also, for example, from a moral point of view. A great challenge faces Australians, and that challenge applies also to those of us in government and in opposition in this Parliament. We must be practical and constructive in regard to the issues and our policies in order to make this land of ours a better country than it is. Australia, as a country, appears to me at the moment to be like a farmer who does not store hay or silage on his farm for a drought. We do not have the reserves to meet the challenges that we have, to keep our own economy and standards where they are, or to supply to a world that is hungry the products we produce on our farms and in the manufacturing sector. In other words, I believe that we as a people have lived beyond our means. Over the last 15 years at least, since the deterioration set in with the Whitlam Administration when innovations were enacted in this Parliament and in the States with the concurrence and support of the Commonwealth, the country has been dragged down. We need to realise that 5 1/2 million Australians are living with government support and only 4 1/4 million taxpayers in Australia are supporting those people. I read, as I am sure every member of this Parliament read, every word that John Leard recently published in every major paper in Australia. I have not seen one person of authority contradict him. That is the important issue. I have not seen the Treasurer (Mr Keating) come out in print and say `No, we don't believe in those principles and those issues that John Leard laid down'. Every member of this House should heed the advice given. When we are looking at the future we should know that his concern is shared by many, if not millions, of Australian people who are worried about the future of this great land of ours. Mr Lamb —He wasted $70,000 on nonsense. Mr COWAN —And he woke up a lot of people in this country. I hope he woke up the Government, but I do not think it has heeded one thing he said. I am not the only one in Parliament to cite the figures to which I am about to refer, but they should be cited over and over again. The more we realise and the average Australian appreciates this problem the quicker we might get back on the rails and see the real problems and challenges that Australia has. Australia has a foreign debt of $70 billion. That debt has gone up in 15 years from $3.5 billion to $70 billion. Interest charges on that debt amount to almost $10 billion a year, and that amounts to a $15,000 debt for every family and an $8,000 debt for every person employed in Australia. Is that not cause for alarm? Should not we as a Parliament be alarmed when the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development says that over a period of 50 years Australia has gone from second on the list of wealthy countries to 21st? Are we not concerned that our inflation rate of 10 per cent is double that of any Western country which sells against us on the markets of the world? Should we not be concerned about that? Should we not be concerned about a government that in this Budget will spend 15 per cent above the amount that it collects? In other words, it will raise moneys to meet its indebtedness. The Treasurer has referred to an upturn in Australia's economy. I do not know where it is; it is not in my electorate. Mr Hicks —It is not in mine, either. Mr COWAN —My colleagues confirm that it is not in their electorates. The other day an ordinary working man said to me: `Today I paid 20 per cent more for groceries that I purchased at the store than I paid six months ago'. I wonder how the consumer price index is worked out. The National Farmers Federation in a submission to the Government said that some essential items of plant and farm costs have gone up by 40 per cent over a two-year period. Is it not reasonable that we should be concerned? If the Treasurer can talk up Australia's economy, if he can say that the CPI, inflation and interest rates are staying down-which he cannot-that is simply because it is a false economy being propped up by the borrowings of this nation, by the borrowings and spending of this big government. I refer to the unemployment figures. How many people are employed under the community employment program? Possibly 60,000 people. They are not on the unemployment list. If we add them to the list we go well beyond the 8 per cent unemployment figure; it would be up around 10 per cent. The Government cannot quarrel with that. I say to the Government that it must look at realities to see where this country really stands. We are being judged by the world. Even after the Budget the value of our dollar has been down; it was down to 66c on the American market yesterday. Other countries can judge us better than we can judge ourselves. I would not be very happy if I were a Treasurer bringing a Budget into the Parliament with the national debt that we have, with the low dollar that we have, with the high interest rates that we have and with the inflation and unemployment that we have. Are they not reasons enough for a member to get up in this House, as I am doing now, and warn this country that we are in serious financial difficulties? The sooner we face up to the problems that we have the better because high taxation will ruin the incentive of any person. It is ruining the incentive of most of our pay as you earn wage earners today. It is killing their incentive and it is killing the incentive of small business, of farmers and surely of bigger business throughout Australia. I know that we need a reformation of our taxation system, and the Government was going to tackle that. The Treasurer was keen. He and the Prime Minister decided they would have a summit. I will not go over that again; it has been talked about before. But not one Australian will forget what was said and what was done in the discussions with industry, farmers organisations and different groups within the community. What are we faced with now, besides our high taxation? On Thursday week the Treasurer will come in here and give us a present for the spring. He will give us a present of a capital gains tax and a tax on fringe benefits. Goodness knows what else the Australian people will suffer. Has anyone in this country asked for a capital gains tax? Of course they have not. Has primary industry asked for a capital gains tax? Of course it has not. No group in this country has asked for it; only members of the socialist left who sit opposite us have asked for it. They are the ones who day after day come into the Parliament and go out into the country asking for a capital gains tax-a movement of wealth within the community. Their attitude is: `Get the money from where it is and give it to the people who need it'. This country was never as prosperous as it was when we had a Liberal-National Party coalition government. Just look what has happened since. If anything ever kills the working people of this country it will be a Labor government. Everything that this Government does pulls this country down. Why does the Labor Government continually hit the people who put it into power? I think the people of this country are starting to wake up. They will not tolerate this Government any longer. They will not tolerate it because it is being controlled by an unelected party-the Australian Council of Trade Unions. Today the Treasurer at Question Time talked about a wonderful achievement-the Government has made a written agreement with the ACTU, an unelected body. What would happen if a Liberal-National Party government had a written arrangement with some group within Australia? A government must be independent. If one looks at the aims of the ACTU one sees that it is militant. I am not talking about the average unionist who has a lot of common sense. After all, 30 per cent of them vote for us anyway, so we are told. Mr Hollis —No, 40 per cent. Mr COWAN —Well, 40 per cent; that is even better. If the ACTU is ever successful in placing a capital gains tax upon the heads of Australians, we must then consider what this will mean to the incentive of Australians. How about the person who wants to rent a home? How about the young person in the community who wants to build a home? If I were a trained builder or carpenter I would scratch to buy a block of land and build a home. Suppose I put it on the market, sold it and then did the same again. Honourable members opposite will say that one will not pay capital gains tax on the first home. That may be so, but what about after that? What about the person who wants to build three or four homes to provide housing within the community, to own his or her own home? Is owning a home not the aim of any ordinary Australian? What about the person on a low income who wants to obtain rental accommodation? The States have failed to supply such accommodation. There are more than 50,000 people on the Housing Commission list in New South Wales. They are not being housed. What does the Government think of this? If it does not give incentives to people to build homes and provide accommodation, how can the average Australian get rental property at a reasonable price? We need to look at Australia very carefully. We have all been responsible for a deterioration in our productivity in every field, except primary industry. In that area productivity has increased at the rate of 2 per cent a year. What an opportunity we have as Australians. The Government is now supporting the unions, so we are told, on a 38-hour week in industry overall. Just look at this country: Four weeks annual leave with a 17 1/2 per cent loading, a five-day working week from Monday to Friday only. Let us look at these issues. In light of the hours our competitors, the Japanese, work can we compete on the technology and other markets of the world? The Japanese work 48 hours per week. Other countries work many more hours than we do. How long can we afford to continue like this? The Government of this country should propose a referendum of the Australian people asking them if they want to return to what would be acceptable working hours and conditions in industry in Australia. I suggest that that referendum be held in the same manner as the Swiss held their referendum. When the Swiss Government went to the people it suggested what they should vote on; it set out the conditions of employment in the community. This is what this country needs to get us out of the mire. All the Budgets, all the lower taxation proposals, all the things that the Government wants to bring in will not cure the ills that are facing Australia at present. Why should our young people be deprived of work? Why should hundreds of thousands of people who want to work be out of work? This Government sides with the unions all the time. What this country needs is another wages pause. We should forget indexation because this country needs at least one year of a wages pause and it is a pity that there cannot be a prices pause as well to enable us to compete with the rest of the world and put ourselves on an equal footing with other countries. I do not like the accord; I have never liked it. It is a strangulation. It is an agreement between the Government and the unions, an agreement that can never work, one that deprives people of jobs, boosts inflationary trends and puts up interest rates. I turn to primary industry. We must realise the problems facing primary industry in Australia. A farmer came to my electoral office the other day and told me that he was paying 19 1/2 per cent on a debt of above $100,000 on a reasonably small dairy farm. We must all wake up. How can anybody, particularly a farmer whose average net income this year is only $6,500, afford an interest rate as high as that? He just cannot afford this. What we must do is say to the primary producers-as we, in the National Party, have always done-`We are sympathetic to the problems you have, we want to bring the economy back, we want to get people back to work, we want to make Australia competitive in world markets and we have to keep our costs down'. That is the only way that primary industry and the farmer can survive in Australia. I see no reason why the Government should not encourage farmers to form their own bank. I know that interest rates are high at the moment, but the interest bearing deposits were abolished by the Government-one source of finance that could go into such a fund. When the money markets return to normal and interest rates are reasonably low, farmers could borrow from this bank over a term of years. The bank could take people's investments and be backed by a guarantee of the Government. Thus funding could be provided for the settlement of people on the land and for continuing finance for expanding activities on farms. My time is up but there are a lot of things I would like to say. I have dwelt this evening on my grave concern about the way this country is going, and I believe we have a duty to take it seriously-- Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mrs Child) —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr RONALD EDWARDS(Stirling)(5.59) —I noted that the previous speaker, the honourable member for Lyne (Mr Cowan), concluded by talking about the Government assisting farmers to establish a bank. I hope that the honourable member and his colleagues in the National Party of Australia will speak seriously to the new found enthusiasts on the Opposition front bench so that they can work out whether we are going to have government intervention or whether we are not. At this stage there is a great deal of uncertainty and if one looks at Opposition members' faces one can see that there really is a lack of direction. But I am sure that the electorate will discern that very quickly, and that this notion of there being privatisation at the same time as the National Party is demanding degrees of intervention will continue to be an issue that will confound Opposition members and will cause their factions to ride along very determinedly. I think that the Australian electorate is well aware of that. Opposition members are really confused about their policy, and the notion of privatisation flat out is not one that they have thought through. Previous speakers, Madam Deputy Speaker, including yourself, have addressed the confusion in the Opposition ranks about the question of privatisation, whether there would be cross-subsidisation, and honourable members on the Government benches regard cross-subsidisation, particularly as it affects people on lower incomes and those in country areas, as being an important part of the framework of public sector activity. It is certainly something that we would not want to see done away with. Yet quite clearly, the enthusiasts of the new Opposition front bench are very keen to see a lot of that done away with. Certainly there is concern in country areas and amongst people on low incomes that that confusion between the Opposition factions over the question of privatisation is one that will continue. We have just heard an example of that. I want to touch on some other issues which relate back to what the honourable member for Lyne said. He spoke about providing opportunities for housing. I think that he must have missed the fact that in the first home owners scheme and the Government's assistance to public sector housing throughout Australia we have seen a remarkable transformation of housing in this country. It must be recognised that in the last years of the Fraser-Howard-John Stone Government housing reached a 20-year low. In that period there was a disgraceful performance in housing. Some members of the then Government even said that people in Australia would have to learn to live without housing. Clearly, that is unacceptable. The honourable member for Lyne should recognise that that was the policy that his Party pursued, and that John Stone had inveigled the then Treasurer, the honourable member for Bennelong (Mr Howard), into talking about getting housing done away with for many Australians. Mr Uren —He said that the Australian people were over-housed. Mr RONALD EDWARDS —Yes. It was a disgraceful statement. It is an issue about which we will have to remind the public-that housing reached a 20-year low under the former Government, and not only was this for people who did not have homes in which to live; the people who worked in the housing industry were deprived of opportunities for work. The Australian community will remember that. When honourable members opposite drag John Stone back into the public limelight in his new cloak of being the prophet for the Right in Australia, we and the community will remember that John Stone and John Howard dragged the Australian housing sector down and, at the same time, dragged down the Australian economy. Let us not forget that. I do not think the community will forget it. Some honourable members opposite are scrabbling around for some overarching philosophy that will give them a cloak of respectability. One of the interesting things said of perpetrators of dogma is that they shout the same thing over and over again. We are seeing that already from Opposition members. It is shouted so loudly that they silence the voice of reason in their own heads. Opposition members are starting to shout the word `privatisation' over and over again so as to silence the voice of reason within themselves. They are developing a very spurious sort of view. It is as if we were trying to develop a science of meteorology based on the fluttering of flags. It is so inconsistent, so absolutely casual. There is no theoretical base to it. It is just a question of grabbing a few cliches and putting them together. There is no overarching philosophy with privatisation because honourable members opposite do not know to which god they will bow. Is it the god of Thatcherism? Is it the god of the National Party? They are not really sure? The Australian community is not sure either, and people will remain uncertain because the Opposition's factions will continue to have that degree of uncertainty. Nevertheless, we on this side of the House will press on because we have some things to say about unemployment and about the creation of jobs. There have been 410,000 new jobs created in the first two and a half years of the Hawke Governments. Unemployment has fallen from 10.4 per cent to 8.2 per cent. I was puzzled recently when I visited a community employment program project and the manager said: `One of the problems that we are having here is that every time new people start on the job, very quickly someone from the private sector comes along and finds them a job'. The brickie's labourers, builder's labourers, general building labourers and bricklayers are continually being snatched up by the private sector, which has so much demand for them. Clearly, Opposition members need to recognise that when we talk about job creation we are talking about substantial job creation. Statistically, it is happening; but we can report about it anecdotally, as I have just done. We must recognise it. It is something that all the shouting and dogmatic repetition from the Opposition will not remove from the scene. The facts are that jobs have been created and unemployment has been reduced, as has inflation. We talk about the reduction of inflation as being an important goal of this Government. It was a goal of the previous Government but, sadly, that Government missed it. What it did was to produce a massive recession, and it missed the target. It had double-digit inflation and double-digit unemployment. It was not a happy spectacle. The new Leader of the Opposition must recognise that he was responsible for it in large part. The community will not forget that. Neither shall we on this side of the House allow the Opposition or the community to forget it. The guru Stone and the born again Leader of the Opposition cannot be forgotten. The circumstances when the latter was Treasurer were very grim. They were the grim years. That is something that we ought to remember. We are looking again at a situation of improved economic growth. One of the problems of the ill thought out positions that have been sent to us from honourable members opposite is that they somehow have a view that if one can just bear down on the economy and pull it down one will not only reduce inflation but also somehow reduce interest rates and wage pressure-forgetting that in our economy there is a linkage between the private sector and the public sector, and a linkage in regard to the expectations of the community, of investors in particular but certainly of consumers and wage earners, about what tomorrow will bring. If one continues to talk doom and gloom, which is what we have had from the Opposition-certainly the experience in government of honourable members opposite convinces us that all they can produce is doom and gloom-logically what one gets is a reduced economic performance. That was the experience, and it has not been the experience since we came to office. There is a linkage. We are prepared to acknowledge that the Australian union movement is a mature part of the economy and is a group of people whom we believe should be spoken to as if they play a role and not as people to be kicked around simply because one has an ideological urge to seek out victims. Clearly, the experience of the Opposition when in government is that honourable members opposite are very strong on victimisation of anyone who is underprivileged or who is without power. The union movement is a group that they also seek to victimise repetitively. They forget that that movement is made up of rank and file members who are mature responsible citizens who do not like being kicked around; they do not like the newly found dries of the Opposition kicking them around. It is a very unproductive view of the world and one that we do not share. Our record shows that by rejecting it, we are able to put scores on the board. We have recently had the accord being re-endorsed and redeveloped for the next two years. That means for employers and wage earners that there is a degree of certainty, and there is also a reduction in industrial disputation. That must be recognised. That has been our experience in terms of what we have done. It has been our experience, as a government, in getting the economy going. We have reduced industrial disputes, reduced inflation, and increased employment. Clearly, the performance is there to be seen. I wish to comment on the Opposition's fetish of privatisation and deregulation. There is pressure from the Opposition. Opposition members are supporting some of the views of bodies such as the Real Estate Institute of Australia in regard to deregulating housing interest rates. Recent research that we have had undertaken suggests that there will be a 2 1/4 per cent increase in housing interest rates if they are deregulated. Looking at the performance in the overdraft market, one finds that clearly there have been pressures towards increases in rates, and they have shown up on the market. If we were to deregulate housing interest rates, we would see an increase of about 2 1/4 per cent. That would not be tolerable. If the Opposition continues to press the notion of deregulation of housing interest rates, we shall see people paying a very heavy price. Advice has also been given to people in the community that if housing interest rates go up they should increase their repayment period. I strongly reject that advice. I also reject the deregulation of housing interest rates and strongly endorse what the Treasurer (Mr Keating) said about that. Take the repayment schedules of people trying to keep their repayments steady but at the same time trying to absorb the impact of increases in interest rates. With a 25 year mortgage, which is a fairly common mortgage base in Australia, the rise from 13.5 per cent interest to 14 per cent-which is a fairly small increase given the 2 1/4 per cent increase those seeking deregulation want-would increase the repayment term to 45 years if monthly repayments were not increased. Clearly the message to the Australian community is that in the face of any movement in housing interest rates the goal ought to be to maintain the period of the mortgage rather than to increase it. If the period is increased that simply increases people's indebtedness over a very long period. The Australian community needs to recognise and to understand that behind all this rhetoric about deregulation and privatisation the sober reality of the deregulation of housing interest rates is that it would result, on current estimates provided to me in the joint government-industry housing committee that meets in Perth-with people from the Master Builders Association, the Housing Industry Association, financial institutions and the State Minister, Keith Wilson-in an increase of 2 1/4 per cent. If we were to apply that to the housing sector-this is where I think the Opposition has to face up to the reality of its rhetoric as we saw what happened during those five grim Howard years-we would see the Australian community facing an intolerable burden with an increase of 2 1/4 per cent in interest rates. That is not acceptable. I conclude this section by saying that we have to be clear when we say to people in the Australian community that if they are faced with an increase in housing interest rates they must not increase the repayment period as that would increase their indebtedness enormously. The message is very clear in that respect. The message is also clear that those in the Opposition must not only talk about privatisation and deregulation but begin to apply it. We saw the result of the Opposition's ill thought out philosophy when it was in government It dragged the economy into severe recession. It produced a national crisis in terms of direction, growth and performance. We are not prepared to do that or to see that ill thought out philosophy being applied. Government is about partnerships-between governments, business and the union movement. Those partnerships should develop in a mature way. Since March 1983 we have done very well in terms of statistics and attitudes. This is a better country to live in. Scapegoating is now not on. The sorts of mentalities that were the order of the day under the now discredited Opposition, which sought out victims, are not on any more. We try to treat people in the Australian community as mature partners. The record is there statistically and in terms of the expectations that are framed in this Budget. It is clearly a case of the Australian community being able to discern the difference between a government which has thought out its policies, applied them and got results and an Opposition that, as I began by saying, has a philosophy of privatisation that is about as scientific as meteorology would be if it were to study the fluttering of flags. I believe we have a lot more to offer this economy and this society than those vague rhetorical positions we are seeing from the Opposition. The score is on the board and the projected future is in the Budget. I am accordingly pleased to commend the Bills to the House. Mr COLEMAN(Wentworth)(6.15) —It is well known that the Treasurer (Mr Keating) has a gift for coining memorable metaphors and phrases. We all remember his famous metaphorical tax reform cart in which he toured the country, with the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) in the cart one day and not in it the next, and the Australian Council of Trade Unions which was maybe going to be in it and finally was not in it, until it was scuttled. I remember another of his phrases of what he thought about the Australian Broadcasting Commission. He said that it is not worth another zack. We remember what he thinks of `the basket weavers of Balmain'-another one of his famous phrases-and so on. Characteristically the Treasurer had a phrase to describe that legion of responsible observers who are less than enthusiastic about the 1985 Budget, who look behind the sort of economic growth which the Treasurer so proudly proclaims to the forces that are fuelling it in Australia, although not in most of the rest of the world. These critics see the growth all right, but they believe that too much of it is the wrong sort of growth. It is growth dependent on high taxation, loose money, high interest rates and high inflation. True, it is growth, but it is associated with low investment despite there being plenty of money about. It is an ill based growth which will soon undermine the real growth that is part of the world economic turn-up. The Treasurer quickly had a phrase for these critics, the people who took this line on the Budget. He described them as `bankers and basket weavers on a low growth unity ticket'. These bankers and basket weavers, as he calls them, are of course those businessmen, commentators and journalists who are worried about accelerated inflationary growth. They are supported in any case by the cautious warning from the Treasury advisers, given on page 62 of Budget Paper No. 1, where they say that if inflation is not controlled: . . . the macroeconomic outlook would become progressively less favourable as 1986 unfolds. Page 76 of the Paper also says: Any ratcheting up of the inflation rate could have important adverse effects on the economy, harming confidence and prospects for continued growth as 1986 proceeds. The point is that these fears are being realised yet all the Treasurer can do when attention is called to them is to describe the critics, the people who make the observation, as a unity ticket of bankers and basket weavers. Let us be clear on one thing: Everyone agrees that genuine growth, real investment and technological innovation are essential if Australia is not to continue its slide downwards in the tables which give international comparisons of the standards of living of various countries. One hundred years ago we had the world's highest standard of living. That is not an Australian boast as it is acknowledged in all of these tables. Today many countries-Switzerland, the United States of America, Norway, Sweden, Canada, Denmark and West Germany-have higher standards of living than we do. Japan's standard of living will soon overtake ours and soon Singapore's will also. All this is well known. I am not bringing news to the House when I refer to these facts. They are well known and agreed upon. Professor Helen Hughes put it well recently when she said that on current trends bright young Australians will soon be seeking scholarships and professional employment in Singapore, and low-skilled Australians will be seeking jobs in other rapidly growing Asian countries. This is not just rhetoric but a serious possibility. Even on some elementary social indicators, such as simple life expectancy at birth-Australians have always been so proud of their physical expectations-we find many countries such as Canada, the United States, Sweden, Switzerland, France and Japan, have better records than Australia. Similar figures, unhappily, apply in the field of infant mortality. The point is that in many respects we have ceased to be a country of enterprise, innovation and expansion. It is also agreed that real growth in Australia is needed to reverse these and other damaging trends. To achieve this real growth will require a variety of policies ranging from education policies, which concentrate on achievement and not on Mickey Mouse courses, to trade policies encouraging international competitiveness and industrial policies reducing the nationally suicidal policies of trade union commissars. Of course, everyone wants growth, but not the short term inflationary growth resulting from policies that bring future and near future disaster. This is what the Hawke Government is doing. The Treasurer, by thinking and repeatedly talking about growth in this House, confusing real growth and inflationary growth, confusing investment growth and consumption growth, is deceiving the Australian people. Where we do have real growth, this Government and the Treasurer have done nothing to create it and, in fact, through their policies they are doing everything to undermine it. I turn now to the Government's policies and I shall take its high tax policies first. There were no tax cuts in the Budget. Whatever cuts may be announced later, along with new taxes, we see on page 331 of Budget Paper No. 1 that net pay as you earn tax has been increased by 13.3 per cent. Allowing for inflation of 8 per cent, that means a 5.3 per cent increase in real terms in PAYE tax imposed by this Government in the Budget. In Labor's three Budgets in 1983-84, 1984-85 and 1985-86, we find a real increase in PAYE taxation of 11.7 per cent. The figures given by the Treasury in the Budget Papers show an 11.7 increase in PAYE tax in just three Budgets. This figure is reached by taking the nominal increases in Budget receipts, which are given on page 441 of Budget Paper No. 1, and deducting from those nominal increases the consumer price increases, which are given on page 33. The nominal increase in receipts since the last coalition Budget, when they were $18,840m, and the estimate for 1985-86, which is $25,390m, is 35 per cent. The CPI increase for the first Labor Budget was 7.9 per cent. For the second Budget, it was 5.8 per cent, and the estimate for this Budget is 8 per cent-a total of 23.3 per cent. By deducting the CPI increase of 23.3 per cent from the nominal increase of 35 per cent we get a real increase of PAYE tax of 11.7 per cent. This figure does not include the Medicare levy. It is ridiculous for the Treasurer to talk about restraining taxes when, on his own figures, he has presided over this 11.7 per cent real and not nominal increase in PAYE tax. This Budget year will see 750,000 taxpayers move into a higher tax bracket, with about 570,000 moving into the 47c in the dollar tax bracket for those earnings over $19,500 a year. Incidentally, in the United States of America one does not begin to pay that sort of tax until one is earning around $A150,000 a year. In Australia one starts to pay 47c in the dollar in tax when one is earning $19,500 a year. No wonder our tax system is one of the wonders of the world and is a crippling disincentive which this Budget makes worse. To be fair, I have to acknowledge that the Treasurer tried to do something about this with his famous but ill-fated tax cart, but the Prime Minister did not have the stomach for the struggle with the ACTU that such a reform would have involved, and the Prime Minister made that famous motel deal behind the Treasurer's back, and that was the end of the cart. In any case, we know that Labor governments believe in high taxes, whatever this Government may sometimes hypocritically say. The present Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr Hayden) has not withdrawn a statement he made as spokesman on the economy when he said: I'm a high tax man. He has not withdrawn his statement that democratic socialism, which he espouses as opposed to social democracy, is against what he called the `deeply dispiriting doctrine' of lower tax and smaller government. The former Leader of the Australian Labor Party finds the idea of lower taxes and smaller government a deeply dispiriting doctrine. The Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations (Mr Willis) has not withdrawn his statement that the electorate should be pleased to pay higher taxes to build up the public sector and that tax should be used, for example, to reduce the profitability of banks. One could go on. Although these things are well known, it pays to spell them out. Another way of spelling things out is to compare the annual increase in total taxation under the Hawke Government-as opposed to PAYE taxation which I have just been dealing with-with the annual increase in the Fraser Government's seven Budgets. I shall draw on the figures in the Budget Papers tabled by the Treasurer. Page 411 of Budget Paper No. 1 shows that between 1975-76 and 1982-83 nominal total tax increased about 2 1/4 times. Using one's calculator that is an exact increase of 2.245 times. It is a nominal increase from $16,807m to $40,765m. In those same years the consumer price index went from 67.3 to 134.7. The CPI doubled or, if one wants to use one's calculator, it increased 2.001 times. The increase in nominal tax was 21 per cent greater than the increase in the CPI. So under the coalition the rate of increase in real taxes in each year over the seven years averaged out at 2 3/4 per cent. That is an increase in total taxes which nobody welcomed, but Labor has doubled it. In the first three Keating Budgets real total tax increased each year by 5 1/2 per cent as against the 2 3/4 per cent rate of increase under the coalition's seven Budgets. The nominal taxes from the $40.765m of 1982-83 to the $58,627m of 1985-86 increased 1.438 times. In the same three years the CPI increased from 134.7 in 1982-83 to 165.9 in 1985-86, an increase of 1.23 times. That is a percentage in real taxes of 16.7 per cent or about 5.2 per cent a year. That is almost double the rate increase under the Fraser Government. Whether we are looking at PAYE tax or total taxes, on the figures given in the Budget Papers by the Treasurer this Government is very much a high taxing government and is a far higher taxing government than was the coalition Government. I have not mentioned the hidden tax increases in the Budget. The tax on petrol, spirits, beer and cigarettes now rises twice yearly in February and August, in accordance with CPI movements, without the Treasurer ever having to mention it. Anybody buying such items in the last few days would have noticed the increased taxes, although the Treasurer did not have to say a word about them in the Budget. Mr Tuckey —He said he didn't increase them. Mr COLEMAN —He did not even mention them. He did not have to increase them in the sense that they increased without his having to do so. He had already arranged for them to be increased twice a year in accordance with the CPI movements. I have not dealt with those taxes nor have I dealt with the new taxes on capital gains and fringe benefits which are to be announced shortly, but I think that I have said enough to illustrate the high tax policy of this Government. This policy is essential to the Government's whole strategy of big spending. The Government has the idea that if it is a big spender and if the public is spending money and since there will be economic growth of a badly based kind, all our problems will be solved. The fact is that we are getting high inflation, high interest rates and low investment. Sitting suspended from 6.30 to 8 p.m. Mr COLEMAN —In discussing this Budget, let us turn now from taxes to money growth. There can be no doubt about the looseness of money in Australia under this Government. Table 17 on page 44 of Budget Paper No. 1 sets out the basic facts. Between the June 1983 quarter and the June 1985 quarter the money base-roughly cash-moved from 6.3 to 14.9; the M3 from 11.8 to 15.9 and broad money, including that of building societies and finance companies, from 11.2 to 15.4 The September issue of the London Economist, which the Government sometimes likes to quote, shows that Australia has the highest rate of money growth of the 12 largest economies of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. Australia's rate of money growth is given as 18.7 per cent against, for example, Canada's 4.8 per cent, West Germany's 5 per cent and Sweden's 2.7 per cent. A Press release by the Reserve Bank of Australia of 26 August gives the Australian rate of money growth as 19.6 per cent. That was, no doubt, an atypical month. However, the annual rate is still 15 to 16 per cent. If we allow four per cent for real growth and one per cent for a decline in velocity, it still indicates an inflation rate of 10 to 11 per cent in the near future. We are rapidly getting back to the Whitlam levels of inflation. The capitulation by the Government the other day to the Australian Council of Trade Unions and its failure to discount the 3.8 consumer price index rise by 0.8 per cent for devaluation will push it along more quickly. The prospect for the immediate future is not so bad. The Budget forecasts that inflation will move from 5.8 per cent to 8 per cent in 1985-86. However, by international comparisons, this is a very bad rate even for the immediate future. The Reserve Bank bulletin for July 1985 gives OECD forecasts for inflation. For West Germany the inflation rate is 2.25 per cent; for Japan 2.5 per cent and for the United States 3.5 per cent. So our 8 per cent rate is far higher-in some cases more than three times higher-than that of our competitors. As I say, the rate of money growth indicates a coming inflation rate far worse than the current 8 per cent in the not too distant future. The same pattern emerges with interest rates. Page 86 of the Economist of 6 September provides international comparisons. Australia's overdraft rate is given as 17.75, compared with 5.5 for Japan, 7.5 for both West Germany and Switzerland and 9.5 for the United States. Deducting the inflation rates in each case, as given on page 85 of the Economist, to get the real rates, Australia's overdraft rate remains the highest, at 11.05, as against Japan's 3.2, West Germany's 5.2, Switzerland's 4.1 and the United States' 5.8. The Treasurer has his economic growth all right, but at the price of high taxation, high inflation and high interest rates. One consequence is low rates of investment, as the Budget Papers show. On page 7 of Budget Paper No. 10 we see that between 1982-83 and 1984-85, when real gross domestic product rose by 10 per cent, real private investment rose by a miserable one per cent. Page 19 of Budget Paper No. 1 shows that investment in private equipment, machinery, et cetera, in 1984-85 as a proportion of gross domestic product was the lowest in 10 years. There are other figures. Table 6 on page 10 of Budget Paper No. 10 shows that investments in dwellings, non-dwelling constructions and equipment are all below the levels of 1980-81 or 1981-82. It is a pity that the honourable member for Stirling (Mr Ronald Edwards) is not in the chamber. There was, it is true, an increase in investment in dwellings between 1982-83 and 1984-85, although it did not reach the levels of 1980-81 or 1981-82. At the same time, between 1982-83 and 1984-85, investment in non-dwelling construction and equipment fell. There is plenty of money in the community. It has to go somewhere. It is not going into investment, so it is going into consumption. We have economic growth, of which the Treasurer boasts, but it is based on loose money and consumption with high taxation, high inflation, high interest rates and low investment. This is the Budget of a rudderless government which cannot confront the real problems of Australia even when it sees them. The National Taxation Summit fiasco is a lasting symbol of this Government. It meant well. It wanted to restructure the tax system. However it dared not proceed against the ukase of the ACTU. This Government cannot deal with the problems of big government, excessive regulation, youth unemployment, labour market rigidities, welfare rackets, educational decline and low investment. So it opts for short term inflationary growth and plays at rearranging the chairs on the Titanic. The Hawke Government is very similar to the Whitlam Government in opposite circumstances. The Whitlam Government experienced the inevitable effects on Australia of a world recession. Mr SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr CHARLES(Isaacs)(8.07) —The 1985-86 Federal Budget has been very well received by everyone. The Budget deficit has been cut from $6.7 billion in 1984-85 to $4.9 billion in 1985-86. This means that in three Budgets the Hawke Government has halved the deficit as a share of the total economy. Federal Budget outlays will be in excess of $69 billion or, in this year, a 1.3 per cent increase in real terms. The Hawke Government has been more successful than any previous Australian Government in managing the Australian economy. On winning office in March 1983 the new Hawke Government was faced with a projected deficit of $9.6 billion, just one of the legacies of the previous Fraser Government. For most of the Fraser years the architect of that Government's economic policies was the present Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard), the honourable member for Bennelong. What did the present Opposition Leader and former Treasurer in the Fraser Government leave behind him? He left behind him the worst recession for 50 years, the economy in tatters, industry in turmoil and inflation running in excess of 11 per cent. Unemployment had soared to over 10 per cent and, unfortunately, Australia was a divided nation. It is also noteworthy that Australia should achieve economic growth in excess of 5 per cent this year. This is the third successive year under this Government that this important goal has been achieved. No real redistribution within the economy is readily available to governments without increasing the size of the cake through economic growth. In contrast, an economic growth rate of 5 per cent was not achieved in any of the seven unfortunate Fraser years. The Hawke Government can be very proud of its record. The deficit is down to $4.9 billion. Inflation has been halved, although we have just heard complaints from the honourable member for Wentworth (Mr Coleman) about high inflation. I wonder what he thinks of the previous Government, of which he was a member just a few years ago. It seems an extraordinary contradiction to come from the honourable member, as do the bleatings of the Opposition. Unemployment has been reduced from a peak of 10.4 per cent to 8.2 per cent. Under this Government, 410,000 new jobs have been created. We are well on the way to surpassing our promised half a million jobs in our first three years of government. In contrast, the Fraser-Howard team created 340,000 jobs in 7 1/2 years. The Hawke Government has also introduced Medicare, substantially lifted social security payments and benefits, increased spending on education, housing and home purchase assistance, achieved a higher real level of spending in defence and funded the community employment program. Transport and sport, just to name two other areas, have also received substantial increases in funding. In 2 1/2 years we have achieved a great deal. However, as the Treasurer (Mr Keating) said on Budget night, our task is far from complete. Two other Government decisions have also had and will continue to have a good and substantial effect on our economy: Firstly, the floating of the Australian dollar which, amongst other things, has had a beneficial effect on our export industries and in particular our manufacturing industries; and, secondly, the granting of 16 new banking licences. Our banking system will see a number of changes as these new banks enter the banking arena over the coming months. Some of he world's largest banks have been granted licences. A few will enter the system without local partners whilst others have entered into partnerships with large Australian companies and enterprises or State governments, as is the case in some instances. Both decisions that I have mentioned have had and will have far-reaching economic consequences for Australia. The Australian economy is becoming stronger every year as shown by the third successive year of economic growth in excess of 5 per cent. I repeat-it is worth repeating-that if there is to be a fundamental redistribution of the wealth in this country and a movement towards any type of equality within our society the cake must be expanded. It can only be expanded through the economic growth that this Government has achieved in three successive years. The Hawke Government has reversed the disastrous trends of the Fraser years and created a solid base for an efficient and effective Australian economy. The three Budgets of the Hawke Government have been very much what I would call Labor Budgets with funds being directed to assist those who most need assistance. The total social security and welfare budgets in 1985-86 will exceed $19 billion, which amounts to 27.6 per cent of total Budget outlays. This is an increase of 6.9 per cent. In addition to these outlays on social security and welfare, assistance is provided through the personal income tax system. It is therefore appropriate that I outline some of the outlays in this important area. The Government has again increased payments for low income families. For people on pensions or benefits the additional tax free payment for children will increase from $14 a week for each child to $16 a week from November this year. This increase means that, since the Government won office, it has lifted the additional pension or benefit for children by 60 per cent. The maximum rate of family income supplement will increase from $14 to $16 a week per child also from November this year. This new level of payment represents a 60 per cent increase since it was introduced in May 1983. From May 1986 the tax free mother's or guardian's allowance which is paid to sole parent pensioners or beneficiaries will increase by $2 a week to $12 per family. This payment will then be up to 100 per cent higher than it was before the election of the Hawke Government. When added to indexation these increases result in significant improvements in assistance as shown in the following examples. A sole parent pensioner or beneficiary with two children on maximum rate payments will get an extra $7.60 per week from November 1985. From 1 May next year this increases to $9.60 extra plus a further indexation increase in the basic rate. A family with three children living on wages of less than $229 a week will receive $48 a week through the family income supplement. The Budget again acts to close the gap between pensions and unemployment benefits for those aged 21 and over by providing for a special $3 increase over and above normal indexation. From November the new rate of this benefit of $91.45 a week will be $27 higher than it was in 1983. The Government has also acted to help the young unemployed by lifting all payments for 16- and 17-year-olds to $50 a week. The Budget also establishes an intermediate level of benefit for 18- to 20-year-olds without dependants. The level of benefit for this group will increase by $3 in November 1985 to $88.20 and it is intended that further increases will apply from January 1987 and January 1988 with subsequent indexation increases each year. In addition this year's Budget contains two major initiatives to help meet the needs of the unemployed: Firstly, rent assistance of up to $10 a week and, secondly, an easing in the income test so that people can earn more before their benefit is affected. Mr Bilney —Good move. Mr CHARLES —A very good move. In order to assist families with special needs the Government has introduced a respite care pension. This means that special arrangements will be made to continue payments of the handicapped child's allowance for children who, for up to 28 days in any one year, are placed in an institution for respite care, thus enabling parents to have a holiday or a break. In addition, a new carer's pension will be introduced for people caring full time at home for a severely handicapped age or invalid pensioner spouse or near relative. This will replace the spouse carer's pension and extend pension entitlements for the first time to people caring at home for near relatives such as an ageing parent. The Hawke Government, in its first two Budgets, provided some $1.2 billion in new and increased social security payments over and above the established indexation arrangements. This Budget now provides a further $110m in 1985-86 and $245m in a full year for increased benefits over and above indexation. In addition, the Government intends, subject to agreement with the States, to introduce legislation in this Budget session to establish a home and community care program to operate retrospectively from 1 July this year. The Budget provides for $117.5m to be spent on this program this financial year. I wish to make a few short points in some other areas which, whilst they are not exclusive, I think are important points to be made. The Commonwealth Government will have direct spending on education this year totalling nearly $5 billion. This is an increase of 9.4 per cent and is a continuation of the strong growth in education funding that we have seen under this Government. The Government will also create an additional 5,500 places in higher education in 1986-87. Therefore, by 1987, 28,000 extra places will have been created in higher education since the election of the Hawke Government. Total housing outlays are expected to be nearly $1.4 billion. It is worth noting that this funding level means that total housing funds have increased by over 100 per cent since the final year of the Fraser Government. The Hawke Government's first home owners scheme has been extremely successful as every honourable member in this House would testify. Mr Bilney —Particularly the honourable member for Kingston. Mr CHARLES —Particularly the honourable member for Kingston. Under this scheme 144,000 approvals have been granted to date and a further 82,500 approvals are expected this year. The housing policies of this Government have been highly successful seeing many young families into their first homes. Public housing has received substantial increases in funds, enabling lower income families and individuals to find good accommodation, which had become but a dream under the former Fraser-Howard team. Australia's road program will receive a record $1,245m. That will be allocated to the States for road funding this year, and Victoria's share will be $253.9m. This is an increase of 84.3 per cent over 1981-82, the last full year of the Fraser Government. Victoria has done better than any other State. Included in these funds I have mentioned expenditure on local roads will be 60 per cent higher than in 1981-82 and expenditure for arterial roads will be 92 per cent higher than in 1981-82. Our Federal Transport Minister (Mr Peter Morris) has put into place an extensive five year land transport program which includes the massive increases I have mentioned and which will benefit all Australians. Mrs Darling —A good Minister. Mr CHARLES —He is a very good Minister. We will see an increase in defence spending of around 10 per cent, that is, 3.1 per cent in real terms. In fact the real growth in the Budgets of the Hawke Government has averaged 3.3 per cent, which compares with 2.5 per cent over the seven years of the Fraser Government. That is contrary to the nonsense and rhetoric we often hear from those opposite. This year nearly $1 billion will be spent on the FA18 aircraft program. Contracts have been signed for the Seahawk helicopter program for the Navy, and also for the project definition stage of one of Australia's biggest projects, the submarine project which this Government has decided will be built entirely in Australia. That was a momentous decision. The submarine program is very important. It will help the manufacturing industry and skills and technology transfer. Over the next few years I hope to be able to see this program through to finalisation. It will produce massive benefits for this country. I wish to refer briefly to our employment program, our strategy for the young, which was launched by the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) and which has recieved a marvellous response from the young people of Australia. The Prime Minister visited my electrate just prior to Budget week. The response from young people during that visit and since has been extraordinarily good. They have responded very well to the program and to the Prime Minister, who at that meeting accepted questions without notice from around 450 Year 11 and Year 12 students-something which I do not think many Prime Ministers would have done. That typifies the response that we have received. Many young people have said to me: `I enjoyed it and became involved because he was talking to us and not at us'. That is a very important point. The response that I have received around my electorate has been very good. The Government's program will be highly successful. Having said that, earlier this day the now Deputy Leader of the Opposition, the honourable member for Menzies (Mr N. A. Brown) came into this House and referred to the Government's employment programs and employment record as `nothing to be proud of'. That is what the honourable member said. I would like him to tell the 410,000 people who have obtained a job since the election of this Government that that record is nothing to be proud of. I would like him to tell the quarter of a million people who were added to the unemploymnent list during the last full year of the Fraser Government that that is nothing to be proud of and that this Government has not done anything. It was the greatest nonsense that this Parliament has heard in a long time when he said that our record was nothing to be proud of. The fact is that within the first three years of this Government in excess of half a million jobs will be created by this Government. Mr Bilney —New jobs. Mr CHARLES —Those new jobs will be created by this Government yet in the seven and a half years of the previous Fraser-Howard team only just over 300,000 jobs were created. They are the facts. We do not worry about the rhetoric; they are the facts. It is a disgrace to the Parliament that the Deputy Leader of the Opposition spoke that nonsensical rubbish. I would like to touch on privatisation, but I do not have time. I am sure there will be other opportunities. I will probably spend several hours in this Parliament over the next 12 months talking about that. I have substantial files on this matter. Basically, it is a load of nonsense to talk about selling the Commonwealth Bank and Telecom Australia. It is not only bad economics; some of it just does not make sense. The Hawke Government will not go down that track. I can assure members of this Parliament and the Australian people that there never will be a Howard government. If that disaster did occur this country would finish up in a greater mess than the present communications system in the United States of America and what the communications system in Great Britain is becoming. That particular load of rhetoric is nonsense and will be rejected as such by the people. I am sure that after the people of Australia consume this Budget, the third successive and successful Budget of this Government-we will continue in that way over the next few years-we will see the re-election of the Hawke Government most successfully and with an increased majority at the next election. Mr SLIPPER(Fisher)(8.26) —I was very pleased to hear my colleague opposite, the honourable member for Isaacs (Mr Charles), mention privatisation. I intend to touch on this very important subject in a positive way later in my speech. The real debate on the Budget before us centres not on what was said but rather on the Australian Labor Party's failure to address the great issues confronting Australia. Of course, this Budget is a Claytons Budget-the Budget you are having when you are simply not having a Budget. Peter Cole-Adams in the Melbourne Age of 21 August-a newspaper certainly not known for its conservative tendencies-wrote: But before you cheer or even sigh with relief, remember that last night's statement was only the second instalment in a three-part drama. He went on to say a little later: Do not discard your flak jacket until you have heard the rest of the story. That will come in September's tax statement. By all indications the Australian public will need substantially more than flak jackets to counter the predicted tax slugs being concocted by the Treasurer (Mr Keating) and his cronies. Our new Leader of the Opposition, the honourable member for Bennelong (Mr Howard), a magnificent member, in his initial comments on the Budget claimed it to be only half a Budget. Perhaps it would be more accurate to describe it as merely one-third of a Budget. Mr Cole-Adams referred to Labor's three-part budgetary drama. We all remember that sad and sorry day of the May mini-Budget. The Treasurer's August charade is now before the House and the people of Australia are waiting for Labor's September tax nasties. Alternatively, the Keating strategy could better be described as a three-act tragedy as a result of which the curtain will fall forever on this Government. Labor's budgetary direction can be fully assessed only when the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) finally exposes his tax proposals to the electorate at large. His failure to do so to date and the Treasurer's silence in this area are politically indicative of the Labor Party's deceptive approach to the running of the economy. This Government likes to claim that it is a government of firsts. Opposition members who have been in this place for many years find that the Prime Minister has established yet another infamous first. Whoever heard of a Budget not including an administration's taxation proposals for the ensuing year? Fearful of adverse public reaction, the Government has watered down the Budget document to almost nothing, leaving significant economic statements to the May and September mini-Budgets. Even though Mr Keating has not told us what is in store for Australians, it is illuminating to consider briefly the record of this Government-this total economic disaster. The Prime Minister has failed to destroy what he calls the myth surrounding the Australian Labor Party as a party of high taxation. The last 30 months have proved that Mr Hawke's myth is indeed reality. So much has been promised by Labor and so little has been delivered. People from all walks of life are now rightly suspicious that the much vaunted Hawke policy of taxation reform has been cremated, leaving the electorate to flounder in the ashes. In 1983 the Prime Minister promised tax cuts to 99 per cent of the community, but this year he was forced to admit: Our marginal tax rates are biting in too early, they are disincentives and people rightly feel that they've got too high a rate of personal tax. So, for obvious reasons of personal hardship, incentives and economic efficiency we've got to bring those rates down and bring them down substantially. Alas, Labor's Budget inactivity has shown the true extent of its failings. Labor gives worthless promises. It is now common knowledge that this Government simply cannot be trusted. The Treasurer asserted that there would be no tax increases, yet `pay as you earn' tax has been budgeted to increase by an enormous 13.3 per cent, with three-quarters of a million taxpayers moving into a higher tax bracket. To date, Labor's tax pledges have proved to be merely a fraudulent sham. The National Party has pointed out to the people of Australia the half truths, lies and distortions of this crumbling Government. Let us consider a few relevant points. Under Labor Australians now will be paying higher taxes than ever before. With the latest PAYE increase our nation is facing a two-year tax grab which has been boosted by some 29 per cent. We are now looking at a situation where well over two million Australians will pay almost half their earnings to this Government. Mr Cobb —Shame! Mr SLIPPER —It is wicked. Across the length and breadth of this country it is obvious that factions in the Australian Labor Party have not been able to agree on tax policy. The Treasurer and the New South Wales right wing faction move in one direction and the Centre Left in another, and the Socialist Left disagrees with everyone. Quite frankly, who knows where the Victorian independents stand? It is a classic case of the the right guard, the middle guard, the left guard and the mud guard. The only certainty to come out of this uncertainty is that mud will stick once and for all to this Government. We in the National Party believe that Australian workers deserve a fair go; a fair day's pay for a fair day's work. This has long been held to be a fundamental principle but Labor positively discourages enterprise and people working longer hours to get ahead. The average person in our community wonders why the Government's taxation dam should be swelled to bursting point with heavily taxed overtime payments and work related benefits. Australians have never been afraid of hard work. However, it is clearly time for the Hawke Government to stop raiding the pay packets of middle Australia. As the editorial in the Sunday Sun of 25 August correctly stated: Personal taxation is a fact of life, but it is not a licence for the Federal Government to print money. It is realistic to expect those with jobs to contribute something to the upkeep of the nation; it is not realistic to watch them crumble under the weight of a taxation system which places far too much emphasis on their contribution. Logic does not appeal to Labor. We can expect new taxes in September; I have referred to them earlier as the September tax nasties. What will they be? Has the Labor Party come clean? Has it been honest; has it told the people of Australia what they can expect in the September mini-Budget? Of course not! Will the Labor Party introduce a capital gains tax, a wealth tax or property tax? Will it bring in death and gift taxes? Honourable members would remember that the Queensland National Party Government was the first government in Australia to abolish those latter taxes. Will the Labor Party impose other new taxes aimed at discriminating against individual enterprise and effort? What will it do? Has it told us? Has it kept the people of Australia informed? Of course not! The Labor Party has been consistent in hiding its true intentions from Australians and Australia. We in the National Party are implacably opposed to all such new Labor Party taxes. We opposed them during the last election campaign. We made our position clear during that election campaign. We advertised in the newspapers; and we emphasised our opposition over and over again. We stood up and we were counted. The National Party is the only party prepared to go to the barricades on this important issue. My colleague Senator Boswell stated our Party's position in no uncertain terms prior to the last election. I endorse Senator Boswell's words 100 per cent. What fools we would appear if we so stood up in the election campaign and opposed those taxes and, once we got to this place, we said: `The Labor Party has a mandate to introduce them and we will vote for them'. As National Party members we were elected on the basis of opposition to capital gains taxes, wealth taxes, death taxes and gift taxes and we intend to pursue that opposition to the bitter end. We will vote against those taxes if introduced by Labor, both in this place and in the Senate. We do not apologise for this. We stand tonight and always before the people of Australia indicating our opposition to these taxes. Any conservative member in this place or the Senate who is prepared to vote for these taxes simply is not fit to sit as a member of the National-Liberal coalition. The National Party always stands up to be counted and I feel honoured to be a member of that Party in this place. The Budget contains a number of problem areas for the Australian economy. Perhaps the most telling indication of this is the reaction of the Australian dollar and the trading on the stock market. The Australian dollar, after a small initial rise, fell below its pre-Budget level. In the week following the Budget the all ordinaries index fell 12 points from the pre-Budget level. The reason for this is quite simple: The business and financial markets are not fooled by the charade portrayed by the Treasurer. Like many of us, they have looked beneath the supposed sheen and polish of the apparently plausible surface assumptions and figures of the Budget Papers. The Hawke-Keating Budget contains some horrifying and very real outcomes that have the potential to impact substantially on the Australian economy, small business, employment and the rural sector. As the editor of a leading transport journal said of the Budget figures: Contrary to Treasurer Paul Keating's predictions, the likely outcome of this Budget over the next 12 to 18 months is: higher inflation, higher interest rates, further falls in the dollar, unemployment remaining at about current levels, and growth in the economy at less than the Budget predictions. Australia without doubt is becoming the Argentina of the Pacific. Indeed, the only supposed high point of the Labor Budget is the claimed reduction of the Budget deficit to $4.9 billion; that still means that $4,900m more than the Government earns is being dissipated by this profligate Government. While it is pleasing to see that the Government is endeavouring to trim back its deficit a little, the fact still remains that it is very much a record Budget deficit surpassed only by those of earlier Labor Budgets. Governments should run their affairs the same way as ordinary people have to. Madam Deputy Speaker, imagine if your bank manager telephoned you and mentioned that your overdraft had blown out and that you were in the red, and you said: `I have gone into deficit budgeting. Don't worry, 30 June will come along and we will write off all that debt and start again'. I know what the bank manager would say. I very much doubt that he would continue the account. It is completely unacceptable for a government to spend more than it raises. The Queensland National Party Government has a balanced budget every year. It has been in government for many years and has a tremendous economic record; a record of which the whole of Australia and indeed the Western world can be proud. Let us look at the efforts of the Labor Party Government compared with those of the coalition. In just three years the total Budget deficits of the overspending Hawke Government have totalled $19.5 billion-not million dollars, but billion dollars. By comparison in the 8 years or thereabouts of the Fraser-Anthony Government the coalition managed to keep the total accumulated deficit to some $20.9 billion. While no deficit is ideal, this means that this Government is overspending at the rate of almost three times that of its predecessor-and that is accepting the Treasurer's figures. I do not know whether we can accept his figures as they have so many rubbery aspects. Who knows what will happen in 12 months; who knows what Treasurer Keating will say to this House when he tries to present the Budget next year-that is, if he is still in that office. As Des Keegan, a very respected journalist, correctly stated in the Australian of 21 August: If discounting for wage fixation after the sharp devaluation of the dollar is not realised the deficit will rise by several hundred million dollars. Combine this with the probability that the forecast for growth is too high and the situation exists whereby revenue will be cut and expenditure boosted, thus forcing the Treasurer's magic deficit up further. Terry McCrann, Business Editor of the Melbourne Age, stated bluntly on 21 August: If the Government fails to convince the ACTU to agree to deferral of part of the 3.8 per cent wage increase due under full wage indexation we can kiss goodbye to Mr Keating's Budget, his wider economic strategy, the economic recovery and indeed Mr Keating's and the Government's political future. I am certain that honourable members on this side of the House would applaud the demise of this Government and there is no doubt that it simply does not have a future. The very fact that the success or otherwise of this Keating-Australian Council of Trade Unions Budget lies with the ACTU is frightening. The Treasurer has publicly argued that the Government will urge discounting. He will not grasp the nettle and say that there will be discounting; he says that it will merely urge discounting for the dollar effects of devaluation at the next two wage case hearings. The Government is indeed taking a soft line with its economic master, the ACTU. The Government needs to state clearly, publicly and unequivocally that wage discounting must take place in the interests of the national economy. Not only does the union movement hold the pole position in this regard but also it holds the key as to whether the projected 1985-86 inflation rate of 8 per cent can be attained. At the whim of militant trade unions, Australia could well face an escalation of this figure and many respected commentators have indicated that the Treasurer would be exceptionally fortunate, or lucky, if he were able to contain the inflation rate to 8 per cent. To achieve its forecast, the Government is relying heavily on a number of ifs and maybes. Central to these forecasts is a growth rate of 5 per cent, a situation that analysts are tipping to be highly improbable. To arrive at this growth, the Government is relying on a growth in business investment of 4 per cent or more and that in turn is heavily dependent on a relatively stable or improved value in the dollar, a reduction in interest rates, wage restraint and inflation being kept in check. Surely the Treasurer must be the ultimate optimist or is counting on a huge dose of economic good fortune. Australia is facing a number of fundamental economic problems. It does not need the Hawke-Keating `ignore it and hopefully it will go away and solve itself' approach to the problem. Even the Treasurer's talk about the growth rate is clouded by a number of significant factors. In comparision with the situation in other Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development economies, these problems appear quite obvious. A major stumbling block to recovery is the high level of interest rates which is cutting at the lifeblood of the productive business sector and is threatening business investment. Australia's current account deficit is now the second worst of all the major OECD countries. Australia has had the worst currency devaluation over the last 12 months and, taking into account discounting, it will have an inflation rate of nearly twice the forecast average of major OECD trading countries in 1986. Even more alarming is the fact that there has been a large increase in our national and external debt. Under the Hawke Government, Australia has hit new levels of government spending. In turn, this spending is causing a high degree of borrowing with the resultant huge deficit previously mentioned and a spiralling international indebtedness. We need in this country a reduction in the size of the public sector. I mentioned privatisation earlier. We need privatisation or some return to the people of enterprises presently run by government. Privatisation has as its main effect a reduction in the size of the bureaucracy, a reduction in government spending and improved efficiency. In basic terms, this principle seeks to avoid a situation where the Government is the biggest consumer, the biggest employer and the biggest spender. In Australia today under this big spending, high taxing Hawke Labor Government, we are unfortunately approaching a terrible situation. Astute observers have carefully pointed out that the size of government and the public sector is on a continual increase. The Government has done little or nothing to alleviate this situation by getting rid of government enterprises and returning them to the people. By letting the people of Australia own these important enterprises, the Government would be taking a major and important step in the right direction. Before I close, I congratulate our new Leader of the Opposition, the honourable member for Bennelong, and the new Deputy Leader of the Opposition, the honourable member for Menzies (Mr N.A. Brown). These two gentlemen will be superb performers; they will be superb leaders of our next Government, along with the Leader of the National Party of Australia (Mr Sinclair). Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mrs Child) —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mrs DARLING(Lilley)(8.46) —In the Westminster system the moment when the Treasurer brings down the annual Budget is a moment of truth. I have in the past made this comment in a derogatory sense as I have watched the inescapable fiscal truths emanating from the 1981 Budget and particularly the 1982 Budget over which the then Treasurer, the honourable member for Bennelong and Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard), presided. They gave the lie to his Leader's comments that the economy was improving and that unemployment was not an issue in Australia. In fact it was not until February 1983 that, given the impetus of an imminent Federal election, the Fraser-Howard duo went further than the infamously coined phrase `dole bludger', to consider belatedly the runaway results of their lack of manpower policies. But the moment of truth which occurs when a democratic government must be accountable for its actions in straight tabulation of facts and figures can be enlightening in a number of ways. It can in fact be a credential for a government of credibility, underlining its direction and its policies. The 1985-86 Budget is such a document. It is a Budget which is aimed not only at continuing the mammoth task of pulling Australia out of the economic trough into which it had fallen prior to March 1983; it is a Budget which aims also at realising the full potential of the Australian society as a caring society. Concern at the large number of young people who leave school only to join the ranks of the unemployed has moved the Federal Government to introduce several new projects to help young Australians. These projects, under the heading `Priority One: Young Australia', were funded under the recent Federal Budget and will commence in 1986. They cover the area of job traineeships, actual jobs, education, income support and other support for young people wanting employment. Priority One offers entirely new job training opportunities which have not existed before. It is not just a rehash of old schemes. I mention this because it is important that if the project is to be successful, all sectors of the community must be informed of the new opportunities before them. For young people Priority One offers the chance to gain further education and training after leaving school to compete more effectively in the labour market. This will be provided through a large scale vocational employment traineeship program that combines on the job training with formal off the job training for a minimum 12-month period in a recognised training institution. This is not an apprenticeship but a new traineeship giving formal work qualifications. There will also be a financial incentive to pursue further education through the provision of simplified, rational and generous income support for young people. The Government has allocated $15.7m for the program in 1985-86 to create 10,000 traineeships for 16-17-year olds. In 1988 the number of trainees will increase to 75,000. For parents, Priority One offers the promise of greater employment security for children, as well as relief of the financial burden of higher education. In the past larger benefits have been paid to young adults looking for work-unemployment benefits-than to people who wish to gain educational qualifications; that is the tertiary education assistance scheme. This has denied many youngsters the educational opportunities which they deserve. By 1989 the rates of income support will be equalised to help young unemployed people return to education or training without fear of a reduction in government financial support. There will also be an additional 20,000 places in higher education created by 1988. For business people, Priority One offers an incentive to help young people gain employment experience through vocational traineeships. This will have significant long term benefits for the private sector as a pool of well-trained, adaptable and experienced young people will soon enter the work force. The Government will provide an on-the-job training fee of $1,000 per trainee for employers for the 12-month period and an off-the-job training fee of $1,700 per trainee paid to technical and further education colleges and $2,000 for other training institutions for the 12-month period. In addition, there will be a number of youth support initiatives at community level to meet the special needs of young people. Employment must be adequate at every level. The Federal Government does not forget the older person who is out of a job. But this program is being sponsored by the Federal Government in the belief that the onus falls on governments, as on all Australians, to ensure that the years ahead will be secure and prosperous for today's young people. We believe in young Australia and we believe in putting our money where our mouth is. It should be noted that $2.9m has been allocated to the Commonwealth Employment Service to upgrade and rationalise CES and to provide for the creation of special youth centres within CES offices. There has been a 23 per cent increase in funding for the community youth support scheme and $1.5m will be spent on the youth services development program. The group volunteer community services scheme has had an allocation of $1m. There has also been housing assistance. Under the supported accommodation assistance program the Government will provide low cost and crisis accommodation for young people-$4.4m in 1985-86. The community employment program will receive $290m for 30,000 more jobs in 1985-86 and 105,000 people will have received job training by 1986. If one compares the record of this Government with that of our predecessors on the question of employment, one finds that an enormous gulf exists in the serious formulation of effective employment policies, particularly for young people. This Government has sought tangible solutions to the problem of unemployment through stimulation of the economy and direct government employment creation as is evidenced by the highly successful community employment program. In contrast, under the leadership of Malcolm Fraser and John Howard, our opponents adopted a regressive and ineffective monetarist approach which sought to bring down inflation, but at the cost of jobs. The irony was that the outcome of this policy neither reduced unemployment nor reduced inflation. In fact, the opposite occurred, as the economy lurched into unnecessary recession and the social and economic problems of unemployment seriously affected our society. Now again the Opposition advocates a more stringent needs based approach to welfare. The Labor Government agrees that welfare payments are meant to cover those in need, not the affluent or the comfortably situated, but it is most important that we do not make scapegoats of one parent families. The Opposition Leader in the Senate, Senator Chaney, is quoted in today's Australian as saying: there had been no person in the Fraser cabinet more concerned at relieving genuine hardship than Mr Howard . . . To continue the quote: but the nation had to come to grips with the `reality' of the problems for supporting parents. If Senator Chaney thinks that Mr Howard, with his record of turning his back on the huge unemployment problems when he was in office, is the epitome of Opposition concern, I await with dread what he sees as the reality, the final solution for lone parents striving to rear their children in Australia. I wish to outline some of the ways in which this Government will help low income families. This year the Government has again increased payments for low income families. For people on pensions or benefits, the additional tax free payment for children will increase from $14 a week for each child to $16 a week from November 1985. This increase means that since the Government won office it has lifted the additional pension benefit for children by 60 per cent. For low income families not receiving a pension or benefit, the maximum rate of family income supplement will increase from $14 to $16 a week per child, also from November 1985. Families earning less than $229 a week may qualify for this maximum payment, with some payments continuing to be available to families whose incomes exceed this limit by up to $32 a week per child. This new level of payment represents a 60 per cent increase since the benefit was introduced in May 1983. From May 1986 the tax-free mothers-guardian allowance, which is paid to sole parent pensioners or beneficiaries, will increase by $2 a week to $12 per family. This payment will then be up to 100 per cent higher than it was at the time Labor won office. In acting to redistribute resources to those most in need, the Government has increased and expanded benefits for the unemployed. When the Hawke Government came to office single unemployed people had slipped far behind all other welfare recipients because of the discriminatory actions of the previous Government in denying them the indexation increases available to pensioners and other beneficiaries. This year's Budget again acts to close the gap between pensions and unemployment benefits for those aged 21 and over, by providing a special $3 increase over and above normal indexation. As a result, the gap between the standard pension rate and the unemployment benefit for people over 21 will, from November 1985, be only $6.45-half of what it was in 1983. The new rate of this benefit from November-$91.45 a week-will be $27 higher than it was when Labor won office less than three years ago. For the first time, rent assistance will be available from May 1986 to people aged 18 and over who have been on benefits for six months or more and are renting privately; to people who are over the age of 24, married or have dependent children; or to people aged 18 to 24 who are not living with parents or guardians. From May 1986 unemployed people will also be able to earn up to $30 a week in allowable income and still qualify for full payments. This represents a practical step taken by the Government towards alleviating the problem of poverty traps and it means that beneficiaries will be on a more equal footing with single pensioners. Other provisions include respite care. Special arrangements will be made to continue payments of the handicapped child's allowance for children who, for up to 28 days in any one year, are placed in an institution for respite care, thus enabling parents to have a holiday or break. A new carer's pension will be introduced for people caring full time at home for a severely handicapped age or invalid pensioner spouse or near relative. This will replace the spouse carer's pension and extend pension entitlement for the first time to people who are caring at home for near relatives, such as an aging parent. No government with any claim to meeting the needs of the nation can turn its back on the poor. A nation is only as healthy as its most disadvantaged citizen. The Opposition consistently makes a basic mistake when it harasses those who are on welfare. Opposition members mistakenly believe that if what is virtually a Red Cross operation is performed on behalf of children who are victims of broken marriages, that operation of mercy causes broken marriages. That is not so. The Hawke Government shares the concern at the number of marriages that are breaking up, but we believe that the children of those marriages should not be made doubly the victims by government penalising in the guise of thrift, as has been suggested by Opposition spokespeople. While the Government is striving to assist couples with large families and the unemployed, available statistics show that Australian children in one parent families are victims. In 1981-82 of the 1.9 million Australians in poverty, 841,000 were dependent children. Further, in all States, Territories and regions, the percentage in poverty is highest for children in one-parent families. We as a nation cannot moralise on the source of their distress, both children and parents, and turn our backs on them. We as a government do not intend to do so. There is an obvious need for policies which support rather than scapegoat people such as the victims of marriage breakup and of scarce jobs, people who are down on their luck. The 1985-86 Budget seeks to fill that need. But the truth regarding the Federal Budget is that for this to be comprehensive it must be viewed in context with preceding and immediately following Budgets. This Budget is part of a plan over a number of years for a caring society, a plan incorporating the accord, the Priority One youth strategy, the home and community care program, and various other programs assisting those in need. Who pays for this caring society? In any democracy, it is the taxpayer who pays for all programs emanating from a government. No government has additional funds coming from any source. But the burden must be shared; the tax must be equitable. There is, therefore, a need for tax reform. There has been such a need for years, but no previous government has had the guts to risk the political flak which would result from tax reform. The Hawke Government has that determination and is willing to accept short term criticism from those to whom tax reform means only tax cuts and tax cuts for all, in order to benefit all Australians in the long term. John Valder, National President of the Liberal Party, has said: Let the Labor Party get on with implementing the more necessary but perhaps less popular parts of our policy. And let's hope they get them into place and promptly lose office. High sounding ideals! But a caring society need not result only from the annihilation of the reform government which achieves it. I believe that in conjunction with policies spanning the next two years, this Budget and this Government will achieve a caring society and will survive. Mr COBB(Parkes)(9.02) —Nineteen eighty-five will go down as the year in which we had not one Budget but three. The first was brought down in May, and it was particularly damaging to country people. For example, we had virtually the total removal of the petroleum freight subsidy scheme, saving the Government $110m. That raised petrol prices in my electorate by up to 4c a litre. We had pre-school cuts, which particularly damaged country children, who need pre-schools to overcome the social shyness barriers. That May Budget was also particularly damaging to war veterans and war widows. The third Budget will be brought down in September. I am told that it will contain the dreaded capital gains taxes. However, most of my comments tonight are concerned with the second Budget, brought down in August, which can best be described as a Clayton's Budget-a Budget that you have when you are not having a Budget. Nevertheless, I remember it for four things. The first, is the removal of the 15 per cent tariff on header harvesters, to be replaced by a bounty. I compliment the Government on doing that. The National Party has been asking for that since the tariff was implemented in 1983, and now it has been removed. The only difficulty is that in the two years in which it applied, it cost the grain growers of this country $30m. I am told that it will apply only to headers imported after 21 August this year. What about the headers that are already on machinery dealers' lots having been brought into this country? When a farmer fronts up to buy headers, he will not buy particularly those that were imported before then. This will create quite a difficulty. I hope that the Government will rectify that anomaly. The second thing for which I remember the Budget is the 2.4c per litre diesel rebate, which was restored. It should never have been removed. Its removal cost the farmers of Australia $55m. The National Party and the Liberal Party have been pressing the Government to restore that, and this has finally been granted. I compliment the Government on doing that. The third thing is the $5 billion deficit, which has been much trumpeted. Nevertheless, it is worth remembering that that is the third highest deficit in our history, after the deficit of 1983-84 and the deficit of 1984-85. It is a sorry day for Australia when a $5 billion deficit is heralded as a great achievement. The fourth thing for which I remember the Budget is the large increase in taxes for the average worker. This comes after the much vaunted tax summit in July. We had 500,000 taxpayers sucked into the 46c bracket last year. Now, on top of that, we are to have another 500,000 taxpayers sucked into that same 46c bracket for this year. In addition, another 250,000 taxpayers will move up into the 60c bracket. Most of these are just average wage earners. Pay as you earn taxpayers will pay 13.3 per cent more tax this year. With inflation estimated at 8 per cent, that is bad news indeed. The PAYE taxpayers will be paying an extra 29 per cent over the last two years. Despite all the rhetoric about being grand economic managers, this Government, nevertheless, is the highest taxing and highest spending government in Australia's history. The story of economic improvement about which the Government keeps telling us is at best a half truth. Sure, there was some economic improvement, but it was not due to government policy. Three things fell into the Government's lap. The American economy, under Ronald Reagan, came good. That virtually halved inflation right around the world, Australia included. Secondly, the drought broke and that gave a great impetus to the economy of this country. Thirdly, the benefits of the Fraser-Anthony Government wages pause flowed through the Australian economy, but took 18 months to two years to do so. But all that is now over, and the jobs and growth about which we keep hearing and which the Government keeps claiming it has produced are mainly created now by deficit spending and Public Service expansion. Very few jobs have been created in the private sector. Most have been created in the public sector. Over one in four jobs are now in the public sector, and that ratio is increasing rapidly. The deficit is a very misunderstood term. We tend to talk only about the $5 billion deficit for this year; but that is only this year's deficit. It is really the cumulative deficit that should worry us. Not only do we have this year's deficit but we have last year's deficit to pay off, and the deficit of the year before that, and the deficit of the year before that. If a small businessman borrows, say, $50,000 this year, he not only has to pay that back but also has to repay the $100,000 that he borrowed the year before, and the $50,000 that he borrowed the year before that. It all adds up. All of it must be repaid. Mr Rocher —Interest has to be paid on it, too. Mr COBB —That is right. In 1970-71 the total public debt of this country was $15.1 billion. In 1983-84 it had risen to $75.3 billion. The figure has risen since then, and next year it is estimated that it will top $100 billion. The story with interest payments is no different. In 1970-71 interest payments to service the debt were $0.98 billion, but in 1983-84 the figure had risen to $8.5 billion. The figure is expected soon to top $10 billion. The average rate of interest paid in 1970-71 was 6.5 per cent. In 1983-84 that had risen to 11.3 per cent, and it is higher than that now. But what is particularly alarming is the average length of each debt or loan that is written. The average maturity period nearly halved from almost 8 1/2 years in 1978 to 4 1/2 years in 1983 and it is shorter now. This means in simple language that as the old loans are rolled over new ones are negotiated at higher and higher interest rates for shorter and shorter periods. The pattern has now been clearly established for a major financial crisis some few years down the track. Already it seems we inhabit a fool's paradise. Our total national debt in June 1985 figures was estimated to be $6,000 per person or $14,000 per employee or, looking at it another way, $19,000 per family. It is our children and grandchildren who will have to bail us out. Both political sides are at fault. Public sector spending-government spending-in Australia has exceeded government income in almost every year this century. It presently exceeds income by 15 per cent. Under the Whitlam regime spending in real terms increased by 10 per cent each year. Under the Fraser-Anthony Government that increase in real terms fell to 2 per cent a year, and under the Hawke-Crean regime it has been close to 7 per cent in the two-plus years Labor has been in government. The deficit is increasing and when plotted on a graph shows a steeply rising curve. It has to be serviced and that is what interest payments are, and they too are taking a steeply rising curve. As I said, in the early 1970s the interest payment was less than $1 billion and it is just under $10 billion today and increasing at the rate of 30 per cent a year. It is money down the drain, down the gurgle hole. We are spending more on interest-I am not talking about the repayment of the debt-than we do on defence, education and health together. The debt per person is higher in this country than in Third World countries such as Brazil, Mexico and Argentina. It is only our ability to service that debt that still gives us our triple A credit rating, which surely must soon come down. We have the highest real interest rates since the Depression. What is the cure for this? It is to spend no more than what we earn. In fact we should spend less at first. We should not increase taxes and pass the debt on to our children and cripple them with the repayments. We must restore the incentive to do productive work in this country. We must restore the incentive to take a risk, to invest, to earn a decent living for productive work. There is no incentive to do any of these things any more. On official government figures the average farmer earns little more than $150 a week. The small businessman earns about $150 a week also. There is incentive to be only a wage earner and to work from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m. and to have no capital outlay. The wage earner is better off than those who invest capital, create the jobs, take the risks, meet the interest bills and the on-costs, do the paper work, put in the long hours and take the responsibility. The only thing left for the small businessman is the capital gain at the end of his working career. That is his superannuation, and if the Government takes that away from him in September when it brings down its third Budget small business and the rural community will collapse. To reverse this the Government should not have held a tax summit in July but an expenditure summit. If it spends less it will not have to collect as much tax. The area in which cuts can be made is enormous. Two broad areas are Medicare and social security. We have already heard in this debate about the single parent supporting benefit. To correct the economic mess that we are in we would have to deal with many areas. We have heard of privatisation. The Australian National Line will be one of the first to go. We need the deregulation of government protected monopolies in this country. If we are going to change the tax system we should be moving towards a flat tax. We need every able bodied person in this country working for the dole. We need the deregulation of our wage fixing system, including the abolition of compulsory unionism, and we need very much lower tariff protection. Before finishing I would like to mention one item that came up in Supply Bill (No. 1) earlier this year because it epitomises what is wrong with what this Government is doing and what is wrong with this country today. There was an item in that Bill to collect $32m from the taxpayers of Australia to give to a mining company here. Honourable members might ask why this Hawke-Crean Government is taking taxpayers' money to give to a mining company in Australia. It is because the Government was buying uranium from Queensland Mines Ltd which was destined for the French electricity authority. As honourable members know, France generates about 65 per cent of its electricity from uranium because it is cheap, clean, safe and its consumers demand it. Many countries in Europe use uranium to generate electricity and the number is increasing. France buys its uranium from many sources as it is a very common element in the earth's crust. It wanted to buy some from us. In August 1981 the electricity authority contracted Queensland Mines to deliver 2,600 tonnes of uranium from Australia to France between 1982 and 1988. Queensland Mines had already shipped 900 tonnes and it had 1,700 tonnes to go before the Labor Government moved in. The uranium was due to be sent in 100-tonne lots, with each shipment worth about $7m in export income earnings for this country. This money should have been paid to Queensland Mines last year when the Government stopped the shipment but the appropriation was deferred. Honourable members might ask why and I will tell them. There was an election in December and the Government would have looked particularly silly if it had not deferred the payment and it would have been a very costly thing to do. It stopped sending uranium because of an Australian Labor Party Conference decision, which was decided by left wingers and union delegates. Even worse, the ALP has been a slave to the Left on this. It has already smashed the ANZUS alliance with the MX missile fiasco. That is where this $32m went; it was merely a sop to the Left. Of course the amount will be more than $32m later on; the total amount will be in excess of $119m. Mr Hunt —That would help the sugar industry. Mr COBB —That is right. The honourable member may ask what the Government is going to do with this uranium it is buying from Queensland Mines. It will be stockpiled with the Australian Atomic Energy Commission, which is a sheer and utter waste. It may as well go out and dig holes and fill them in again. The jobs of the miners of this country will be put in jeopardy. The consumers of France will be inconvenienced. However, they will still get their uranium elsewhere. It would take just a phone call to Canada or South Africa-the country that honourable members opposite love-and the contracts could be filled. This merely adds up to a loss of export income to Australia of $119m. Even worse, there is the danger of France retaliating against Australia. Last year France dumped beef on the Canadian market, and there is the threat it may dump more. It has high stockpiles of sugar and dairy products. If it has to dump them who would blame it? Many of my constituents in the Parkes electorate are very worried about this retaliatory action. The Government's action damages our reputation for reliability and it shows that we are reneging on yet another contract. We have become the laughing stock of the world and Canada, South Africa and other countries which are replacing us in uranium contracts are laughing all the way to the bank. Europe is using thousands and thousands of tonnes of uranium each year. None of Australia's uranium is used in making weaponry, but members of the Left cannot see that. It is beyond their comprehension, and I suppose I cannot blame them for that. However, I expected the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) to know better; he should not tolerate this poppycock and sheer waste of taxpayers' money. It amounts to a criminal action, and the Australian people should be told about it. The Government should at least tell us how the $32m is made up. No doubt there is a large component of interest charges and I would like to hear about the devaluation effect from the collapsing value of the Australian dollar brought about by similar policies. I have never heard of a more unnecessary, a more blatant or a more stupid waste of taxpayers' money than this. The Government should stand condemned for its imbecility. The total amount of $119m plus interest and other charges that must ultimately be paid is more than the cost of the petroleum freight subsidy scheme which was abolished in May and is more than the money which will be saved as a result of the assets test on pensioners. It is hard to believe that the Government could have such a blatant and total disregard for taxpayers' money by supporting this futile and wasteful action simply to keep the rabid left wing back bench silent. The Australian people must be told about this and similar actions so that they can ultimately condemn the Government at the ballot boxes at the next election. Mr BRUMBY(Bendigo)(9.21) —It is my pleasure to support the Appropriation Bill (No. 1) because the Budget which it deals with builds upon the Labor Government's first two Budgets and it pursues our great goals of economic growth and a fairer society. This Budget has a clear and positive direction. It distributes many of the benefits of Australia's renewed economic growth. In short and simple terms, it means more jobs, a lower deficit, a new start for youth, assistance for our primary producers and help for the many families who are in need throughout Australia. The 1985-86 Budget is a program for growth and reform. In summary terms, it is a Budget for jobs and for a fairer Australia. When the Hawke Government came to office in March 1983 we promised to seek renewed economic growth and, above all, to get Australians working again. We brought to government an economic policy based on the prices and incomes accord, with progressively less stimulatory fiscal policy and responsible monetary policy, and we set ourselves a number of inter-related goals. The first of those goals was to create half a million new jobs in our first three years in office. Our second goal was to reduce unemployment and inflation simultaneously. Our third goal was to improve permanently our long term growth performance by correcting structural weaknesses in the economy and, over time, to acheive a more just and equitable society. The approach of the Government, and in particular the emphasis which we placed on the prices and incomes accord, was framed in recognition of the environment within which any Australian government would naturally have to work. In my view, all Australians can now be proud of the fact that as a nation we have made an enormous amount of progress towards achieving those goals. Australia has experienced one of the strongest recoveries among all of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development countries. We have already had 10 per cent real growth over the last two years. In Australia we are looking forward to a further 5 per cent of real non-farm growth during the period of the 1985-86 Budget, while the OECD expects only 3 per cent for the world's major industrial countries. The strong growth evident under this Government has been the key to the 410,000 new jobs that have been created in Australia since the National Economic Summit Conference in April 1983. I shall correct a misunderstanding in the speech some moments ago of the honourable member for Parkes (Mr Cobb) when he suggested that most of those jobs were in the public sector. I refer the honourable member to the latest Australian Bureau of Statistics figures which show very clearly that of the 130,000 new jobs created in the last 12 months, more than 90 per cent of the growth has come from the private sector. Mr John Brown —He wasn't far out, was he? Mr BRUMBY —He was not far out. He said they were all from the public sector, but more than 90 per cent of the increase has occurred in the private sector. So it is a myth that this Government is a big pump-priming government, pushing out bigger and bigger deficits to create public funded jobs. Some 90 per cent of the 130,000 new jobs in the last 12 months have been created in the private sector. To put the performance of this Government in context, I point out that we have created 70,000 more jobs in just over two years than the Fraser Government managed in its whole seven years. Our three-year target of 500,000 new jobs is now very comfortably within reach. The unemployment rate has already fallen by two percentage points and on the basis of this Budget's estimates we expect it to fall to 7 1/2 per cent next year or, at the very worst, to 8 per cent. At the same time, even though recently there has been some pick up in prices in response to depreciation, the annual increase in prices in this past year has been the lowest since 1970-71. Industrial disputation is at the lowest level for one and a half years. Mr Gear —What about profits? Mr BRUMBY —My colleague mentioned profits. Business profitability has now been restored to historically high levels. Real unit labour costs have been reduced to levels which were last seen in the early 1970s. These are all achievements which our opponents who are so vocal now could never match. In this environment of very strong private sector growth and renewed economic confidence, the Government has been able substantially to reduce its outlays in the 1985-86 Budget. In this Budget, we have reduced the growth of real outlays to 1.3 per cent. That is the lowest rate of real increase in six years. Perhaps, even more impressively, this Budget has the lowest nominal growth of outlays since 1968-69-almost 18 years ago. In this Budget there has been no increase in tax revenue as a proportion of gross domestic product, and the Government has reduced the deficit by $1.8 billion to $4.9 billion. That is a major reduction. In that respect, this year's Budget represents a mere 2.1 per cent of gross domestic product. For the information of honourable members in cockies' corner, which is to my right, that is well under half of the prospective ratio that we inherited in 1983 from the discredited Fraser and Howard Government. Before proceeding to specific aspects of the Appropriation Bill as they affect my electorate of Bendigo, it is necessary to put this Budget and the Government's economic achievements in the proper context. When we think back to 1983 we well recall that Australia had endured seven very long and arduous years of Liberal rule. They were years which were based on confrontation and division and which reaped a debilitating wage price spiral and economic stagnation. It was a period of rule which earned for the honourable member for Bennelong (Mr Howard), now Opposition Leader and the then Treasurer, the dubious distinction of being the only Treasurer in Australia's history to preside over both double digit inflation and double digit unemployment. In that period under the now Opposition Leader unemployment figures jumped to double digits. Profits dived to their lowest levels ever. The number of industrial disputes and real labour unit costs hit historically high figures and we saw the destruction of Australia's once excellent international competitiveness. In contrast with those dark days of the Howard-Fraser years which, I am reminded, saw the attempted sale of the Bendigo Ordnance Factory-a period in which the now Opposition Leader was Treasurer-the Hawke Government's third Budget is a very good Budget for the Bendigo electorate. When as a result of the Liberal Party leadership challenge last week the honourable member for Bennelong was elected as the new Opposition Leader, many people in Bendigo were appalled because the present Opposition Leader was Treasurer when the Fraser Government attempted to sell the Bendigo Ordnance Factory. The previous Opposition Leader, the honourable member for Kooyong (Mr Peacock), was a regular visitor to the Bendigo electorate. I can only extend a very warm welcome to the current Opposition Leader, the honourable member for Bennelong, to Bendigo. I am sure that many groups and organisations would like to discuss some of his economic policies with him. To begin with, I imagine that about 600 employees of the Bendigo Ordnance Factory would be very keen to see him. He has never had the courage to come to Bendigo and speak to them directly. I am sure that they would like the opportunity now to speak to him. There are approximately 1,000 Australia Post and Telecom Australia employees throughout north central Victoria. Their jobs would be seriously under threat were a Liberal government with its privatisation proposals ever returned in this country. I am sure that those people would also like to talk to the honourable member for Bennelong. So I am very pleased to extend to him the invitation to visit my electorate on whatever occasion he might like. I have mentioned that, in contrast to the policies which might be introduced and which historically have been introduced by the present Opposition Leader, the current Budget, the Hawke Government's third Budget, is a very good Budget for the Bendigo electorate. There are many initiatives in this Budget which will consolidate and stimulate the strengthening signs of economic and job growth in country Victoria. Perhaps the most important of those initiatives as they affect my area, which is an electorate of approximately 15,000 square kilometres, are the initiatives we took in regard to the rural sector. I refer in particular to the full rebate of diesel fuel excise for fuel which is used in primary production, at a cost this year to the Government of approximately $35m. That initiative has been welcomed by grain producers, in particular, throughout my electorate. Another rural initiative that has been welcomed is the decision in relation to grain harvester bounties. Those bounties will be introduced to replace the existing tariffs on imported harvesters. That is being done at a cost to the Government of $14m in a full year. I was very encouraged to read after the Budget the statements in the local Bendigo news- paper, the Bendigo Advertiser, by various farming groups applauding the Government's initiatives in these two areas. Another rural initiative of particular benefit to my electorate is the funding for the national soil conservation program which has been increased by 16 per cent or $600,000. We have an excellent program in the Bendigo electorate located at Bourkes Flat which is between Wedderburn and St Arnaud in a very badly eroded and dry land salting area of my electorate. To date the Federal Government has put more than $50,000 into that program. It is a program which operates with enormous support from the farmers and the Victorian Soil Conservation Authority and with Federal Government funding. I am pleased that we have introduced increased funding nationally for that program because I know that it and many other programs will benefit. Another rural initiative of benefit to my electorate is the money provided under the national water resources program. I am very pleased to see that the Commonwealth has offered the State Government $86,000 for flood mitigation works to be undertaken on Bendigo Creek. Another area of particular importance to my electorate is housing assistance. I am very pleased to see in this Budget that continued funding is being made available under the Government's highly successful first home owners scheme. The scheme has made an enormous contribution to renewed growth in the building industry throughout Australia. Perhaps nowhere has this contributioin been more apparent than in the Federal electorate of Bendigo. To date more than 1,500 families and individuals have been approved and have received grants of up to $6,000 under the first home owners scheme. To put that in its proper perspective, the June quarter housing statistics which have just come through for the greater Bendigo area show that for the first time new housing approvals for the June quarter have topped the $10m mark. That compares with the $3.3m of new housing approvals under the last full quarter of the Fraser Government. The figure has tripled-an increase of 200 per cent. I am pleased to see that the first home owners scheme is being continued and supported so strongly by the Government. The other area under the category of housing which is of importance to my electorate is the local government and community housing program. From my point of view it is very pleasing to see that there has been a substantial increase in funds of 40 per cent for this housing program which assists local government and community groups to provide low cost rental accommodation for families in need. In the Bendigo electorate, the burrough of Eaglehawk and the Bendigo arm of the Salvation Army have shown enthusiastic support for the program. They were recently amongst what was only a very small number-14 in total, I think-of Victorian projects which received the first allocation of funding under this housing program. It is a good program, and it can now be expanded with the additional funding we have made available in this Budget. Honourable members would be well aware that this Budget contains a number of very positive measures in the Government's continued attack on poverty in Australia. I particularly welcome this continuing attack on poverty. If one looks at the make-up, the constituency of the Federal electorate of Bendigo, one sees that on an income per head basis, according to Census statistics, it is the second poorest electorate of the more than 30 Federal electorates in Victoria and the tenth poorest of the 148 Federal electorates around Australia. So I certainly welcome any initiatives that the Government takes to address poverty. In this Budget we have increased family allowances, mothers and guardians allowances and the family income supplement. The increase in the family income supplement means that 120 families throughout my electorate will now get an increase in income support. I am equally pleased that in this Budget we have been able to increase the level of income support for single unemployed individuals. It is a very timely boost to the living standards of this group. In the area of education and youth honourable members will be aware that a major area of reform in this Budget is the spearhead of the Government's Priority One strategy for Australian youth. I am particularly pleased to see the introduction of youth traineeships. However, that is just one aspect of a four-part plan we have introduced to provide a totally new start for young Australians. In the area of youth allowances new incentives will be given to young people and their families for young people to remain at secondary school longer and to be able to participate in tertiary education with more support from the Government. There will be a substantial increase in secondary allowances next year and progressive increases in the secondary allowance scheme and the tertiary education assistance scheme to 1988. The new income support system for youth will greatly assist young people and their families in the electorate of Bendigo. The 700 TEAS recipients who are currently at the Bendigo College of Advanced Education will also benefit from the increases we have provided in this area. The last thing I say in regard to specific aspects of the Budget relates to the extra places the Government is providing in tertiary education. The Bendigo College of Advanced Education was notified under last year's program that it will be getting increases in new student places to 1988. I am sure that the Budget decision to provide another 5,000 places, building on the previous 15,000 places, and giving a total of 20,000 new higher education and tertiary education places by 1988, will also benefit the Bendigo College of Advanced Education which plays such an important role educationally in the region. As a provincial and rural member representing a seat of about 15,000 square kilometres I would be remiss in my duty in debate on these Appropriation Bills if I did not conclude my remarks with some comments about privatisation, as it has become known, and its possible effects on country people. We have heard a number of speakers opposite tonight mention this topic. While this Budget is a very good one for country people, there is in my mind no greater threat to rural people than the mindless calls-that is what they are-by the Leader of the Opposition and the shadow Treasurer for the sale of Telecom Australia and Australia Post. This Budget retains Telecom and Australia Post. Were our opponents ever to regain government-that is at best many years away-they have made it fairly clear that Telecom and Australia Post are on the list of organisations to be sold or, at the very least, that parts of them would be sold and parts of them taxed. It has been suggested that Telecom profits could be taxed. In response to a question asked during Question Time today, the Minister for Communications (Mr Duffy) indicated that if Telecom were taxed it would add approximately 5c or 6c to the cost of a local call in Australia, An increase in tariff of 40 per cent would result simply from the taxing of Telecom. The impact on country subscriber trunk dialling charges would be severe, probably the same in percentage terms as the impact of taxing Telecom, but enormous in money terms. If Telecom was not taxed under the Opposition's plans it would be sold. Let us look at what the sale of Telecom means. Telecom currently cross-subsidises rural consumers to the tune of $500m a year. We have had mindless calls from members of the Opposition who perhaps do not appreciate that 20 per cent of Telecom's profits are generated from one square kilometre in the Sydney business district. They do not appreciate that $500m of cross-subsidy is going towards keeping the cost of country calls down. All the research that is being done shows that if we sold off the profitable sections of Telecom, the golden boomerang going round the coast, we would double STD charges. Rentals would be on a charging scale directly related to distance. Some people 10 kilometres from Bendigo would be paying $1,000 a year in rent. I raised this matter because I believe there is no greater threat to country people and their welfare than the mindless calls of the spineless morons opposite who continue to promote the privatisation of Telecom. That is the simple fact of the matter. It is about time that the members of cockies' corner had a bit of backbone and stood up for country people. They have been silent to date. Some of their own members are calling for privatisation. Be that on their heads. But how they can ever justify the sale of Telecom and Australia Post as members of the National Party of Australia, allegedly concerned about rural interests, totally defies my imagination and the imagination of the people of my electorate. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Blanchard) —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr SHARP(Gilmore)(9.43) —The Federal Budget brought down by the Treasurer (Mr Keating) on 20 August was my first Budget as a new member of parliament. I looked forward to it, as all new members of parliament do, with a great deal of anticipation. Unfortunately, as the night progressed I found that my anticipation was unfounded. Quite frankly, the Budget that was brought down by this Hawke socialist Government was a singular disappointment to me and, I know, to the large majority of Australians. It was a singular disappointment because at the very best it could be said that this Budget brought down by the Hawke socialist Government is half a Budget. The other half of the Budget will be announced in this chamber on 19 September. That other half of the Budget will contain all the nasty aspects of what the Hawke socialist Government is all about. It will contain aspects that people in Australia do not want. Who in Australia wants a capital gains tax? The left wing rabble of the Australian Labor Party might want a capital gains tax but, Mr Deputy Speaker, I can assure you that the average Australian man or woman does not want a capital gains tax. Farmers do not want a capital gains tax. Small businessmen do not want capital gains taxes. People who rent accommodation do not want capital gains taxes. People who rent accommodation know that the New South Wales State Minister, Frank Walker said-the only sensible words that he has ever said-that if a capital gains tax is introduced we can expect to see the cost of rental accommodation increase substantially. People who rent accommodation do not want capital gains taxes because they know, as any sensible Australian knows, that a person who owns rented accommodation wants to make a fair return. Under the present system they are making a fair return by getting a capital gain. If we tax that capital gain those property owners will still want to get a fair return. They will get it by putting up the cash rental of that accommodation. That cash will come out of the back pockets of the ordinary working men and women of this country. They will be the people who will be disadvantaged by a capital gains tax. They are the people this socialist Labor Government claims to be representing. There are other nasty aspects that we can look forward to on 19 September. The capital gains tax is just part of it. Attached to that capital gains tax will be death and gift duties. Anyone with a memory and anyone with a degree of common sense will know that any form of death or gift duties will seriously disadvantage Australians and seriously discriminate against the major proportion of Australia's popluation. In 1983 the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) promised the people of Australia that under his Government taxes would be cut. We can now look back on the track record of this Hawke socialist Government and see that this year the taxpaying community will be paying 13.4 per cent more to the Government's coffers than it did the year before. The year before that it contributed an extra 14.2 per cent to the Government's coffers. The taxpaying community had to do that because this Government is the highest taxing, highest spending government in Australia's history. We find that income tax revenue now forms 50 per cent of the Government's total revenue. Some 20 years ago income tax revenue formed 36 per cent of the Federal Government's total revenue. The pay as you earn taxpayer is bearing more and more of the burden of government expenditure. The Prime Minister promised the people of Australia at the last election that we would have a tax summit. He said that, at that tax summit, we would see tax reform that he claimed would take away the burden of this expensive government from the PAYE taxpayer and spread it more evenly around the community. But what did we get out of the tax summit? We got nothing. It was a failure. It was a flop. It was a sham. It was a disgrace. All we got was the Prime Minister making a trip to a motel in Canberra to do a deal with the Australian Council of Trade Unions. In essence that is what this Government is all about. This Government is under the guidance of the ACTU and the unions. Without their approval this Government cannot govern. The trip that the Prime Minister made was symbolic. Wise and wonderful people from all over Australia gathered at the tax summit to offer this Government their advice. We saw how those people's advice was ignored by the Prime Minister. I guess the tax summit can be summed up in the words of the Queensland Premier, Sir Joh Bjelke-Petersen, when he was talking about attending it. He said: `I attended the tax summit. When I got there we talked about option C, option B and Option A and we ended up adopting option ACTU'. As I said earlier, the ACTU is what this Government is all about. There is an urgent need for tax reform in Australia. There is no doubt that the present tax system creates disincentive for people to strive, to work hard and to create income. If a government is concerned about creating a tax system that is fair and equitable I believe that it must look at a flat rate or a single rate of tax, whatever people want to call it. This matter was brought up at the tax summit and it received no hearing from the Government. As the debate about a flat rate of tax takes place in the community there is no question that this form of taxation can be seen as real tax reform. It creates real incentive for people to work hard and to achieve. It does away with the disincentive for those working that little bit harder and finding, as they work harder, that they end up losing more and more to the Government's coffers. I will use the classic example of the shearers of this nation to illustrate the disincentive that the present tax system creates. Shearers will often not work until finishing time at 5.30. They will often knock off at 4.30. They do so because they say: `If we shear any more sheep and earn any more money we will end up moving into the next tax bracket and we will lose 60c of every dollar that we earn as we shear those extra sheep. So we will just stop work earlier. We will produce less and we will no doubt end up taking home less pay'. If we have a flat rate of tax we will find that a person earning $1 or $1m will still pay the same proportion of income to the Government. That will create incentive for people such as shearers to work on from 4.30 to 5.30. It will create incentive for those people who work in mines that operate 24 hours a day to do a Sunday shift or an additional shift once a week to earn that extra bit of money because they know that they will not be disadvantaged as a result of working another hour or two. As has so often been pointed out, it is far better to get 25 or 30 per cent of something-or whatever the rate is-than 60 per cent of nothing. This Budget is a disappointment for all Australians because 29 per cent of taxpayers will move into higher income tax brackets. Three-quarters of a million Australians will be pushed into higher tax brackets. Half a million of those three-quarters of a million people will move into the 46c in the dollar tax bracket and one-quarter of a million Australian men and women will move into the 60c in the dollar tax bracket. More and more people are finding less and less incentive to work harder, to achieve more, to be more productive and more prosperous and to create a more prosperous nation. Occasionally it is appropriate to give credit where credit is due. Much has been said by the Treasurer and this Government about their doing wonders by reducing the size of the deficit. Certainly they have reduced the size of the deficit, which is commendable, but I point out that even though they have reduced the size of the deficit-I will give the accurate figure for the deficit, $5.3 billion, and not the cheated figure used by my colleague the honourable member for Bendigo (Mr Brumby), $4.9 billion-and it is substantially less than the previous deficit, it is also substantially more than any deficit generated by any government of either political flavour in Australia's history. It is still contributing to the accumulated deficits of governments of the past. This Hawke socialist Government will have now added something like $17 billion to the accumulated deficit. Under Labor our deficits are getting bigger and bigger. We need to go further towards reducing the size of our deficits. We need to reduce the size of our accumulated deficit. The average Australian working man or woman owes $8,400 to somebody else. The average Australian taxpayer contributes nearly $1,000 in his taxes to pay the interest bill on the moneys borrowed to fund the accumulated deficits of the past. The latest letter from the Syntec economic advisory group shows that Australia has the third highest current account deficit as a proportion of gross domestic product of any of the countries of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. Of course, that inspired the economic adviser, Professor Fred Gruen, to warn us that the International Monetary Fund may have to be called in to intervene in Australia's financial affairs. The financial debt of this Federal Government has reached a serious stage. It is alarming. We need to do something about it. We are mortgaging our nation's future. As a young Australian I do not want in 20 years time to pay taxes to pay for services and facilities that were provided by governments 20 years ago. We need to get on with the job of reducing the deficit and paying off some of the amounts owed by this Federal Government. Talking about the future, what future can the youth of this country have if they do not have a job? I am sure we all know that 25 per cent of Australia's youth are currently unemployed. Once again, the Government is trying to do something to reduce youth unemployment in this country. The Government's youth policy attempts are not creating real jobs. However, I congratulate the Government on recognising the fact that in order to create jobs for young people one has to create incentive to employers to employ young people. Why on earth would an employer employ, say, a 18-year-old instead of a 30-year-old when the employer has to pay the same amount of money to the 18-year-old as to the 30-year-old? It is quite obvious that the 30-year-old would be more responsible, more mature, more settled down and less likely to turn up late for work than the 18-year-old. In order to give the 18-year-old or a person in that age category a fair go at getting a reasonable job one has to give incentive to the employer. The Labor socialist Government is trying to do that by taking taxpayers' money and giving it to employers to provide that incentive. Of course, we in the National Party of Australia, and indeed in the coalition, believe that in order to create that incentive one needs to give employers and employees the opportunity to negotiate freely mutually agreeable working arrangements so that the employer can find some incentive to create a job and the young person can get that job. When talking of creating jobs, one cannot go past talking about the small businesses of Australia. Probably most of us know that small businesses represent the single largest employer in Australia. There are over 600,000 small businesses in this country. Mr Nehl —They are going broke under Labor. Mr SHARP —That is correct. If one were to give each small business some incentive to create one extra job, the unemployment problem in Australia would disappear overnight. Whilst that is a simplistic example, the purpose of giving the example is to highlight the potential for job creation that lies within small business. Unfortunately, small businesses have found no incentives to expand, no incentives to create employment opportunities under this last Budget. As I mentioned earlier, on 19 September we look like getting a capital gains tax. What could be a greater disincentive to small business than a capital gains tax? I know from talking to small businessmen in the electorate of Gilmore that they are totally and utterly opposed to capital gains taxes. They see that as the biggest disincentive threat that hangs over their head. We will get that from this Hawke socialist Government. We also find under this last Budget brought down by this Government that we have the highest real interest rates that Australia has seen in 50 years. What sort of incentive is that to small businessmen to borrow money to expand and therefore create jobs? There is no incentive in high interest rates. We need to find a government prepared to bring down a Budget which will create an environment in which interest rates are lower and in which small businesses, people on farms, people in the business community in general, can afford the interest rates and use them to expand their business to create employment. We have not found this in this Hawke-Keating Budget. We also find in this Budget that there will be an increase in the size of the bureaucracy. The bureaucracy interferes more and more on a day to day basis with business. It hinders the small businessman trying to get on with the job of creating some sort of prosperity for himself and others. This Government is helping to promote that bureaucracy. This Government is helping to promote that interference. We cannot talk about job creation and employment opportunities without very briefly mentioning the very high costs of production in this country. The high costs of production that are afflicting our rural industries and our manufacturing industries are caused by our low productivity. We have low productivity not because Australians are not prepared to work hard, not because Australians are not capable of working hard and not because Australians do not have the ability to do things well. Australia is unproductive compared with, say, our neighbours such as the Japanese or the Americans who earn similar amounts of money to those earned by our workers. We are unproductive because our workers are not at their work place for long enough. The average Australian worker, according to an OECD survey brought out recently, spends 33.5 hours per week at his place of work. A Japanese workers spends nearly 42 hours per week at his place of work and an American worker spends 41 hours per week at his place of work. How can we expect our businesses, our manufacturers and our small businesses to compete when our workers spend less time at their place of work? This Budget will not benefit Australia. This Budget will set Australia further and further behind the eight ball. What this country needs is a government which is prepared to bring down a Budget with a tax system which will create incentive and bring rewards for initiative and hard work. We need a government which is prepared to bring down a Budget that creates increased productivity and prosperity. We need a government prepared to give incentives to small businesses to create employment. We need a government prepared to give us industrial laws and conditions that help to promote increased production. Unfortunately, we will not get all of those things under a Hawke socialist Government. The only way Australia will get those things that create real employment and prosperity is under a coalition government. Mr FITZGIBBON(Hunter)(10.01) —I am absolutely astounded by some of the nonsense spoken by the previous speaker, the honourable member for Gilmore (Mr Sharp). The honourable member obviously has escaped from a committee meeting of the Flat Earth Society and has come in here and said that the deficit under Labor has increased. Similarly, the nonsense he has spoken about our international debt just goes to show his abysmal ignorance of economics. Every person who knows anything about economics is well aware that Australia has one of the best credit ratings of any nation in the world. Our international debt is largely because of the investment money which has come into this country, so I suggest that the honourable member go back to high school and learns elementary economics. It is a delight to have the opportunity to speak on this Appropriation Bill which flows from possibly the best Budget ever presented to this House. The amendments moved by the Opposition can best be described as puerile and are rejected out of hand. As a statement of direct- ion and intent the 1985-86 Budget is without fault. Newspaper writers have proclaimed its excellence and commentators have declared that critics who search for Budget flaws will be disappointed. The people in the Hunter electorate have given it high praise. Many people, even opponents of Labor, have gone so far as to describe it as brillant. Everyone, with the not surprising exception of those biased members opposite, has lauded the Labor Government for its sensible and responsible strategy. I know that those inept individuals opposite will not like it, but I want to pause for a moment to provide a brief lesson in history and mathematics. I refer to an economic backdrop which featured in the final year that those opposite occupied the Government bench. We will call it the double digit backdrop, and what a shabby, shameful backdrop it was. On the Government side of the House we point with pride to our trilogy; the centrepiece of this Government's amazing success. Let us compare out trilogy with the loathsome trilogy achieved by those failures who represent the Liberal and National parties in this place. We will call their trilogy the double digit trilogy. Double digit No. 1, mammoth unemployment; double digit No. 2, mammonth inflation; and double digit No. 3, mammoth deficit. Let us compare the two trilogies; the proud trilogy of this Labor Government and the shameful, loathsome trilogy of those opposite. The people of this nation know of Labor's success in achieving a miraculous turn-around in the employment position, and our opponents are confounded. The people of this nation know of Labor's success at reducing inflation, and our opponents are confounded. The people of this nation know of Labor's success with the inherited $9.6 billion deficit. Our opponents laughed at our claims that we could reduce it below the magical $5 billion mark. Now they have no reason to jeer. The genius of the Treasurer (Mr Keating) has wiped the imbecile smiles from the faces of those opposite. They are confounded; they are flabbergasted. We on this side of the House are feeling very proud at this moment to be members of the Labor Party. We have every reason for rejoicing at the remarkable achievements of the labor Government. We are particularly proud of what we are doing for school leavers. Our plan to absorb 75 000 young people into a training program is aimed at bringing down the unemployment rate among 15 to 19 years old, and that shows our concern and commitment to youth. Our opponents do not care about youth because they think that most of the teenagers do not have votes to sell. Those opposite disagree when I say that they do not care much for youth. However, what I say is true. Let us consider the record of those opposite. They are the same people who opposed the right to vote for 18, 19 and 20 years olds and then, having denied them the right to vote, they were quite willing to put their names into a ballot or a lottery of death and send them off to fight and die in Vietnam. That sure is evidence of care. It is extremely difficult to find any evidence anywhere in the conservative program of genuine care for anyone but themselves and their cronies. I have shown that the members of the Liberal and National parties have no concern for youth. We all know that they do not care for the unemployed. We remember their cry: Defeat inflation first, do not worry about unemployment. Life was not meant to be easy, was their cry. This Government is defeating both inflation and unemployment, and it is making life easier for the Australian people. The Hawke Labor Government is succeeding brilliantly in economic management. This is not fiction; it is fact. If the members of the Liberal and National parties want to know how they are performing, they should ask the people. They should ask, for example, why there is a new militancy among the farming communities. Quite rightly farmers know that they were betrayed by the National Party which has claimed to represent them but which has let them down so badly. The dairy industry staggers along under the weight of the National Party legislation that is so complicated that the farmers cannot understand it and are frightened to change it in case they get something worse. The right honourable member for New England (Mr Sinclair) and the honourable member for Gwydir (Mr Hunt) stand condemned for their role in the last Government which cut wool promotion spending, tried to sell off the Wool Testing Authority, halved the interest rate subsidy for the Australian Wheat Board and reacted slug-like to farmers' needs during the drought. What now do the Nationals and Liberals promise the farmers? Nothing beyond the ideologies of deregulation and privatisation. Privatisation would be a calamity for rural folk, and the rural people will not have a bar of it. This Labor Government Budget is a great one for the men and women on the land. I will leave it to other speakers to spell out the details about rural matters. I know that the farmers in the Hunter electorate appreciate the work of the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Kerin). Farmers in the Hunter electorate know that under the Fraser Government farm costs increased consistently by 11 per cent but under this Government they have been kept down to 6 per cent. This Budget will guarantee all Australians a better and more prosperous future. On the other hand, the Opposition parties are wracked with deep and serious divisions and more bloodletting is certain. What a tragedy it would be for the people of Australia should the lean and hungry looking individuals opposite gain office. We have a new Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard) who cries to the people of Australia: `Give me another chance'. What do the people shout back in reply? They say: `No, you had your chance and you blew it, you made a mess of it. You who want another chance were the architect of a program which brought this country to the brink of economic collapse. The Hawke Labour Government has succeeded where you failed miserably. You, Mr Howard, are an incompetent economic manager. Stick to what you know best-vaulting ambition, aided by subtle knife work.' In every area where the coalition failed so miserably the Hawke Government has succeeded brilliantly. Everything that the Opposition said was too hard the Labor Government has achieved. The success of the accord is an unprecedented achievement in industrial relations management. In every area of endeavour the Hawke Government, through this Budget, is developing new pride and confidence in Australia's future. After the wintery years of coalition government the Hawke Labor Government is bringing Australia back towards a hopeful light. The Australian electorate is too sensible to plunge this nation back into the darkness of despair. The honourable member for Bennelong can continue to plead `Let me lead you', but, rightly, the Australian people are saying: `Thanks but no thanks, we have tried your recipe and it stank; we don't wish for a repeat dose'. Mr McGAURAN(Gippsland)(10.11) —After listening to a succession of Government speakers one is struck by the thought of just who do they meet in their electorates. Do members of the Government meet small businessmen, do they meet the self-employed and do they meet primary producers? I do not believe members of the Government could be meeting with these people who are responsible for creating wealth in this country and yet they stand in this chamber, one after another, and talk about the distribution of wealth with not a word about the creation of wealth. I, like my colleagues on this side of the House, happen to hold many projects dear to my heart. I, too, could in a totally irresponsible fashion come into this chamber and list the projects on which I would spend Government money. But the responsibility goes deeper than that. It goes to showing this nation just how the cake will be baked, not how it will be distributed. The second major feature that sums up these members of the Government is that they are obviously listening to a small group of people who have their roots in the trade union movement and who are more concerned with protecting their members who already have jobs. But, Mr Speaker, do not employers have rights-the right to a fair return on their investment and a right to reward for risk and initiative? Do not the unemployed have rights, including the right to the security and dignity of a job? Do not unemployed youth have a right-the right to a future in this country? Yet this Government denies them those rights. Recently released figures show that the number of people on government pensions and employed by the three tiers of government nearly equal those in the private sector. That means that every person in the private sector is supporting a government beneficiary or employee. That is the problem in a nutshell. Those who have the responsibility of paying heavy government taxes and charges are diminishing. We can talk all night about the so-called growth in employment, but that employment rests almost totally with the public sector and with job creation schemes. It is short term growth and it is fiddling with the unemployment figures. It is the most cynical fiddling with youth and adult unemployment figures in the history of this country. Just how much longer can this country tolerate and this Government foster a system which has a rigid labour market, a closed shop, compulsory unionism, indexed wage rises, holidays of four weeks and more, 35-hour weeks, penalty rates and holiday loadings in the order of 17 per cent and still meet our obligations to the disadvantaged and to the young and adult unemployed? The answer to that is that we can no longer afford those luxuries. The problem in this country-- Debate interrupted. Mr SPEAKER —Order! It being 10.15 p.m., I propose the question: That the House do now adjourn. I call the honourable member for Gippsland. Mr McGAURAN(Gippsland)(10.15) —The problem in this country- Mr SPEAKER —Order! The question before the House is that the House do now adjourn. Is the honourable member rising to speak in the adjournment debate? Mr McGAURAN —Yes, Mr Speaker. We have heard much from the Treasurer (Mr Keating) about the economic status of this country. Mr SPEAKER —Order! I remind the honourable member that he should not continue with his Budget speech on the adjournment debate. Mr McGAURAN —No, Mr Speaker; it is a new topic. Mr SPEAKER —The honourable member should realise that I have been around here long enough to recognise what is a new topic and what is the same topic. Mr McGAURAN —Mr Speaker, I understand that the Treasurer has projected that the inflation rate for this country will be in the order of 8 per cent. May I advise the chamber of the inflation rates of our major trading partners: France, 4 1/2 per cent; the United Kingdom, 5 per cent; West Germany, 2 1/4 per cent; the United States, 3 1/2 per cent; and Japan 2 per cent. But it goes further than that. Let us look at interest rates. In this country the burden of interest rates on primary producers and small businessmen is excessive. The prime rate in Australia for a commercial bill is 17.1 per cent for 90 days, but the bank rate for small businessmen and primary producers is 17.5 per cent and for loans over $100,000 up to 19.5 or 20 per cent. Let us look at the interest rates again of our major trading partners: France, 5.8 per cent; the United Kingdom, 12.6 per cent; West Germany, 5.3 per cent; the United States, 9.3 per cent; and Japan, 7 per cent. The claims of the Treasurer and the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) that this country is on a firm economic footing are deliberate falsehoods. They talk also of a growth rate of some 4 1/2 per cent, possibly 5 per cent. That growth rate is funded by way of government deficits, by way of government borrowings. Interest rates in this country are so severe as to limit the private sector and those who take risks, the entrepreneurs. I believe, as do many members on this side, that interest rates are kept deliberately high by the Government because it wants to keep up the value of the dollar overseas. The value of the dollar at this time is some 66c against the American dollar. Without the Government and the Reserve Bank of Australia's manipulations the value would drop to 50c. There is no doubt whatsoever in my mind that interest rates are being kept deliberately high by the Government to ensure the value of the Australian dollar. Moreover interest rates are being kept high by Government borrowing in the market place, thereby making it so much more difficult for the private sector to obtain finance. There are other indicators also that all is not well in the rose garden. This Government has overseen a substantial and critical decline in this country's economic performance. Our declining trade performance is of tremendous concern to everybody. The foreign debt, totalling some $75 billion, of course including all of the three tiers of government and statutory authorities, means that we are now paying a higher interest rate bill than Budget outlays on defence. The interest alone is the equal of Government outlays on health. It is the third highest Government outlay. In conclusion, any member of the Government who believes that this country is in anything approaching a healthy economic state is not only abrogating the responsibilities of his individual electorate, he is abrogating responsibility to the nation as a whole and to the oath of office that we swore on entering this Parliament. Mr MILTON(La Trobe)(10.22) —On 15 August the Democratic People's Republic of Korea celebrated its fortieth anniversary of liberation as an independent nation. But the arbitrary thirty-eighth parallel division of Korea at the end of the Second World War into a northern republic and a southern republic has produced bitter divisions between the two halves of what had been for thousands of years a single and united nation. The existence of the differing social and political systems obviously hampers moves towards reunification but, in my view, the Commonwealth Government has a responsibility to contribute to world peace by encouraging a reconciliation between the two countries. The fourth session of the Seventh Supreme People's Assembly of the Democratic People's Republic of Korea has proposed to the National Assembly of the Republic of Korea the holding of north-south parliamentary talks. The Democratic People's Republic also made the following proposals: We are of the view that the parliamentary talks of the two sides should discuss, to begin with, the question of proclaiming a joint declaration of non-aggression to ease the tension and improve the North-South relations. Should this important problem be solved first through the parliamentary talks, it would be of practical help for both authorities to collaborate on it and adopt a North-South declaration of non-aggression stipulating that neither side would resort to arms against the other side. We are ready to discuss any proposal of the South Korean side at the parliamentary talks, if it would be conducive to lessening the tension and guaranteeing peace in the country. If the issue of non-agrression and other questions of easing tension and ensuring peace were successfully solved between the North and the South, antagonism and confrontation within the nation would be cleared away and an atmosphere of trust and unity be created, a radical turn be brought about in the whole dimension of the North-South relations and the groundwork for peace and peaceful reunification be laid. The opening of parliamentary talks would, no doubt, prove to be a new landmark in paving the way for diversified forms of dialogue between North and South and stimulate its successful progress. If members of both parliaments sat down at one place and, with the same purpose and concerted effort, sought a way for a peaceful life of the Korean nation, there would be created excellent conditions and circumstances for arranging high-level political talks between North and South. The parliamentary talks would have an encouraging influence on the economic negotiations and Red Cross talks and open up a bright prospect for North-South co-operation and interchange. We believe that there is ample possibility of holding North-South parliamentary talks which would put an end to the 40-year long history of distrust and confrontation and bring harmony and peace to our nation. Both sides already expressed in the New Year address and the policy speech their positive stands towards the North-South dialogue and their intense hope for top-level talks between the authorities. This confirms the presence of a common foundation on which the North and South can arrange a dialogue to promote reconciliation and trust and lessen tensions. There may be different forms of parliamentary talks, but we think it advisable either to open a joint session of both parliaments or to hold talks between parliamentary delegations. As far as the former is concerned, it would be possible for the members of your National Assembly to attend the session of our Supreme People's Assembly and the deputies of our SPA attend the NA plenary session of your side, with equal rights and duties. In case of talks between parliamentary delegations, it would be reasonable that both sides respectively form their delegations composed of a proper number of parliamentarians from different political parties and led by speakers or deputy speakers. In order to hold a prior consultation for the North-South parliamentary talks, we consider it reasonable to have a preliminary contact at Panmunjom between working-level delegates appointed by their respective speakers. Peace and reunification are both for our nation and they should be achieved by our people themselves. Idea and system are precious to us of the same blood. But the nation is dearer and we must think of it first. The whole nation of North and South should by all means make concerted efforts to prevent war by alleviating the tension and live a bountiful life alike by accelerating peaceful economic construction; they should be allowed to cross the demarcation line and freely travel between North and South to share warm feelings of national harmony and kinship. We earnestly appeal to the South Korean political parties and groupings, people of all strata, and youth and students to actively respond to our patriotic initiative oriented to the day of reunification and to keep pace with the grand nationwide march for peace and peaceful reunification. Our nation is favoured with the common milestone set up on the road to peace and reunification, that is the three principles of independence, peaceful reunification and great national unity for the country's reunification laid down on July 4. We, out of this desire, sincerely hope that your newly born National Assembly will seriously discuss our new peace proposal, promising a peaceful land free from confrontation and war and the future of a reunified and independent country, and send us an affirmative reply. I trust that the Commonwealth Government and this House will support this most important peace initiative. Mr SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr HAWKER(Wannon)(10.27) —Today we have heard some extremely misleading and wildly inaccurate statements from several members of the Government. I refer of course to the debate which is becoming quite public about the sale of government enterprises, sometimes known as privatisation. If we are to have a rational and sensible debate about this matter, we should get a few facts straight so that we can talk about its merits on the basis of what it really could mean rather than on the basis of some wildly misleading statements which are totally erroneous and which have probably caused a lot of unnecessary worry. For the benefit of Government members I wish to outline two or three very simple points about privatisation, how it will work and what it will not do. Mr Downer —Say it slowly. Mr HAWKER —Yes, I will have to say it slowly. Any decision that is made to sell any government enterprise would be made first of all on the basis that such services would be better supplied by the private sector than the public sector. If the sale is made, it would be made to the employees of that business and certainly not to some foreign corporation, as was suggested earlier in this House. That is an important point and I think it should be made quite clearly. The sale would be made to employees and there would be employee ownership. If anyone has any doubts about that, I remind them that there is a very successful business in my electorate that has practised this for decades. The business to which I refer is Fletcher Jones and Staff, more than two-thirds of which is owned by the staff or the former employees of that company. It is a very successful company. The employees own it and they benefit from the fortunes of it. The second point about any decision to sell a government enterprise is that there are conditions of sale placed on it. Those conditions in particular ensure that the services of that government organisation be provided to people in country or remote areas. So all those suggestions about high costs or missing out on something are totally misleading because part of the condition of any sale is that those services are provided and provided wherever it is considered necessary by the government of the day which takes the decision. The reason why such a decision might be made is that in doing so a more efficient and cost effective service can be provided to all consumers. Today we listened to some very twisted logic about this whole matter and in particular there was talk about the merits or otherwise of cross-subsidisation, particularly with, say, Telecom Australia. Cross-subsidisation is nothing more than a hidden tax. To suggest that by leaving it as a hidden tax we are somehow saving taxpayers' money is totally misleading. All it is is a somewhat less painful way of extracting tax from people in high density areas to assist those in lower density areas. It is a form of taxation, it is a hidden tax, but it is still nothing more than a tax. The debate on that sort of thing should be centred on whether there should be a hidden tax or a visible tax which is subject to public scrutiny. That is the direction in which the debate should go. If this debate is to be put on a rational and sound basis, these few little points that I have made should be understood. When they are understood, honourable members will see why there will not be the supposed opposition that the Government insinuated there would be from people in country electorates. There are three points. First, the employees benefit because they become the shareholders. There is certainly no intention of ever allowing large corporations to take over these enterprises. The second point is that remote areas are safeguarded by any conditions of sale. The third point is that consumers would get a more cost-effective service. If those three points are not met, obviously such a decision to sell off a government enterprise would not be made. Mr MAHER(Lowe)(10.30) —I thought that I would abandon my topic tonight and speak in reply to some of the nonsense that has just come from the honorable member for Wannon (Mr Hawker) about the sale of government owned enterprises. Concentrating on Telcom Australia, I have never heard such ridiculous nonsense. The honourable member talks about selling, say, Telecom to all the employees, and every employee who becomes the owner of Telecom would have to sign an undertaking to keep providing- Mr Hawker —On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I did not say that- Mr SPEAKER —Order! That is not a point of order. Mr MAHER —Every employee who becomes the owner of Telecom would have to sign an undertaking to keep providing services to the constituents in the electorate of the honourable member for Wannon, out in Stawell and other very remote places. Already in this House the Minister for Communications (Mr Duffy) has said that- Mr Hawker —On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I do not think that the honourable member for Lowe understands the shape of my electorate. Stawell is not in my electorate. Mr SPEAKER —Order! I warn the honour- able member for Wannon. Mr MAHER —The honourable member is just wasting time. The Minister very competently told the National Party what would happen if Telecom were privatised. Mr Slipper —It would be more efficient. Mr MAHER —The Minister told the National Party members, particularly the honourable member for Fisher (Mr Slipper), who today agreed that his constituents should pay higher telephone bills. Mr Slipper —They would not be higher. Mr SPEAKER —Order! I warn the honour- able member for Fisher. Mr MAHER —I must be doing well. Opposition members are getting stirred up. It is absolute rubbish that every person who buys a share in Telecom will have to give an undertaking to provide services in Darling, to my cousins at Tibooburra, to Wannon and all the obscure, remote places. How could there be such a condition of sale? The employee who signs such an undertaking may sell the shares the next day, as happened in England, where the sale of British Telecom was not restricted to its employees. The sale of Telecom Australia is attractive if one buys the central business district network. A profit would be made there. But the honourable member for Wannon acknowledged that there is a need for cross-subsidisation because one has to subsidise the pensioners who get concessions and special rentals. Opposition members want to abolish the assets test, but they would abolish all telephone concessions for pensioners. The pensioners would not be happy about that. All veterans' affairs pensioners and age pensioners get a concession on telephones. That is very important, because if they are sick they must have a telephone in order to ring their doctor, and so on. There will be no Telecom to make a profit. That will have been sold off. In the second year there will be this continuing debt. It is the same with every service. If the Commonwealth Bank were sold, who would run the school banking service? Or would that be abandoned? The social security budget would have to fork out that money. Another service that will go is directory assistance. This is the only country in which one can ring up directory assistance without charge. That is one matter that the honourable member for Wannon has forgotten. That will be the first thing to go-that service for all the farmers and the private sector people who ring up all the time. It cost $25m a year to run directory assistance. That will be abandoned immediately along with all the other services that Telecom provides, mainly in the country. It is a disgrace. It shows the debasing of the National Party members in this House when they can support something that will treble or quadruple the cost of telephones in the country, this philosophy of selling off anything that is making a profit. Those services that are making a profit are the only ones that they will sell. It is absolute rubbish to talk about the notion that everyone who buys a share on 1 January 2080-when the Opposition eventually wins under the pendulum theory-is then locked into it, because such people can sell their shares, or, when they die, they cannot attach such draconian conditions to their next of kin. The honourable member for Wannon is talking absolute balderdash and rubbish. The electorate will see it as that, and the voters will never return Opposition members to the treasury bench. Mr HICKS(Riverina-Darling)(10.35) —I am one of those people in this House who are very disappointed with the Budget. I am disappointed for all of Australia, but I am more disappointed for all of the farmers and people on the land in my electorate. The people about whom I am most concerned are the young farmers. These are farmers who have gone into debt in the past, people with initiative and a bit of get up and go in them, and people who have implemented innovative ideas to farm their land, particularly those irrigation farmers in the Riverina who have brought in laser levelling and other modern techniques to have a go at trying to produce some wealth for this country. Unfortunately, because of higher costs that have arisen, such as increases in fuel costs and in all types of taxes and charges-- Mr Porter —Interest rates. Mr HICKS —I was about to mention interest rates. They are the ultimate charge that is really destroying such people. A person in my office the other day was telling me something about interest rates. He said that people in the service industries can get rates as low as 14 per cent, but for people on the land rates start at 16 3/4 per cent and can be anything from there upwards. Some of these young farmers have gone into sheds or substandard accommodation on the block thinking that eventually they would get the block going and move into some reasonable accommodation for their families, but now, worse than having to stay in a tin shed for some years, it looks as though they will have to walk off the land, not only giving up all the land and every- thing they have put into it but also having to repay substantial debts. The present situation is so bad that we must think about ways and means of providing rural finance to help such people. The Fraser- Anthony Government introduced drought relief subsidies, mainly to save the national herd and the national flock because if these had been allowed to deteriorate, it would have taken years and years to bring them up again to the numbers needed to provide some wealth for this country. The situation is reaching the point at which we will have to provide some sort of scheme to save the farmers, let alone the flocks. In the recent Budget we had an allocation of $16.8m for the rural adjustment scheme. The other day I was on the road between Ivanhoe and Hay, and I was speaking to a farmer who had cattle in the long paddock. He told me that unless things improved and unless he got those cattle fattened and sold he would be down to the tune of $1.2m. I was talking to him about the rural adjustment scheme, and he said: `If you give me $1.2m out of that scheme, that does not leave much for all the other farmers of Australia'. The rural community does not want special treatment or handouts, but it wants to survive. Unless the Government does something about interest rates, which it is keeping artificially high in order to attract money into the country to prop up the ailing dollar, and unless it does something drastic and very shortly, we will not have too many farmers left. This is not just a plea for the farmer. If the man on the land is not going well and if all the rural communities are not going well, the capital cities, as they will find out, will not be going too well either. The people on the land provide 46 per cent of our overseas earnings. If anything happens to them, the nation is in real trouble. We had income equalisation deposits which helped people on the land at one stage, but this Government did away with that scheme. That scheme allowed such people to average out their earnings and pay less tax. It allowed money to go into the Primary Industry Bank of Australia, and in this way helped the man on the land. It appears now that with the loss of that scheme the Government will have to institute some other scheme if it wants these people to survive. Meetings are taking place all over Australia in regard to the problems faced by the man on the land. A meeting is being organised at Jerilderie for Monday, 16 September. An invitation is extended to anyone who can get along to that meeting, at which there will be discussion of rural finance and the need to support the man on the land and people in rural communities, who are really small businessmen who need help if they are to survive. I am not asking the Government to assist; I am pleading with the Government to do something about interest rates. Mr SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr HOLLIS(Throsby)(10.40) —The new conservative movement in Australia, the Right or dry or whatever we now have to call the Opposition, sees the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation as only one of its targets in its opposition to the United Nations system. Because of the growing attacks on UNESCO I strongly support the recent call made by Dr Ken Wiltshire, Associate Professor of Government at the University of Queensland, for the establishment of a Friends of UNESCO organisation in Australia, along the lines of similar groups in the United States of America and the United Kingdom. There should be strenuous efforts to increase understanding of UNESCO. The United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation, was born out of the horror of World War II. UNESCO was a positive, rationalist response to the irrationalism that led to war. In 1946 the Organisation was established to foster peace by promoting international intellectual co-operation. `Since wars begin in the minds of men', runs the Organisation's constitution, `it is in the minds of men that the defences of peace must be constructed'. It is ironic then, in a year when memories of that war are being recalled at various ceremonies, and through television programs, that a heavy cloud hangs over UNESCO. At a time when the fortieth anniversary of the end of the war is being commemorated, the existence of UNESCO is being challenged. UNESCO's achievements have been forgotten. Criticism of the Organisation's management and some of its programs has created a climate in which the worth of such international machinery can be doubted, not only overseas but also in Australia. It seems that in the last 25 years awareness of UNESCO, along with the rest of the united Nations system, has declined greatly in Australia, particularly among young people. UNESCO has enormous potential for good. Perhaps more than any other United Nations body, its goals embody the ethical concerns of the founders of the United Nations system. Should UNESCO flounder, then the rest of the United Nations system will lose intellectual and moral strength. One hundred and sixty nations belong to UNESCO and Australia was one of the earliest signatories. UNESCO is one of the largest international agencies. It differs from other United Nations agencies in that its activities relate to several broad issues-education, natural science, social science, culture and communication. The other agencies focus on one area-the World Health Organisation on health, the Food and Agriculture Organisation on food, the International Labour Organisation on labour, and so on. UNESCO is also different from the other agencies in the stress placed on intellectual activity. UNESCO is not simply an aid agency for Third World countries. This is not its essential function. It is primarily a source of seminal thinking on world problems that is of benefit to developed as well as developing countries. UNESCO is a difficult organisation to run. The north-south and east-west dimensions of the Organisation perhaps give rise to greater debates than in other international agencies because UNESCO is seeking to make so many more intellectual judgments. It deals with a host of areas that are focal points for debate by people of different ideologies. For example, the question of whether the scope of human rights in international law should be extended beyond individuals to peoples, such as Australian Aboriginals, has created tension within UNESCO. Some have feared that the notion of people's rights will be a means for states to undermine individual human rights. However, turning away from such issues because they are politically contentious is not the answer. They are issues that must be addressed. It is necessary that they be recognised as politically important issues that need to be debated within a body with a brief such as UNESCO's. The task in future is to find a way in which people with different ideologies can deal with them. International standards have been set in a host of areas through UNESCO. Standards are developed by the Organisation, and member States agree to adhere to the standards through the signing of conventions. Currently there are 30 UNESCO conventions ranging from universal copyright to the protection of important natural and cultural sites. In Australia we are most familiar with the UNESCO Convention for the Protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage. Countries which are signatories to the convention are required to do all they can to ensure the preservation of sites listed under it. The inclusion of the Western Tasmania wilderness national parks on the World Heritage List enabled the Federal Government to prevent a vast area of the parks from being flooded by the building of the Franklin Dam. As Australia was a signatory to the convention, the Federal Government was able to introduce legislation and undertake litigation to protect the area. More generally, the inclusion of Australian sites on the World Heritage List has helped to raise awareness of the importance of preserving the environment in this country. The World Heritage Convention illustrates how Australia profits nationally by membership of UNESCO. Australia's participation in UNESCO should not be seen as one-way traffic of Australian money and expertise. Mr SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. I call the honourable member for Franklin. Mr Hodgman —Put a bit of ginger in it. Mr GOODLUCK(Franklin)(10.45) —The honourable member for Denison told me to put a bit of ginger in it tonight but unfortunately I cannot as I have a sore throat. I take exception to the remarks made by the honourable member for Throsby (Mr Hollis). He talked about locking up South West Tasmania for the few people who would like to go there with their haversacks and keep it for themselves, disregarding the average people of Tasmania who want to work there and make a livelihood for themselves and their families. They are always cast aside by these intellectual greenies, as I term them, who seem to think that the birds and the bees will feed them, who seem to think that Tasmania should be locked up for the rest of its days. Mr Milton —What about tourism? Mr GOODLUCK —Tourism? One would have to be a beaver to get in there, unfortunately. We have been talking today about which way people move, whether they are wet or dry and about ideology and the left wing and the right wing. I think that when we are in a marginal seat we do not always have time to be ideological. All we have time to do is to look after the people who send us here, the people we represent, in a sensible way. We hear people talking about single parents and saying that single mothers should not get this and single fathers should not get that, and then we start to think about the children. Who is going to look after the children? We start to wonder where it is all going to finish. We have to be sensible about it. We hear all the talk about what should happen to the elderly of Australia. Regrettably, as the years go by people such as me get a bit frustrated because nothing seems to happen. It is like a dam with the water pouring out. Things get worse and worse and nothing seems to happen. We hear all this talk about child minding centres from all our famous feminists. I am not against women leaving their children in child minding centres as sometimes it is because of necessity. But I feel it is sometimes overdone. Ninety per cent of the elderly of this country stay at home. Not all of them look after themselves. They are mostly looked after by their sons and daughters under great strain and great duress. Mr Hodgman —What about Wendy McCarthy? Mr GOODLUCK —We will not talk about Wendy McCarthy. She is one of these people who have a very high position and who look after family planning, et cetera. She continues to enunciate her points of view to the detriment of a lot of women in Australia, if honourable members do not mind me saying so. I do not really want to attack anybody yet. Government members did their attacking today and I will be following suit at the opportune moment. I think there are things that should be said and I will be saying them later on. We, the representatives of Tasmania, have won five elections. Tasmania has sent five representatives to this chamber. Sometimes I think we are taken for granted just because we are a bit parochial. Just because we talk about Tasmania people seem to think we are damn fools. This ideology sometimes overcomes that. Members opposite think that because we talk about Tasmania we do not think about the ordinary people who elect us and send us to this place to represent them. Mr Hodgman —Warwick did. Mr GOODLUCK —Yes, he did. He is only young yet and he will be a dashed good member if he follows the right line of thinking. But I do not want to tar him or put my hand on him, because usually when I do that that is the end of it, except when I studied in the seminary. A lot of people looked at me then. What I am saying about the elderly is absolutely right. We need to pay more attention to this. If we are going to provide child minding centres for our young people, what about finding a respite place where our elderly people, when they need a bit of a rest after being looked after by their families, can go to for care and attention and be with other elderly people? A lot of elderly people do not want to go into homes because once they do that is sometimes the end of them. They die as a result of all the problems. Mr Bilney —You should be on the front bench. Mr GOODLUCK —I should be on the front bench. I would bring a bit of compassion and the ordinary, average touch to the front bench. But the front bench will do a very good job and I would like to wish all its members the very best. There are no sour grapes with me, I can assure honourable members. They will all do a very good job, but sometimes I think others could do better. Mr LAMB(Streeton)(10.50) —I wish to broach a topic tonight which will be of interest to honourable members from Tasmania, to members of the National Party of Australia and to honourable members who have electorates on the outskirts of Melbourne. I shall talk about bushfire research. Fires like the famous 1939 Black Friday fires in Victoria, fires in January this year around Maryborough and particularly the fires on Ash Wednesday 1983 in Victoria are the fires I wish to have honourable members in this House recall. The Ash Wednesday fire alone cost the community dearly. It cost it dearly in lives. Some 50 lives or so were lost. I understand that it has been estimated that property losses in that fire were around $500m to $600m. I refer to the report by the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Environment and Conservation, tabled in October last year, which was entitled `Bushfires in the Australian Environment'. We are indebted to the Chairman of that Committee, the honourable member for La Trobe (Mr Milton). I was once Chairman of that Committee. I think, Mr Speaker, that you too were a member of that Committee. The Committee has released many excellent reports. It is a shame that with all the hard work that committees do, very often the recommendations and the reports are pigeonholed. Let us make sure that this Milton report and its recommendations are not so pigeonholed and forgotten. The Milton report pointed out the need for research to bring about greater understanding of bushfires and to lead to methods for their prevention. The report pointed out that a witness to the inquiry said that if we were able to spend nationally a sum of $800,000 a year we might be able to save 50 per cent of the lives that are currently lost in bushfires and some 80 per cent of the loss of buildings and other properties. The Milton report went on to suggest that we should have an annual expenditure of $1m on research into bushfires. Some research has been carried on from time to time. We have reached the stage now where the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation, on the recommendations of the Milton report, has decided to establish a national bushfire research unit. It will be established in Canberra in the Division of Forestry, with another section in the Division of Atmospherics in Melbourne. Unfortunately, the unit will have only a very small budget of some $400,000. The sum of $300,000 has been released as a result of the conclusion of Project Aquarius. Another $100,000 injection has been allocated thanks to the foresight of the Minister for Science (Mr Jones) which brings the amount up to $400,000. This is still only one-seventh of one per cent of the total CSIRO budget. It is a piddling amount to be allocated for the needs of bushfire research. It certainly does not measure up to the $1m that was recommended. I turn to another recommendation which I think should be taken up immediately by State and Federal Ministers responsible for bushfire prevention-the establishment of a national bushfire research fund. Such a fund could carry out research which the CSIRO cannot. Instead of concentrating on scientific and ecological research, it could also look into sociological research. It could examine what happens in evacuations. It could examine post-fire trauma, and so on. It could look into what sort of gardens should be planted and what are the more fire retardant species that should be grown around houses. If the Treasurer (Mr Keating) and the Cabinet were to decide that tax deductibility should be extended to donations to such a fund from businesses and private sources, we could build up a reasonable amount of research funds which could be directed into areas which the CSIRO cannot tackle. In the past, we have had research into flood mitigation and research on animal diseases that threaten the livestock of our primary industries. It is about time that we looked into the devastation caused by bushfires and looked towards having a national bushfire research fund. Mr DOWNER(Mayo)(10.54) —I wish to speak briefly tonight about the situation in South Africa and a particular suggestion I have for the Australian Government to change, if not radically, at least marginally, its approach to that situation. In my view, the current Australian debate on South Africa is a little sterile. We should be looking at constructive ways to encourage reform in South Africa and not just make rhetorical denunciations of what is happening there, abhorrent as it may be. One of the ways that we can do that is through our link with the Commonwealth of Nations. As I understand it so far, this is not an avenue that has been explored by the Government. One idea that I wish to promote this evening is that the Australian Government should go to the Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting in the Bahamas in October and ensure that South Africa is high on the agenda. This should be done in a constructive and not a destructive way. Most honourable members in this House are deeply concerned about instability in South Africa. There are four basic reasons for that concern. Firstly, it almost goes without saying that every member of this House would regard apartheid as morally unacceptable. I pass over that point quickly but, of course, it is a point which is fundamental. Secondly, in my view, the situation in South Africa does have a very important bearing on global stability. We in Australia have as much right to be concerned about global stability that affects us as does any other nation, even if that global stability is affected by an unstable internal situation in another country. For example, we are concerned about internal situations in the Lebanon and Israel, but particularly the Lebanon, because of the impact they will have on global stability. Thirdly, we are concerned about South Africa because we appreciate that all developing countries see South Africa as a last major outpost of colonialism, with all the implications that has for white superiority over blacks, something which, naturally, they regard, and I would hope we all regard, as completely abhorrent. I believe that our commitment to self-determination of all peoples and to the quality of opportunities should be axiomatic. Fourthly-this is the point I wish to make tonight in relation to the Commonwealth-the black community proponents of democratic and peaceful reform in South Africa will be overwhelmed by the advocates of violent and radical solutions if the Afrikaner whites do not choose a path to reform and do not do so very soon. That is why, in a practical sense, it is in our interest to encourage reform in that country. The black community in South Africa will inevitably follow the leaders in that country who can deliver. Those who cannot will quickly be abandoned. Mr Lamb —Release Mandela. Mr DOWNER —Recent gallup polls have pointed out the tenuous nature of the situation there. Having said that, there is a possibility for some sort of stable and constructive solution. After all, 80 per cent of blacks in South Africa apparently believe in multiracial government. However, nearly half of them believe that violence can be justified. I think that bears out how little time there is left for a constructive solution to be found. I believe that the Commonwealth should be able to take constructive action by drawing up at the CHOGM meeting in the Bahamas an agenda for reform. It should draw up an agenda which is broad enough to enable the South Africans to develop their own solutions to their problems and which recognises that reforms cannot be achieved overnight. The basic item that the agenda must address is the commencement of constructive negotiations between all races towards a system of government which represents all South Africans and guarantees their rights and the properties of minorities. They need equal opportunity in the economic and social field. As one honourable member interjected, moves have to be made towards the release of political detainees and prisoners such as Nelson Mandela. Those are the items that I believe should be on the Commonwealth agenda for reform. If that agenda is not met all will be lost. There will be a steady march towards extremism in South Africa and extremist solutions which will lead to gross instability. Mr SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr SLIPPER(Fisher)(10.59) —My adjournment speech tonight relates to Labor's Public Service bureaucracy at work. The dramatic growth of the present bureaucracy under Labor has left it unprepared and unable to present a humane approach to the dealings with its real employer, the taxpaying public. Mr SPEAKER —Order! It being 11 p.m., the debate is interrupted. House adjourned at 11 p.m. The following notices were given: Mr Kerin to present a Bill for an Act relating to the dairy industry. Mr Keating to present a Bill for an Act to provide for grants to the States. Mr Hurford to present a Bill for an Act to authorise the borrowing and expending of money for certain purposes. Mr Peter Morris to present a Bill for an Act relating to road transport. Mr Barry Jones to present a Bill for an Act to amend the States Grants (Petroleum Products) Act 1965, and for related purposes. The following papers were deemed to have been presented on 10 September 1985: Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Heritage (Interim Protection) Act-Declaration made pursuant to sub-section 12 (1), dated 21 June 1985, together with explanatory statement. Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1985, No. 209. Air Force Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1985, Nos. 213, 216, 219. Air Navigation Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1985, No. 203. Australian Antarctic Territory Act-Ordinances-1985- No. 2-Medical Practitioners Registration. No. 3-Poisons and Narcotic Drugs. No. 4-Poisons. Automotive Industry Authority Act-Directions to the Authority pursuant to section 26M, dated 29 August 1985. Defence Act- Determinations-1985- No. 52-Special Royal Navy Allowance paid to RAN Members Posted to and Serving in Britain. No. 53-Separation Allowance. No. 54-Meal Allowance Overseas. No. 55-Salary of Permanent Force Members. No. 56-Temporary Rental Allowance and other allowances. Regulations-Statutory Rules 1985, Nos. 210, 211, 214, 217. Dried Fruits Levy Act-Regulation-Statutory Rules 1985, No. 220. Fisheries Act-Notices, Nos. 75B, 136. Health Insurance Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1985, Nos. 205, 207. Lands Acquisition Act-Land acquired for Airport purposes-Extensions to Brisbane Airport. National Health Act-Regulation-Statutory Rules 1985, No. 206. Naval Defence Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1985, Nos. 212, 215, 218. Postal Services Act-Australian Postal Commission-By-laws-1985-Postal-Amendment-No. 4. Proclamations by His Excellency the Administrator of the Government of the Commonwealth of Australia fixing the dates on which the following Acts and sections of Acts shall come into operation- Fisheries Licences Levy Act 1984 and the Fishing Legislation Amendment Act 1985-31 August 1985. Health Legislation Amendment Act 1985-Sections 4, 5, 7 and 10-1 September 1985. Petroleum (Submerged Lands) Amendment Act 1985-Section 33-6 September 1985. Public Service Act- Appointment-Department of Aboriginal Affairs-Mansell, B.M. Determinations-1985-Nos. 61, 63, 65, 66, 67, 68, 70. Regulations-Statutory Rules 1985, No. 208. Radiocommunications Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1985, No. 221. Radiocommunications (Frequency Reservation Certificate Tax) Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1985, No. 224. Radiocommunications (Receiver Licence Tax) Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1985, No. 223. Radiocommunications (Temporary Permit Tax) Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1985, No. 222. Seat of Government (Administration) Act-Determinations listing fees for purposes of- Business Franchise (Tobacco and Petroleum Products) Ordinance, dated 19 August 1985. Co-operative Societies Ordinance, dated 19 August 1985. Dog Control Ordinance, dated 19 August 1985. Housing Ordinance, dated 9 August 1985. Motor Traffic Ordinance, dated 19 August 1985. Plumbers, Drainers and Gasfitters Board Ordinance dated 19 August 1985. Pounds Ordinance, dated 19 August 1985. Weights and Measures Ordinance, dated 19 August 1985. Ordinances-1985- No. 40-Crimes (Amendment) (No. 3). No. 41-Court of Petty Sessions (Amendment) (No. 3). Regulations-1985- No. 21 (Dog Control Ordinance). No. 22 (Motor Omnibus Services Ordinance). No. 23 (Electricity Ordinance). States Grants (Petroleum Products) Act-Amendment of the schedules to the subsidy schemes in relation to the States, dated- 20 August 1985. 3 September 1985. Superannuation Act-Regulation-Statutory Rules 1985, No. 204. Telecommunications Act-Australian Telecommunications Commission-By-laws-1985- Telecommunications (Charging Zones and Charging Districts)-Amendment No. 59. Telecommunications (General)-Amendments Nos. 43, 44.